Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Windows 7 Compatible" PCs Must Be 64-bit

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the set-course-for-debacletown dept.

Microsoft 440

Barence writes "Microsoft has started certifying PCs as 'compatible with Windows 7' — and is looking to avoid the mistakes that dogged the Vista-Capable scheme. Whereas Microsoft certified PCs that could only run Vista Home Basic last time around, this time PCs will have to work with all versions of Windows 7 to qualify for the sticker, including 64-bit versions of the OS. Microsoft also claims, 'products that receive the logo are checked for common issues to minimize the number of crashes, hangs, and reboots experienced by the user.'"

cancel ×

440 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622763)

This will be another nail in the 32bit coffin.

Cue the Linux fanbois... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29622787)

...screaming about how Bill is abandoning their customers after YEARS of support, whilst the Penguin does the same with 2 years of a kernel release.

Note the silence of the Mac Jihad.

Re:Cue the Linux fanbois... (4, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622849)

Linux doesn't "support" customers at all. Debian and Ubuntu have community support lifecycles, and you can buy support from Red Hat or Novell if you want.. but GNU/Linux is just some code, not a service.

Plus Microsoft isn't abandoning their customers. Windows 2000 extended support lasts through 2010 and XP extended support lasts through 2014. They just want to try to force OEMs to get with it and stop offering 32-bit processors.

No Linux support? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623295)

What good is this OS then if the Penguin won't even take my tech calls? If Linus isn't willing to support this monstrosity, he needs to halt development.

Seriously, don't beg me to switch to the Linux if you're not going to support it. That is BAD BUSINESS.

Re:Cue the Linux fanbois... (3, Informative)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622891)

What? They're not ending support of the 32-bit installer. There's no "abandoning" occurring. It figures the trolls are the ones who read the summary backwards and upside down.

Re:Cue the Linux fanbois... (2, Insightful)

rubi (910818) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623403)

They are just trying not to get sued again by someone that tries to run the product on a PC 5 to 8 years old that barely runs XP well. As for backwards support (or abandoning it) that worked well for Apple.

Re:Cue the Linux fanbois... (2, Interesting)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623253)

Note the silence of the "Mac Jihad" when you're the second person to post, and anonymously at that. Really sure of your argument there, sonny eh?

Apple are still supporting older versions of OS X to this day (just upped a PPC to latest 10.5 with a recent security patch to boot), and kept up with the Classic environment for a long time.

10.6 is Intel only, but that was not surprising at all.

Other than just getting in a cheap jab at Apple while you were (incorrectly) bashing Linux for "abandoning customers", do you have anything to back up your weak arguments or did you go to the Right Wing Talk Radio Host school of debating?

Re:Cue the Linux fanbois... (3, Informative)

corychristison (951993) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623269)

Cue the Linux fanbois... ...screaming about how Bill is abandoning their customers after YEARS of support, whilst the Penguin does the same with 2 years of a kernel release.

Note the silence of the Mac Jihad.

I guess you read the summary backwards and didn't even consider clicking on the article.

I'm no Microsoft fan (Linux purist of 6 years now) but they are merely requiring hardware makers to provide stable 32-bit and 64-bit drivers in order to get a "Works with Windows 7 Certification."

This is a good thing for every day people.

Just recently I tried to help out a friend with a Vista 64bit computer to get his Hauppauge WinTV PVR 150 [hauppauge.com] to work. Apparently it does not support any more than 3GB of RAM and is basically unusable (he has 8GB of RAM). It causes programs to crash and flat-out will not work with Pinnacle Studio 9.
Hauppauge claims it has something to do with the 64bit memory allocation or something. I can't quite remember what it was.

Maybe this will require them to revisit their drivers and make it "Just Work" like it should.

Re:Good (1)

Faulkner39 (955290) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622877)

You will have to tear my loaded, 8MB ram 486 from my cold...dead...hands.

Re:Good (4, Funny)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623305)

If that 486 is still running, it is not possible for you to have cold hands.

Re:Good (2, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623365)

What are you talking about? 486s run nice and cool. You need to upgrade to at least a Pentium if you want to keep your hands warm (or fry an egg).

Re:Good (0)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622903)

Funny thing, MS said vista was the last windows to have a 32bit version back when they released it

Re:Good (0, Flamebait)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623057)

Windows 7 IS Windows Vista.

Re:Good (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623247)

Funny thing, MS said vista was the last windows to have a 32bit version back when they released it

Correct - so Windows Vista Second Edition still has a 32bit version (I think Marketing calls it Windows 7 or something).

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623273)

No, they said they were doing their last 32-bit /server/ os with Longhorn. This is still true.

Re:Good (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622905)

> This will be another nail in the 32bit coffin.

Not quite enough of a nail, if Microsoft is still selling the 32-bit OS event though it forbids machines that require it anymore.

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623387)

I imagine netbooks will keep 32 alive for a while, and MS considered this after a Linux scare in that field.

Re:Good (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622925)

This will be another nail in the 32bit coffin.

It's about frikkin time! 64 bit hardware for years, 32 bit OS and applications why???

Re:Good (2, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622961)

64-bit Windows has moved so slowly that OpenOffice and Firefox still don't have stable win64 builds.
Or MS Office 2007, AFAICT.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623003)

I run MS Office 07 and 2010 on my Win7 x64 machine, and have yet to have any problems in any day to day use. Have yet to hear of any major problems from anyone else using Office 07 and x64 Windows either. YMMV I suppose...

Re:Good (1)

lepidosteus (1102443) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623171)

Parent never said the 32 bits version of these had problems, he said there weren't any windows 64 bits builds (aka; binaries that are natively 64 bits, not 32 bits run through wow64 [wikipedia.org] ).

Re:Good (2, Interesting)

mick88 (198800) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623111)

Yup you are correct: there is no Office 2007 64-bit. It obviously runs fine on 64-bit windows, but until Office 2010 there's no true 64-bit office apps.

Re:Good (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623203)

They don't have an official version, but there is a 64bit Firefox [start64.com] and I have found it to run much faster on XP X64 than 32bit Firefox. The only hangup is there is no 64bit flash for Windows, but since I'm not looking at flash it doesn't bother me. if I find a video that I absolutely must watch, well there is always Firefox 32 for that.

Re:Good (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623059)

It's about frikkin time! 64 bit hardware for years, 32 bit OS and applications why???

Because you're a tard running Windows.

That sound you hear is the rest of us laughing at you.

Re:Good (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623333)

It's about frikkin time! 64 bit hardware for years, 32 bit OS and applications why???

Because you're a tard running Windows.

That sound you hear is the rest of us laughing at you.

some of the applications I prefer run in windows and there is nothing in the FOSS/OS community to compete with it at all... laugh all you want, at least I can get the things I want done to be done.

And, no, emulating/VM of windows in linux doesn't work where I'm getting at, though I hope you would hold that avenue to equal 'laughability' in your scope of assumption.

GTFO my internets. I run ubuntu on my laptop because I don't need to do everything on it.

Re:Good (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623341)

oh.. .and ya know what? there are loads of issues with running 64 bit linux.

get off my nutts. yeah, you can browse the internet and run a calculator... whooptie doo. Even flash has issues running in 64bit linux.

Re:Good (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622963)

Riiiight. Lots of devices will never get 64-bit drivers.

Re:Good (1)

lepidosteus (1102443) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623285)

For a home based, personnal use, less-than-ten-years-old computer this is a non issue - at least with seven x64. It detects pretty much everything by itself, and if not you can use the vista x64 drivers. Sure you can find hardware with no x64 drivers whatsoever and I'm certain someone is going to reply to tell me how wrong I am because his 5 years old serial port thing which barely made it in 32 bit stop him from upgrading, but for joe user bying a new computer installing windows x64 would be painless*.

I think they will have way more trouble understanding what is that UAC thing is and "what the hell is a standard account anyway".

* actually and to be honest, that wouldn't be entirely painless thanks to the absurd number of softwares who require to install some kind of shell extension yet forget to provide a 64 bit version. But hey at least that's not a driver issue !

Re:Good (1)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623241)

Bigger than this, is that the server OS, Windows Server 2008 R2, only comes in 64-bit. This also is a great way to end 32-bit on the consumer side.

Why? (Re:Good) (1, Troll)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623277)

Why do we need 64-bits anyhow for desktops? For big RAM? Only if the OS is bloated do we need more. I don't wanna pay a 64bit tax when I buy a new computer unless there's a reason for it. And get off my lawn :-)

Re:Why? (Re:Good) (4, Funny)

jonadab (583620) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623385)

32-bit? Megabytes of RAM? Meh, kids these days.

If an 8-bit computer with 128 kilobytes of RAM is good enough for PC-DOS 3.3, it should be good enough for everything. Office software? Who needs that junk? WYSIWYG is for posers. They can pry EDLIN from my cold, dead fingers. Why, back in my day we *appreciated* the time it took our software to compute results, and the fact that we couldn't do anything else while it was happening. It gave us time to read the manuals while we were waiting! Those were the days...

Then why... (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622771)

At this point why even bother releasing a 32bit installer at all?

Re:Then why... (4, Informative)

Suiggy (1544213) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622819)

Because if they didn't release a 32-bit edition of the OS, it would piss off too many people. You'd have noticeable faction of people up in arms. I'm all for 64-bit computing, I'm not looking back. But there's enough people out there with 1GB of RAM or less that would complain. 64-bit OSes and 64-bit applications have a slightly larger memory footprint because pointers, offsets, and certain kernel object handles are suddenly 64-bits in length instead of 32-bit.

Re:Then why... (1, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622897)

I don't think anyone's concerned with losing 4 bytes to pointers.

My laptop has a 2.16 GHz Core Duo (Yonah). It would run Windows 7 perfectly fine, but it's 32-bit. Why would Microsoft turn down that money?

Re:Then why... (4, Insightful)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622955)

I think the point of the article is that new computers must be 64-bit capable in order to be advertised as Win7-ready. This is quit different from saying that computers being upgraded need 64-bit capabilities. In fact, Microsoft would be in huge trouble if they made Win7 refuse to install on non-64-bit capable machines, because the "release candidate" runs on machines as old as my 1.5Ghz Athlon XP, and such a drastic change in specs from something called a release candidate might not go over well with the FTC or the EU.

Re:Then why... (2, Interesting)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622985)

Why would Microsoft turn down that money?

If there aren't enough people with builds like yours (32-bit but still decently powerful), it just wouldn't be worth the cost of maintaining a separate architecture.

Re:Then why... (4, Funny)

Loomismeister (1589505) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623029)

These posts are irrelevant because windows 7 comes in both 32 and 64-bit versions. The article is just talking about little worthless stickies on cases of computer shit that let dumb people know for sure it will work on windows 7 computers.

Re:Then why... (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623189)

The article is just talking about little worthless stickies on cases of computer shit that let dumb people know for sure it will work on windows 7 computers.

That would be the staff at PC World I guess. They used to real the little cards next to the PC but many of the staff cant read. This way, they can be taught what Win7 can do and just have to recognize the little sticker.

Re:Then why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623091)

There will always be luddites.

I know two people who, if you even mention an ISA slot, you'll have to hear them complain for a half hour about how PCI made their perfectly working six-foot-long sound cards obsolete. They'll want to cling onto their serial ball mouse for as long as possible. They'll yell at you to get off their lawn when you proclaim that your printer cable has 4 wires, not 25. You and your new-fangled printers which work with lasers being shot through prisms to charge photoelectric rollers or printers using current to induce a piezoelectric circuit causing ink droplets to be sprayed on your paper. In my day, we had dot matrix. Our printers had ribbons, just like our typewriters.

But, damn it. In twenty years I'm going to be pissing and moaning that I can't find a PS2 adapter for my IBM Model M keyboard. Then I'll be the luddite. But it's ok. It's like the joke goes:

(A doctor is talking to his 80 year old patient)
Doctor: Sir, I have bad news. We've confirmed that those cells are cancerous, and you also have Alzheimer.
Patient: Well, at least I don't have cancer!

By the time I get that old, It will be ok to be curmudgeonly. I'll just blame it on the mercury, lead, and dangerous gasses computing exposed me to during the 90's and 00s.

Re:Then why... (1)

Zehuti (947656) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622841)

Some older computers and netbooks will still need the 32bit. Even if it doesn't have a Windows 7 Compatible sticker on it.

Re:Then why... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622859)

  1. x86 Pentium 4s still work
  2. Atom-based netbooks

Re:Then why... (3, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622861)

Because Windows 7's main competitors - Windows XP and Vista - run on 32 bit. And not even offering your product to half your customers is a great way to ensure half your customers don't buy it.

Re:Then why... (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623089)

Because Windows 7's main competitors - Windows XP and Vista - run on 32 bit. And not even offering your product to half your customers is a great way to ensure half your customers don't buy it.

Curiously, initial reviews say that amongst the general public, most don't have plans to upgrade. Must have something to do with how most people are friggin' poor now and can't afford to drop $700 on a new desktop, LCD, and then $200 or so on licensing a new operating system. Not when we're still getting over sticker shock from having to spend $800 freaking dollars on an 'HDTV' because of the forced and sudden obsolesence of every TV made before it. I'm sorry -- but if you make less than about $35k a year, forget it. Just keep using XP and playing Warcraft 3 with your friends. Who bloody cares anymore about having a gazillion gigabytes of everything and a processor you can fry sausages on? I mean, besides you and me, because we're geeks and attracted like moths to fire when it comes to computer goodies.

Re:Then why... (4, Insightful)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623235)

sticker shock from having to spend $800 freaking dollars on an 'HDTV' because of the forced and sudden obsolesence of every TV made before it.

BS. Nobody had to buy a new TV. If you have cable or satellite your old one kept on working with no changes. Converter boxes were widely available for antenna users and were even subsidized by the government. If you spent $800 on a TV it was because you wanted to, not because you had to.

Re:Then why... (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623379)

Must have something to do with how most people are friggin' poor now and can't afford to drop $700 on a new desktop, LCD, and then $200 or so on licensing a new operating system.

LMAO. Because "most people" buy new systems with no OEM version of Windows on it. Right...

Not when we're still getting over sticker shock from having to spend $800 freaking dollars on an 'HDTV' because of the forced and sudden obsolesence of every TV made before it.

LMAO once more. Because of course, most people weren't aware that buying a $50ish 'DTV converter box' and instead thought the only thing they could possibly use to watch TV now was a 120Hz, 1080P 46"+ LCD... right.

I love the contortions you people make to bring on the hating.

Re:Then why... (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622927)

Because quite a few people still rely on some 32bit applications that simply don't like 64bit environments. I, myself, use an application that is completely 64bit compliant but requires a 32bit driver to be functional. The drive is written by a 3rd party who appear be dragging their heels with regards to updating it.
I can use this app just fine in Windows 7 32bit, but ANY 64bit OS is out of the question.

Re:Then why... (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623155)

Why all the panic? They are taking a logical step. They are not saying you will no longer be able to use 32 bit apps or a 32 bit OS. They are just saying if you want that little logo that says your compatible with Windows 7, your system should be capable of running the 64 bit OS per MS specs. Nothing more. They are obviously offering a 32 bit version and that won't change between now and October 21st or whatever the release date is, but it IS a necessary step to push manufacturers in the right direction.

Re:Then why... (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622979)

Lots of devices will never get 64-bit drivers. I doubt Singer will ever release 64-bit drivers for their embroidery machines, for example.

Re:Then why... (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623037)

uhuh. they will when enough of their customers complain they can't use their hardware.

Re:Then why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623167)

ahem. easy does it, son. GP was joking that certain devices, such as sewing machines, don't require drivers. it's alright man... that'll happen.

Re:Then why... (1)

Inner_Child (946194) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623339)

No, their *embroidery* machines do actually connect to a PC, and require drivers. See this (admittedly mind numbing) video [youtube.com] .

Re:Then why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29622987)

One of the largest resellers of Windows-compatible personal computers -- Apple Inc -- refuses to release support for 64-bit Windows on the iMac, Mac mini and MacBook lines.

(Also, 64-bit Windows does not support 16-bit applications. This probably won't bother you, but it's actually relevant to me.)

Drivers (2, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623009)

There is plenty of old hardware out there which only has 32-bit drivers. 64-bit Windows is a pure 64-bit kernel space meaning no 32-bit code at all. So, if you have a device with 32-bit drivers, you have to use the 32-bit version.

Also there are also some apps that fall in to this category. If they have a kernel component (like a virus scanner) that has to be 64-bit. If you have an old app that you need that doesn't have a 64-bit kernel module, well again you need the 32-bit version.

Finally there are computers that are sufficiently powerful to run 7 that don't have 64-bit CPUs. Netbooks are a good example. My coworker has tested 7 on his netbook and found it to be plenty fast. However, Netbook CPUs are still 32-bit only.

So it is a compatibility thing. It isn't really for new PCs so much as old upgrade PCs. All new PCs should ship with 64-bit chips.

Re:Then why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623205)

Because the 64-bit version of Windows cannot run legacy Win16 apps. And there are still a lot of them about, although they're mostly installers these days.

Windows XP Mode compatible logo needed (2, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622773)

Cuz without the VT ability in the CPU, it ain't gonna work, is my understanding. A lot of companies who cheaped out and bought lower-end CPU machines are going to be unpleasantly surprised if they need this ability. :(

I know as a dev, I'm going to have to request an upgrade to a machine that's compatabile with Windows XP mode. *sigh*

Re:Windows XP Mode compatible logo needed (1)

Zehuti (947656) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622851)

While Windows XP Mode requires VT. VirtualPC 2007 still works and does not.

Re:Windows XP Mode compatible logo needed (2, Informative)

corychristison (951993) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623289)

Or if you want to delv into the open source world, check out VirtualBox [virtualbox.org] . It supports the CPU extensions if they are available, but are not required.

I use it for setting up test environments for software development under various Linux and BSD flavours on a Gentoo Linux host. Works great for me.

Re:Windows XP Mode compatible logo needed (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623055)

The thing that is going to cause havoc with the VT requirement is that it intel went through a period, I'm not sure if they are still in it, where they disabled it on a seemingly arbitrary subset of their CPUs, with only minor differences in model name. Then, of course, vendors worked their BIOS magic. Just look at this list [intel.com] . You have an E7400, do you have VT? Well, do you have an E7400-SLGQ8 or an E7400-SLGW3? It's nothing that your IT department couldn't slog through for you(and if you are really lucky, they've been speccing for it for some time now); but I pity the plight of the adventurous but dubiously detail oriented guy who learns that XP mode isn't going to happen because he has the Q8300-SLB5W rather than the Q8300-SLGUR.

If it were something like "You need a Xeon for it to work", that'd be annoying; but it wouldn't really confuse anybody. As it is, though, there are going to be a whole lot of confused people out there.

Re:Windows XP Mode compatible logo needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623281)

They have one. The sticker just says AMD on it. Incidentally, the first machine I installed Win7-64 on, had a Core 2 Duo E4600. Guess what the E4000s don't support?

How about forceing them to give you the 64 bit dis (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622797)

How about forceing them to give you the 64 bit disk / a iso link?

Re:How about forceing them to give you the 64 bit (0, Troll)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622907)

I believe the install media contains both 32 and 64 bit installers now.

But do systems ship with both or just a 32bit reso (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623027)

But do systems ship with both or just a 32bit restore?

Re:But do systems ship with both or just a 32bit r (0, Troll)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623283)

You're right, probable just one of the two on a restore partition. I've heard that your license for retail disks is valid for both 64 and 32, but I'm not sure if OEM licenses are the same way.

Re:How about forceing them to give you the 64 bit (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623077)

What media. Most computers ship with a partition that will restore the computer back to factory default. If MS was being really nice, they would make companies ship computers with a real CD with just the OS on it, so people could install just the operating system from scratch if they see fit.

Competely untrue.... (1)

Glasswire (302197) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622853)

this time PCs will have to work with all versions of Windows 7 to qualify for the sticker
Nonsense, there are lot's of systems out there, particularly Netbooks, which will not. Certainly will not necessarily be 64-bit.
If it only ran on 64-bit-capable systems, why is there a 32-bit version of Win 7 at all?

Re:Competely untrue.... (1)

sensei moreh (868829) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622871)

Perhaps the netbooks running Windows 7 will come with the OS pre-installed, but without the sticker.

Re:Competely untrue.... (0)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622879)

Yep, exactly. I'd like to see their Windows 7 certified laptops run datacentre edition. Oh wait, Microsoft like to pretend that Windows and Windows Server are hugely different, rather than that one is crippleware.

Re:Competely untrue.... (2, Funny)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622993)

Microsoft like to pretend that Windows and Windows Server are hugely different, rather than that one is crippleware.

One? :)

/me ducks

Re:Competely untrue.... (2, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623187)

The datacenter edition doesn't take any more resources than any other version of windows. It possibly takes less, because if it's anything like the server versions for 2008, it won't have the fancy Aero UI on by default. It lets you use more resources if you happen to have them, but just the fact that you install the datacenter version doesn't mean that it will take more resources.

Re:Competely untrue.... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622937)

Must all computers sold at retail with a MS OS be certified to run it?
i.e. If MS hadn't lowered the hardware requirements for Intel, would OEMs have been prevented from using that chipset in computers sold with Vista?

Re:Competely untrue.... (1)

steampoweredlawngnom (996400) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623047)

It's not only running on 64-bit systems. All *new* systems built will have to be 64-bit in order to get the sticker.

The 32-bit version of Windows 7 exists for older systems that will run 7, but were built for a previous version of Windows.

Re:Competely untrue.... (4, Informative)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623095)

this time PCs will have to work with all versions of Windows 7 to qualify for the sticker
Nonsense, there are lot's of systems out there, particularly Netbooks, which will not. Certainly will not necessarily be 64-bit.
If it only ran on 64-bit-capable systems, why is there a 32-bit version of Win 7 at all?

What exactly are you not understanding? This has exactly zero to do with a machine's ability to run Windows 7. This has everything to do with whether or not the manufacturer gets to put a little sticker on the case. The lack of the sticker does not mean that the computer is not capable of running any version of Windows 7, it simply means that the computer has not been certified to run every version of Windows 7.

Re:Competely untrue.... (2, Informative)

mick88 (198800) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623213)

Completely true!! re-read your quoted text: "this time PCs will have to work with all versions of Windows 7 to qualify for the sticker".

The last bit important - this is only about the sticker. At no point in TFA does it state Win7 will only run on 64-bit capable systems.

Re:Competely untrue.... (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623313)

You seriously don't know the difference between being able to run a particular version on Win 7 and meeting some arbitrary requirements to get a sticker???

Wrong problem. (2, Insightful)

zapakh (1256518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622881)

The sticker-caring-about masses got pissed off because they were sold Aero, told it was Vista, and proceeded to take the Vista-Capable stickers as a cause for reassurance.

The sticker needs to tell these people the feature set they'll be capable of running. They couldn't care less about the processor architecture.

Re:Wrong problem. (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 4 years ago | (#29622971)

It's not the processor architecture that matters, it's that x64 is normally the most "taxing" version of an OS. If the computer can run 7 Ultimate x64, it should be able to run all other versions.

64, 65 bit, ... (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623011)

... whatever it takes.

Netbooks? (2, Interesting)

Teckla (630646) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623013)

What about netbooks running 32-bit CPUs? Those will all be declared incompatible with Windows 7, even though 32-bit Windows 7 will run on them? I think I must be missing something.

If only Microsoft had done the world a huge favor, and made Windows 7 64-bit only. And if only they had dropped a few different flavors of Windows 7, too. It would all be so much less confusing and frustrating.

Re:Netbooks? (2, Informative)

snaz555 (903274) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623225)

What about netbooks running 32-bit CPUs? Those will all be declared incompatible with Windows 7, even though 32-bit Windows 7 will run on them? I think I must be missing something.

They won't be able to use the full feature set though. A framework or library, like OpenCL, which wants to map GPU memory into the process address space will likely not be full featured on IA32. It likely won't find a large enough hole in the virtual address space to fit a 1-2GB region, or even a 512M. So the compatibility mode version of these frameworks will either exchange data using a buffered DMA model, a remapped window, or only use a small portion of video memory - say 128M. The compatibility mode versions will by necessity be limited functionality, and since much of Win7 (like OS X) leverages the GPU for processing these limitations will percolate to other parts of the system.

Never did understand... (0, Flamebait)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623017)

why do people with 64 bit hardware still run the 32-bit version of the os?
Is it just ignorance?

Re:Never did understand... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623157)

Freedom. In 32-bit versions of Windows, if you want to do something that requires kernel-mode programming, you can write your own drivers. In 64-bit versions, you have to pay Microsoft to get their approval for your driver, or else it will only load if you boot Windows in a test mode where multimedia functionality is crippled.

Fuck that totalitarian bullshit. 32-bit forever.

(And yes, there are legitimate uses for writing drivers even though you're not a hardware maker. Some examples: Process Explorer, Process Monitor, Sandboxie [sandboxie.com] , VDK [infoseek.co.jp] ...)

Re:Never did understand... (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623265)

I wonder why 64bit Windows never really catches on... Ballmer, follow your own advice. Developers, developers, developers, developers.

Re:Never did understand... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623185)

Driver compatibility.

Re:Never did understand... (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623199)

Because some drivers and applications don't work on 64-bit. HP doesn't make a 64-bit driver on XP for one of my printers, though they do for Vista. Some features of iTunes (like burning CDs) also don't work on 64-bit XP.

Great! (1)

sunfly (1248694) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623039)

Logic prevailed.

Basic information gotten wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623043)

All right, there seems to be an awful lot of cluelessness about what this actually means. Let's check off all the wrong ideas spouted the "Microsoft WARGARBL" crowd a mere 22 comments in:

"Microsoft won't sell me Win 7 for an uncertified machine."
Wrong. You can buy Win 7 at retail however you like.

"Microsoft won't allow system makers to sell me Win 7 for an uncertified machine."
Wrong. A vendor can sell a system that doesn't meet certification with Win 7 installed, but that badge WILL color consumer purchasing decisions. The manufacturers that carry it would tout its merits, Microsoft will tout its merits, and a machine sold without it better come with a steep discount.

"Netbooks won't meet these certification requirements, so that automatically means the requirements don't exist."
That, or the netbooks will be sold without certification. Amazing concept, I know, but a computer can be sold without a sticker on it.

Can the 32 bit OS and then it'll all make sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623051)

They should abandon the 32 bit OS version then. It makes no sense now. You can still run 32 bit executables under 64 bit. Offering 32 bit OS versions at this point adds an unnecessary test and support burden on developers for the rather marginal benefit of pointer size and shipped footprint.

Re:Can the 32 bit OS and then it'll all make sense (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623311)

The problem with getting rid of 32bit Windows is this: While most machines being sold today have no problem with over 4Gb of RAM, and thus could benefit from 64bit addressing, unfortunately there is a whole lot of hardware out there that the manufacturer will NEVER EVER release 64bit drivers for. You would have a lot of really pissed off folks thanks to the fact that there isn't any way to run 32bit drivers on 64bit Windows, and after vista pissing off their customers even more is something that wouldn't be in MSFTs best interests.

So my guess is you'll have 32bit Windows until at least Windows 8, which by then most of the 32bit hardware out there will have been shitcanned by the owners, thus getting rid of the screams because their device doesn't work. I myself use XP X64 for everyday use yet still have to boot into XP 32bit when I want to use my capture card, as good luck getting an Easy TV FM 64bit driver. There are just too many pieces of hardware that folks are still using without 64bit support to just drop 32bit support.

Vista's USB issue would still make it thru.. (4, Interesting)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623061)

"'products that receive the logo are checked for common issues to minimize the number of crashes, hangs, and reboots experienced by the user.'"

The Vista USB issue was a good example. And this policy would not have prevented that.

A manager at work insisted their new laptop had Vista pre-installed several years ago(pre SP 1).
Initially all was well, till it started blue-screening at random after about 6 months. It was difficult for me to nail down until Ipods(itunes) new ver 8 came out and bluescreened the machine 100% of the time when the iPod was plugged in. That was the clue I needed. Investigation found a disparity between the OS and the some (not all) USB controllers.Remember, some laptops can have different contoller type for side and back. At the time a few hot fixes wasnt 100% reliable.

Then SP1 came out, and I found a reference to my problem in the release notes. Not one problem since with USB. The manager can use her Ipod, any and all usb sticks, her USB printer at home, her camera. The fix was a couple years in the making.

TFA is 100% Wrong! (5, Informative)

dhavleak (912889) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623065)

The sticker in question (Windows 7 Compatible) is not intended for use on a computer -- it's intended for peripherals and add-ons. Mice, keyboards, graphics cards, network cards, routers, etc. etc.
.

What the hell is wrong this site? Are the editors becoming so lazy that they don't stop for two seconds to understand the stupidity of their headlines? You would think that Win7 isn't being offered in 32-bit mode from reading it. Instead, what it means is that any device you buy with that sticker will work with 32-bit windows and 64-bit windows.

Re:TFA is 100% Wrong! (1)

dhavleak (912889) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623093)

I guess this might help: http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2009/10/02/microsoft-approved-peripherals-get-windows-7-compatible-stamps/ [cnet.com]
.

But seriously -- the headline is so eye-popping that you'd think the editor would pause for a second, and then verify it, before starting a whole freaking conversation about nothing.

Re:TFA is 100% Wrong! (1)

mightyteegar (1516653) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623183)

The editors don't pause. They merely breathe heavy right before they submit stories that generate furious clicking and typing. All that finger action generates excitement, you know.

Re:TFA is 100% Wrong! (2, Insightful)

dhavleak (912889) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623233)

What's more upsetting (maybe even enlightening/entertaining to watch) will be the huge slugfest that's gonna happen. There's gonna be tons of threads discussing all kinds of garbage:
.
"MS is teh sux -- they're forcing me to buy a new computer"
"Well, Apple already forced you to buy a new computer"
"Linux still runs on PPC -- both Apple and MS are teh sux"
.
And so on and so forth.. the editors didn't stop to think for one second, and most posters won't stop to think for one second before starting all kinds of ridiculous flame wars. I swear, sometimes this site drives me nuts!

Re:TFA is 100% Wrong! (2, Funny)

Nethead (1563) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623351)

Damn! Next time put a spoiler alert on your post.

Re:TFA is 100% Wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623129)

Are the editors becoming so lazy that they don't stop for two seconds to understand the stupidity of their headlines?

You must be new here.

Re:TFA is 100% Wrong! (1)

Suiggy (1544213) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623145)

What you say makes perfect sense than the slashdot editor/submitter's headline. Essentially they're forcing hardware developers to develop both 32-bit and 64-bit drivers for their products if they want to be Windows 7 certified. Now that is fantastic.

Re:TFA is 100% Wrong! (4, Informative)

dhavleak (912889) | more than 4 years ago | (#29623153)

Oh - if anyone needs to hear it from the horses' mouth itself, see here [windowsteamblog.com] . To save yourself time, scroll to the bottom of the article and see the update.

Braindead and stupid (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29623331)

THERE SHOULDN"T BE ANY REBOOTS HANGS OR FREEZES! FUCK! I don't run mickeysoft crap because of this! Half assed crappy software should be outlawed! Its not fucking impossible to do! The hangs crashes and need to reboot are because there are big fat flaws in the software! The hardware is designed by professionals! Engineers with stamps! The same hardware doesn't crash when running other operating systems (non-mickeysoft operating systems). Suddenly the problems go away! ALL OF THEM! AND THEY DON"T COME BACK EVER!!! So is the problem the money-grubbing company too cheap and not capable of fixing their own mess, or is it the naive great unwashed with their mentally retarded 'oh, computers are just like that, and they are all like that.' FUCK THAT! NO THEY AREN"T!

Don't get me started, just in case I start to rant or something.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>