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 XP-64 Delayed Into 2005

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the better-late-than-ever dept.

Windows 323

vincecate writes "Although Windows XP on AMD64 was demoed at ComDex in 2002, Microsoft is now delaying the release till the first half of 2005. Given Microsoft's history on this product, it could be even more than a year before it is really released. At least one person at Intel says they did not ask Microsoft to delay the release. In any case, for the near future if you want to run a 64 bit operating system you will either be using one of the free Linux versions or the free download of Windows XP-64 beta. Though Sun started well after Microsoft, they are progressing well on their Solaris port to AMD64 and could well release earlier."

cancel ×

323 comments

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

MS vs. Linux (3, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830232)

Really, I'm not sure why they are bothering with XP-64. Longhorn is due out soon enough... I'm just not sure I'm interested in paying for the product that will come out just before Longhorn. It's like if you had a choice between buying a flintlock pistol or a single-shot bullet operated colt, when you could wait and spend a little more money on a colt six-shooter. My point is that there's not much difference between XP and XP-64 compared to XP and Longhorn. I'm moderately satisfied with XP, apart from all the annoying Microsoft crap that comes with it, and there's no telling how much *more* of that will ship with XP-64 or even Longhorn. So I wouldn't be upgrading to get rid of the annoyances in Microsoft's products, just in some hopes of better features! I wouldn't hope for better security in future Microsoft products, because that would be futile, IMHO. The best solution for going 64 today looks like a Linux [anandtech.com] !

Re:MS vs. Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830432)

it should say: a GNU/Linux distrobution
not: a Linux

Re:MS vs. Linux (2, Insightful)

GbrDead (702506) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830483)

I'm just not sure I'm interested in paying for the product that will come out just before Longhorn.

Because Longhorn might not stable (enough)?

Re:MS vs. Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830487)

nooo no THE RADIOACTIVE BEIGE OF THE END TIMES again! from the we-hate-your-eyes dept.

Re:MS vs. Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830577)

It's like if you had a choice between buying a flintlock pistol or a single-shot bullet operated colt

At least we know what nationality you are ...

joepie de poepie (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830234)

dan blijvek nog een jaar de coolste vant dorp me mijne gentoo 64

Re:joepie de poepie (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830300)

Egads, did you babblefish this? I believe you actually meant to say:

Dan blijf ik nog een jaar de coolste van het dorp met mijn gentoo 64.

This would still be arguable depending on whether you truly are the only one in your small town with a 64 bit OS, unless you happen to be your own small town....

Re:joepie de poepie (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830573)

Nu nie int Hollands beginne klappe eh manneke, want dan ist koekenbak

Better late than buggy (5, Insightful)

wheany (460585) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830235)

It's better they release it a little late than with more bugs.

Re:Better late than buggy (5, Funny)

tlpalmer (800391) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830298)

I think you've got that the wrong way round. The longer they wait to release it, the *more* bugs they'll have time to write into it.

Re:Better late than buggy (1, Funny)

chegosaurus (98703) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830438)

Hell, why not do both?

64 bit OS (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830238)

In any case, for the near future if you want to run a 64 bit operating system you will either be using one of the free Linux versions or the free download of Windows XP-64 beta.
Oh, will I just? And what should I do with my Sparc workstation then?

Re:64 bit OS (4, Funny)

sporty (27564) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830295)

Use it next to my G5? :)

Re:64 bit OS (2, Insightful)

krunk7 (748055) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830508)

You'll have to wait till 10.4 before you have 64-bit computing on your G5. . . as will I.

Re:64 bit OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830317)

Seti@home is good for a sparc station - just don't expect to get into the top 100. Seti runs quite fast a P4 - Why I smell a conspiracy...

By the way, arn't ultra sprac stations 64 bit? Or did I miss the funny?

Re:64 bit OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830340)

ultra sprac stations 64 bit? Or did I miss the funny?
They are. You did.

Re:64 bit OS (1)

Nexum (516661) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830490)

Yeah that's so true... the submitter obviously didn't look around much. OS X 10.3 supports a lot of the basic 64bit functionality. Tiger (10.4) which is seeded already (final release early 2005) is full 64bit.

Re:64 bit OS (0)

JHromadka (88188) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830523)

Oh, will I just? And what should I do with my Sparc workstation then?

Sell it and get a PowerMac G5 [apple.com] . :)

What indeed (1)

yem (170316) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830564)

Is that a rhetorical question?

My Ultra 5 is propping up my television :-)

Funny timing... (3, Insightful)

jarich (733129) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830243)

This will give Intel's offering time to get established in the marketplace....

Re:Funny timing... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830385)

Windows 2003 Server SP1 was also delayed.
Windows Longhorn is delayed for the 525th time.

Maybe the tinfoil hat crowd forgots that Microsoft is being heavily bashed on the security front and maybe *gasp* maybe they need more coders to work on getting Windows XP SP2 out ASAP? And hell maybe fixing some one year+ serious flaws in IE?

The world doesn't always revolve around Chipzilla.

PS: I hate Microsoft and Intel.

Re:Funny timing... (1)

mog007 (677810) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830516)

I don't know about that. Have they even released the codename for their 64-bit chip? We're all aware that they reverse engineered AMD64 to make their 64-bit chips run under the same architecture, but they havn't even told us the name of the damned thing yet. 2005 isn't far away, so Intel better hurry up. They've got a lot of things to get hammered out with bug testing, chipset development, motherboard design, etc.

hmm... (0)

Nexcet (792231) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830248)

i didn't know that, always linux was sronger then windows ;)

Countdown... (3, Funny)

Scrab (573004) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830251)

Microsoft bashing will commence in 3....2.....1...

Bashing has commenced.

Scrab

Re:Countdown... (-1)

ClickWir (166927) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830371)

Thank you so much for providing such a usefull comment. CmdrTaco will now come visit you and make some spam with scrambled eggs for you.

Re:Countdown... (0, Offtopic)

cablepokerface (718716) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830605)

Microsoft bashing will commence in 3....2.....1...

When did it stop?

Bloat? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830253)

Since most people will eventually move to 64-bit chip (as I'm betting over the next 10 years, the 32-bits will stop being produced), the only real issue is how much more bloat will MS add to it all?

Exploit problem? (1, Funny)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830254)

Do they have to wait for the bad guys to finish their ports?

Re:Exploit problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830529)

Yep. W64.Mydoom.M@mm won't ship until Q1 2005; W64.Zindos.A has been cancelled and replaced by W64.Zindos.D.

supported linux versions available as well (4, Informative)

cmoss (14324) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830259)

"In any case, for the near future if you want to run a 64 bit operating system you will either be using one of the free Linux versions"

There are supported linux versions available as well. I know Red Hat and SuSE have released versions supporting the amd64 and I think Mandrake does as well

Re:supported linux versions available as well (5, Informative)

rivaldufus (634820) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830280)

Don't forget FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD. They all have 64bit versions of their OS, and they are all free.

Re:supported linux versions available as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830366)

So why would I want a 64 bit OS? I only need it if the apps are written to expoit it.

Re:supported linux versions available as well (1)

DarkSarin (651985) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830451)

and gentoo linux and I think Fedora, and I'm certain other distros aren't far behind. The point is--Windows is probably the only one that WON'T be 64 bit before too much longer.

Re:supported linux versions available as well (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830588)

Don't forget FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD. They all have 64bit versions of their OS, and they are all free.
And the 64-bit versions can die much faster.

Re:supported linux versions available as well (2, Interesting)

thisisnotmyid (540920) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830520)

Hell, even Debian [debianplanet.org] has it already. How slow can Microsoft be?

Damn! (1, Funny)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830264)

Now I'll have to wait a little while longer to have another Microsoft operating system to neither install or use...

forgot one OS... (4, Insightful)

bogusbrainbonus (547948) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830266)

In any case, for the near future if you want to run a 64 bit operating system you will either be using one of the free Linux versions or the free download of Windows XP-64 beta.

Or you'll be running Mac OS X...

Re:forgot one OS... (4, Informative)

christopher240240 (633932) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830325)

Mac OSX 10.3.4 does not run in 64-bit mode on my G5.

Re:forgot one OS... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830476)

10.4 Tiger will be the first 64bit OSX release. However iirc there will also be a 32bit kernel on the cd to allow people with G3 and G4 systems to be able to run 10.4

Mac? (2, Informative)

thaddjuice (235568) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830267)

In any case, for the near future if you want to run a 64 bit operating system you will either be using one of the free Linux versions or the free download of Windows XP-64 beta.

Um, what about Mac OS X?

Re:Mac? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830299)

Real 64 Bit OS, not just some extensions. On a widely available and affordable platform.

Re:Mac? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830349)

Moron... OSX _IS_ 64 bit.

For example, the OSX release of Oracle 10g is 64-bit.

And you may be really surprised at the number of REAL programmers that use OSX to develp very REAL apps.

Go check out an ApacheCon sometime and take a look around you at what laptops most of the developers are using.

Widely available? Yep.. I can pick up the phone and very easily buy one.

Affordable? Yep... I have a real job and don't mind investing some cash into quality tools for my chosen profession.

Re:Mac? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830397)

You're just pissed because you can't afford a thinkpad.

Re:Mac? (4, Informative)

shippo (166521) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830318)

Not a full 64-bit OS, at least at the moment.

Re:Mac? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830327)

As far as I know Mac OS X won't go 64-bit until Tiger next year - maybe around the same time as XP.

Note They Said "Near Future" (1)

SteveM (11242) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830343)

Key qualifier: near future

OS X Tiger will be 64 bit, but that isn't scheduled for release until 02005 either.

SteveM

Re:Mac? (1)

rivaldufus (634820) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830344)

Well, if you want to go that route, what about UltraSparc with solaris, Tru64 with alpha, etc?

Re:Mac? (1)

Xilman (191715) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830463)

Or Tru64, or VMS, or Solaris, or ...

Paul

Quality Driven (2, Interesting)

chattycathy (801106) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830268)

"The delays are quality driven," a Microsoft statement said. The company needs more time for tuning and testing "in order to meet the high quality requirements of our customers."

Doesn't that mean they have to pack more crap into it so it runs slower than molasses in winter?

Really, though, it's nice if they are working on the quality of the product. Maybe this one won't ever crash, eh?

Re:Quality Driven (1, Insightful)

grunt107 (739510) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830313)

"The delays are quality driven,"

Where is the -1 Ludicrous button?

What they are really saying is that XP64 has so many problems it cannot be released. Or they are attempting to fix the gaping worm holes (why is that an Apple is less susceptible to worms than a Window?)

Re:Quality Driven (1, Funny)

chattycathy (801106) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830346)

Homer: In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic.

I appreciate the wording because it shows there really is a way to say 'we suck' nicely.

Re:Quality Driven (1)

Fredrik Leijon (609309) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830599)

well, i tried the beta when i got my amd64 machine, and it wouldn't recognize the x800 card, and when i tried to force the use of the installed drivers it bluescreened and didn't start again :/

seems like the biggest issiue is the lack of working drivers atm.

Not to suggest the obvious.. (1)

Spoh (241279) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830278)

But those who are fortunate enough to posess a G5 can already run Mac OS X as a 64-bit os.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/ [apple.com]

-Tom

Re:Not to suggest the obvious.. (-1)

ClickWir (166927) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830391)

Yea there's lots of 64-bit OS's, but they were refering to ones that people might actually WANT to run.

Apple sucks.

OS X 10.4 not 64 Bit (0, Troll)

charnov (183495) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830527)

It has extensions but it is far far far from being 64 bit all the way. Now I remember why I quit at Apple...good lord people.

*BSD (5, Informative)

c_ollier (35683) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830285)

Besides Linux and Windows, you can also use FreeBSD [freebsd.org] , for which amd64 is in tier 1 (full support), along with i386. Other BSDs of course support it :
NetBSD [netbsd.org]
OpenBSD [openbsd.org]

Re:*BSD (0)

big ben bullet (771673) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830517)

yeah but is it as easy to install as SuSE?

I installed a SuSE x86_64 distro, and *everything* just works...

even the 3d acceleration after an online update of the nVidia drivers did

no xxxBSD distro can beat that .. i think

Re:*BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830619)

no xxxBSD distro can beat that .. i think

Certaintly not with nvidia drivers. it's been a while since nvidia has released drivers for FreeBSD, and they do not support amd64 yet.

Re:*BSD (0)

the real darkskye (723822) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830535)

Doesn't Solaris 10 have x86-64 support?
Yes I know this rules out the Itanic users but I don't believe any of the above (aside from NetBSD) runs on Itanics either.

64 bit operating systems (5, Insightful)

Ronald Dumsfeld (723277) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830296)

In any case, for the near future if you want to run a 64 bit operating system you will either be using one of the free Linux versions or the free download of Windows XP-64 beta.
My, but does anyone else think the submitter live in a rather sheltered world?

I've been running a 64-bit operating system for the past five or six years, and it isn't one of those mentioned. It just happens to be OpenVMS [hp.com] running on Alpha.

Re:64 bit operating systems (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830422)

Same here. Used to run Linux on Alpha. Oldest 64 bit workstation OS out there. Available for the last 8+ years. The only problem was the complete lack of power management and the hovercraft levels of fan noise (55+db). Performancewise it used to wipe the floor with any Intel machine 5 years ago. In fact for some tasks it will still deliver very reasonable performance by todays standards.

Re:64 bit operating systems (3, Funny)

Ronald Dumsfeld (723277) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830552)

I'll see your Alpha workstation and raise you a DEC AlphaServer 2100.

Sledghammer-proof hardware. :-)

This sucker is so large that you can tell people you keep a copy of the Internet on it, and they believe you.

It's a shame, really... (2, Interesting)

sczimme (603413) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830424)


These people that are fixated on the current X86/PC world have missed out on the elegant hardware of Sun, SGI, and DEC.

Yes, kids, there was a world before Linux became popular.

/Feeling old today

Re:64 bit operating systems (3, Informative)

chegosaurus (98703) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830459)

Or get an Ultra 5 off eBay for $50.

Re:64 bit operating systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830551)

Chill out dude (and all the other "I've got a 64-bit OS and it's not one of those" people) the article is clearly about a 64-bit OS for the Athlon 64. Hence, the qualifier "on an Athlon 64 (or Opteron)" is clearly implied. Did HP port VMS to x86_64? If so, tell us about that. If not, the fact that you can run a 64-bit OS on an alpha, G5, sparc, cray ... is quite irrelevant.

Is a little reading comprehension too much to ask?
Then again, given the difficulty a lot of slashdotters have with spotting sarcasm and other subtle forms of humor this shouldn't be surprising.

is this even news? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830308)

sounds like troll bait to me. Like anyone really expected it to not be delayed. the only thing these threads produce is a ton of flames and ranting back and forth. Can we get some interesting and useful news?

Re:is this even news? (5, Funny)

cablepokerface (718716) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830626)

the only thing these threads produce is a ton of flames and ranting back and forth. Can we get some interesting and useful news?

You must be new here.

64 bit os (0, Redundant)

robbie_air (635515) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830321)

"In any case, for the near future if you want to run a 64 bit operating system you will either be using one of the free Linux versions or the free download of Windows XP-64 beta. "

someone has to say it: You could use Mac OS X and the PowerMac G5
http://www.apple.com/macosx/ [apple.com]

Re:64 bit os (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830390)

Except it isnt, MacOSX still doesnt have 64 bit support; it's fully 32 bit, you need to install the linux ports for the PPC970 before you can actually use the 64bit functions.

The next release will enable 64bit, but that too, isnt out until 2005.

Re:64 bit os (4, Informative)

demon (1039) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830555)

Yes, as soon as Tiger is released, you'll be correct. The current OS X release, however, is not 64-bit native.

Windows is not designed for these things (-1, Troll)

carnivore302 (708545) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830331)

Linux has always run on multiple processor architectures which meant that it wasn't possible for it to make use of any processor specifics that make it difficult to port it to a new architecture. Linux runs on both little endian machines line X86 and Alpha and big endian machines line PPC and SPARC. It has also ran on 64 bit machines for years like Alpha, SPARC, and MIPS. As a result there was no real challenge to port it to AMD64 (well, maybe overstating here, but basically there were no real difficulties). All that was needed was a version of that GCC can produce output for AMD64.

Windows (fill in your version here) has always been an x86 only OS. There was a port to Alpha but it was not well supported and only a few souls on the planet had one. Since then NT/2K/XP focused entirely on the x86. The side effect has been that it has accumlated thousands of lines of code that will only work on a 32 bit architecture. Microsoft has to hunt down every pointer in their windows code, which is vast. Even with Microsoft's resources it's going to take them a while before they have a fully 64bit version of Windows.


Want to know why McDonalds accepts credit cards [tradesims.com] all of a sudden?

Re:Windows is not designed for these things (4, Informative)

foidulus (743482) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830388)

Uh, you are wrong. For the early XBox 2 dev kits, Microsoft has a version of the NT kernel running on a slightly modified G5 system. Not an x86 architecture there.

Re:Windows is not designed for these things (1)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830500)

Precisely. I've read the NT5/XP kernel was designed to be portable. However, there's a lot more to windows than just the kernel. I think the parent was referring to the other (insert very large number) lines of code that would have to be checked.

While people contend that linux has good 64 bit support, you have to remember that windows is designed and optimized for 32 bit x86. That's why microsoft compilers will beat gcc in terms of x86 speed. I think the Linux design for portability makes more sense in the long run, but if no one on ppc or alpha is interested in running windows, why would it make sense for microsoft in the short term to spend resources to worry about compatibility for them.

Re:Windows is not designed for these things (5, Informative)

demon (1039) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830587)

Windows NT wasn't originally designed for x86. Hell, initially it was developed for a CPU that didn't even exist - when it was first being developed, it was targeted at Intel's i960 RISC architecture. However, because the i960 RISC chip was plagued with delays, it was ported to another architecture (I believe the first one was MIPS32). Dave Cutler's clean OS design (one of the major designers of DEC's VMS operating system, hired away by Microsoft) made this possible relatively quickly.

And by the way, the original NT moniker was actually a reference to the CPU simulator - named N-Ten - that the first i960-native builds of what became Windows NT ran on.

Re:Windows is not designed for these things (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830406)

Hmm, why is this modded as Informative? Windows NT ran on MIPS (I've seen it running on modified SGI Indy boxes), PowerPC, Alpha and x86. The HAL makes it possible. Windows 2000 Beta was running on Alpha. What makes you think Windows is an x86-only product?

Mike Bouma

Re:Windows is not designed for these things (4, Informative)

demon (1039) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830519)

While you're right, Windows definitely was available for a variety of architectures, unfortunately there was a _serious_ shortage of software for Windows NT for PPC, MIPS and Alpha/AXP. A few Microsoft packages, like BackOffice, Visual C++, and a few other things, were available; most third-party software, however, was not ever built for anything but x86. The only reason the Alpha/AXP version had a longer lifetime, and apparently more software, was due to the FX!32 dynamic translation software that Digital developers created to run x86 binaries on Alpha. There was no real technical limitation to speak of, just momentum of Windows on x86.

Re:Windows is not designed for these things (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830411)

Windows (fill in your version here) has always been an x86 only OS.

Except for when Windows (NT) ran on Power PC, DEC Alpha, AXP, and MIPS [wikipedia.org] . They even had a prototype for the Sun SPARC.

Re:Windows is not designed for these things (1)

Hungus (585181) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830470)

I seem to remember NT 3.5, 3.5.1 and 4 running on PPC, Alpha and MIPS, and have all been able to run on MP systems. So I would say that your statement that "Windows (fill in your version here) has always been an x86 only OS" even with your mentioning of Alpha is so far wrong as to make me wonder as tot he veracity of other comments you have made. NT on Alpha even with the requisite 32 -> 64 bit code morphing was really quite a nice system. I ran it quite regularly until the summer of 2000, and if i still had access to it I likely still would.

Re:Windows is not designed for these things (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830622)

Linux has always run on multiple processor architectures which meant that it wasn't possible for it to make use of any processor specifics that make it difficult to port it to a new architecture.

Not quite always.

"Portability is for people who cannot write new programs"
-- Linus Torvalds, on comp.os.minix, 29 Jan 1992

And as usual, Microsoft is late to the party (3, Insightful)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830368)

Yes, this looks like flamebait, but I'm actually surprised that it's taking MS this long, considering the resources they can throw at any given problem.

Re:And as usual, Microsoft is late to the party (1)

chattycathy (801106) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830421)

The resources are the problem aren't they?

One Word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830442)

Inertia.

Re:And as usual, Microsoft is late to the party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830593)

There's a very good reason for them to take their time. The same reason Intel took so long to enter the consumer 64-bit universe. They're only around to make money, and 64-bit processors were an untested medium. AMD jumped at the idea, and succeeded by making them backwards compatible with 32-bit x-86 code. Microsoft hasn't taken a risky venture since Xbox.

...one of THESE free linux versions! (1)

ernstp (641161) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830369)

Re:...one of THESE free linux versions! (1)

myster0n (216276) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830509)

With regards to suse : I recently bought the 9.1 pro version. It has 2 double-sided DVD's.
DVD 1 is for binaries : side A : 32bit ; side B : 64bit
DVD 2 is for source, same story here.

Now I'm still on 32bit, but it's nice to see that when you buy the distro you get immediate and supported access to the 2 archs. Great if you suddenly buy a AMD64. (but I don't really understand why there's a 64bit sources disk. Couldn't this be done right by making good makefiles?)

Other OS than Linux supports.... (2, Informative)

Homology (639438) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830378)

In any case, for the near future if you want to run a 64 bit operating system you will either be using one of the free Linux versions or the free download of Windows XP-64 beta.

You might have noticed that there are other 64 bit CPU's than AMD64 that are in wide use, and other OS than Linux suports AMD64.

FreeBSD [freebsd.org] supports AMD64, and so does NetBSD [netbsd.org] .

Also OpenBSD [openbsd.org] supports it, but the support is even better in current. In addition, OpenBSD will use the NX-bit to increase security.

And Longhorn's coming out in 2006... (-1, Redundant)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830380)

Yeah right!

GO linux (1)

matgorb (562145) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830384)

It is time for Linux and xxxx (put your favorite free OS here) to hit hard on M$, with XP-64 and Longhorn no quite close to release, and the already availability of lets say fedora on 64bit AMD, I think the time has come, lets face it, the latest kde, for those who like it, I dont, and Gnome just look gorgious (people always ask what kind of thing I run when the see my fedora desktop) and usability is on the way. I'm currently doing an academic research about the opinion of the general public on Linux, but when you told them that they can surf the web(mozilla) read their mail(evolution) write their docs(open office) watch their movie (xine) im(gaim) and everything else a yum search away for the price of a cd (hum 10p) well they start to look at you differently My personnal opinion is that to widespread Linux we should have an Apple politic at some point, a distrib optimised for a given hardware for non technical person. One example is the xbox, as it is standardize, you get a distrib (gentox for instance) that it is optimized for the hardware, and work out of the box....there is even lots of bucks lying arround...

Re:GO linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830473)

If you're doing an academic research paper, be sure to turn on your spell checker

So this still means (2, Funny)

foidulus (743482) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830414)

That I will be able to Duke Nukem Forever with 64 bit processes!
Yay!

Re:So this still means (1)

DaemonTW (733739) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830580)

Aah, so this is why the game is late, they're waiting on WinXP 64! I knew there would be a valid reason :)

The comment about Sun is not fair. (2, Insightful)

harrkev (623093) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830415)

The comment about Sun is not quite a fair comparison. Porting Solaris to x86-64 should be easier for Sun, since SOLARIS IS ALREADY 64 BITS!!!. The Sparc processors have been 64 bits for quite a while (I am typing this message on a Sun workstation right now).

Windows has been 32 bits for quite a while, so the jump to 64 is a bigger step than for Sun.

Re:The comment about Sun is not fair. (2, Insightful)

demon (1039) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830472)

Well, Microsoft has been working on an AMD64 port for longer than Sun has. While Solaris is already 64-bit clean, they have to get the entire OS up and running on AMD64 fairly quickly. Obviously they've hit a big milestone, so hopefully they'll be able to make their target. Of course, as the Register story mentions, they'll have a lot of negative momentum and impressions to counter even once the product is ready.

WOW64 (2, Insightful)

Kujah (630784) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830481)

I think mainly their delaying for two reasons: WOW64 and driver support.

Having played with the beta of XP64 on my laptop, I can tell you that the driver support on XP64 absolutely sucks. There are hardly any drivers, and good luck finding any for older/abnormal hardware.

WOW64, if you're not familiar with the acronym, means windows on windows 64. It's basically their "emulator" (it's more of an interpreter) to run code not compiled for 64 bit. Instead of going the FreeBSD route and allowing for both 32 and 64 bit programs to run at the same time (props for freebsd), Microsoft decided to go with an emulator - which happens to suck horribly, and freeze alot.

Your best bet for the AMD64 extentions is FreeBSD, hands down.

Re:WOW64 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830568)

WOW64, if you're not familiar with the acronym, means windows on windows 64.

Damn. And here I was getting my hopes up for a 64-bit World of Warcraft...

Christmas in July (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830494)

WIntel surrenders the high-end desktop for back-to-school and Christmas seasons, just in time for the release of Doom 3.

++Good!

One person? (5, Funny)

Bingo Foo (179380) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830530)

At least one person at Intel says they did not ask Microsoft to delay the release.

I'm sure that at least one person at Intel did not ask Microsoft to delay the release. It would be kind of weird if all 80,000 employees asked. I'm sure it was no more than 50,000 of them who did.

yeah right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9830545)

one person at Intel says they did not ask Microsoft to delay the release

yeah right... sure they didn't after all it is not like that:

Windows 64bit + Cheap 64bit Proc for AMD = Goodbye Intel...

Solaris has been 64-bits since 1995 (4, Insightful)

peter303 (12292) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830565)

They've long known all the hidden 32-bit bottlenecks in their OS and dealt with them. So I suspect, Sun's shipping date is mainly a matter of testing and verification.

64bit Redhat (1)

Klar (522420) | more than 10 years ago | (#9830608)

I just got a new AMD64 laptop, and am wondering about getting a version of redhat to run on it. Anyone know of any torrents or download links to get a good version?

Also, is the XP64 beta even worth trying yet, or should I just run XP-Pro until there is more support?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?