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!

Microsoft to Require 64-bit Processors

samzenpus posted more than 8 years ago | from the upgrade dept.

Microsoft 377

Nom du Keyboard writes "According to News.com Microsoft has said they will require 64-bit instruction set processors (AMD64/EMT64) for all future processor releases. These include Exchange 12, Longhorn Server R2 and Small-Business Edition Longhorn Server among others. I guess we have to bite this bullet sometime."

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

Is this bad or good? (5, Funny)

KiroDude (853510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051302)

So is this bad news or good news, or?? come'on, give me something for my daily microsoft bashing spree!!

Re:Is this bad or good? (2)

GnarlyNome (660878) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051318)

Winslows works under 64 bit?
No really

Re:Is this bad or good? (2, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051339)

So is this bad news or good news, or??

It's not really either. Technology progresses, new Windows requires latest processors... it's scarcely news at all.

What is interesting, though, is that there are still a lot of 32-bit processors around which are perfectly viable. Microsoft didn't absolutely require a 32-bit CPU until Windows '95; previous releases could always run in Standard or Real mode if you didn't happen to have the hardware to use 386 Enhanced. When that release came out in late 1995, hardly anyone was still running a 286. But when MS goes to pure 64-bit, there may well still be a lot of legacy Pentium IVs around running just fine. Maybe we'll be able to get these guys to consider alternatives at that point?

Re:Is this bad or good? (4, Informative)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051485)

"But when MS goes to pure 64-bit, there may well still be a lot of legacy Pentium IVs around running just fine. "

well, in the original article [com.com] that the article links to it says:
"Separately, Microsoft also announced that the Compute Cluster Server and several other upcoming server software releases will work only with 64-bit processors."

They're talking specifically about server software, not really desktop.

In the article the post links to it says:
"company executives detailed its plans to add support 64-bit microprocessors in its server applications and operating systems."

so they're supporting 64 bit in their OS, but not requiring it... least none of the stories said they're requiring it.

I agree, I think it's a mistake to require 64 bit support in desktop OS's in the near future, I mean there's 5 year old processors that run the latest XP just fine so to say 5 yrs from now that most processors made today wont run Windows 2010 (twenty-ten ;) seems to be a pretty serious statement.

Are they trying to kill Intel sales?

Re:Is this bad or good? (2, Informative)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051519)

there may well still be a lot of legacy Pentium IVs around running just fine. Maybe we'll be able to get these guys to consider alternatives at that point?

Most Pentiums IVs can support 64 bit processes.

from Intel's website Scalability and performance with Intel® EM64T Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology (Intel® EM64T) can improve performance by allowing the system to address more than 4 GB of both virtual and physical memory. Intel EM64T also provides support for 64 bit computing to help handle the applications of tomorrow.
The link can be found here [intel.com]

Re:Is this bad or good? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051531)

I doubt Microsoft will go beyond this though - after all, 64 bits ought to be enough for anyone.

Re:Is this bad or good? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051373)

It means that if you want to update your server software, you'll have to buy new servers too.

Re:Replacing Servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051440)

Doesn't it always?

Re:Is this bad or good? (4, Interesting)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051393)

It's more a matter of prodding an industry where "standard" computers still come with 256mb ram. Dell's current high end machines come with 512, and some manufacturers can and will sell you a computer with 128mb of ram. (I'm not Dell bashing - they're the only company I'll use if I'm not building it myself. Just saying.)

Anyhow. What I'm getting at is the industry has been somewhat sluggish to adopt new tech under pressure to keep costs down. The 64-bit processors have been around for a while, but many computers don't have them, and the only reason why is that it's not cost-effective for the industry giants to switch over. As for performance...well, you won't see much difference with a 64-bit processor, but that's not because they aren't better - that's because people haven't been writing new code for them due to slow adoption rates. Vicious circle and all that.

Re:Is this bad or good? (1)

poningru (831416) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051486)

regarding your first para, I'd say thats a good thing, when dell sells these mem sticks they usually charge you around 100 USD for 512MB (take off 256MB of memory from a configuration, its less 50USD) So I'd rather buy memory myself and put it in the box,

Re:Is this bad or good? (1)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051529)

It wasn't that long ago that you could still order a computer from Dell with 64mb ram and Windows XP.

Good for Microsoft,bad for WINE (3, Interesting)

CdBee (742846) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051546)

Recent news covered the maturing of the WINE platform for running Win32 binaries on x86 *nix operating systems

How ironic that just as we reach the point where there is a good chance of a Win32 binary running on WINE, the big move to Win64 applications begins in earnest.

No, I don't believe this is a prime or even a significant motivating factor.. it's just the way things are.

Re:Is this bad or good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051563)

Dell? Are you crazy! They are the only company I will *not* use if I'm not building myself.

Re:Is this bad or good? (5, Funny)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051450)

Hell yes this is good news because everyone knows that you can't make a decent word processor work properly with less than 64 bits - up until now all code writers have really struggled to make 8-, 16- and 32-bit processors handle such complex tasks - look at the kind of sucky code we had to put up with: WP 5.1, Wordstar, Lotus Manuscript, Word for DOS - heck maybe now we'll see some improvement on the shitty vi and emacs!!

Typical improvements will be:

1) Spell and grammar checking - with a 64-bit processor, the WP app will be able to offer up to (2^64)-2 suggestions for a mis-spelled word rather than just a handful.

2) More underline styles

3) Ability to type faster without the system locking up.

4) Documents finish printing before you've typed them

5) AI components know what you are thinking and will auto-finish sentences for you MICROSOFT SUCKS.

6) Systems will be able to do more things at once - imagine being able to check email while typing at 2000 wpm AND be composing replies to messages you haven't even received yet while printing tomorrow's news.

Re:Is this bad or good? (1)

SlashSquatch (928150) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051539)

5) AI components know what you are thinking and will auto-finish sentences for you MICROSOFT SUCKS.

Ha Ha Ha Ha. Just because I'm not saying doesn't mean I'm not thinking it.

No, software's not bloated. You need a 64 bit processor and 512 mb ram for word processing and email. Oh, you want internet? That'll be a gig for sure, it's ok we'll throw in world wide web capability and pop up blocker free. Plus if you want international internet, add $550. Don't forget to change your hard drive fluid regularly!

"Oh I'm not a man of prayer but PLEASE SAVE ME SUPERMAN!"

Re:Is this bad or good? (2, Insightful)

petabyte (238821) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051480)

Well, as a linux/freebsd chap myself, I'd have to say good. On the one hand, it'll move 64-bit up into the standard relm (ie, everything has it and cheaper) and I'll be taking eveyone's "deprecated" athlon-xp's and pentium 4s :).

Good move? (1, Funny)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051304)

I think this is a really good move from Microsoft, this way they will be able to

Re:Good move? (4, Funny)

silasthehobbit (626391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051335)

"I think this is a really good move from Microsoft, this way they will be able to" ...finish sentences?

--
silas
hobbit

Re:Good move? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051518)

In Soviet Russia, ADD

Re:Good move? (1)

dascandy (869781) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051337)

> this way they will be able to

Finish their reply?

Re:Good move? (2, Funny)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051381)

I think this is a really good move from Microsoft, this way they will be able to

Yes, they will.
 

Re:Good move? (2, Interesting)

cale (18062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051400)

"...yield even more of their marketshare to Linux."? Maybe. I don't know what you were thinking, but thats what I would like to throw out there.

In my IT department the thinking might go something like this:
Windows requires us to replace that moderately priced server we bought last year. Well, if are going to have to replace it, lets try running Linux on it and see if we can provide our services that way.

However, our guys tend to be more open minded than most corporate IT folks.

Re:Good move? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051418)

I'm Brian, and so's my wife!

Re:Good move? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051468)

Not likely. You clearly don't

duh (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051308)

bit that particular bullet last year, it's not like it's expensive to go 64 bit these days. And your 32 bit machine will run fine with all its current 32bit OSs and software, dont worry *pats you on the head*

Re:duh (2, Informative)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051471)

Except that going 64-bit with less then 4GB of RAM makes little sense. Microsoft is binary-compatibility based company so they are trying to make sure that all users and OEMs will jump to new instruction set together. Originally, .NET should make CPU platform irrelevant, but somehow this didn't work really so all major Apps are still C++. Interesting thing that AMD64 instruction set, once underdog, will likely have no compatition in PC market for next couple of years. Even Apple standardized on it.

Re:duh (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051502)

I was under the impression that .NET was not about processor type as much as it was about programming language type becoming irrelevent.

Re:duh (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051559)

Multiple language linking is what actually works very good on .NET but problems are 1) performance 2) memory usage and 3) startup time, in that order. That's why MS Office and co. are still C++ based. If thay moved apps to .NET, they would not care for what platform user is running as long as .NET runtime is working on it.

Let me know when 16-bit code is dead, let alone... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051316)

... 32-bit code. Heck, even XP still has some 16-bit programs by default. Sysedit and edit.com are just a couple examples. It's safe to say that 32-bit code will be with us for quite a while. Remember, 16-bit apps didn't die when Windows NT 3.1 (and later, Windows 95) came out.

Re:Let me know when 16-bit code is dead, let alone (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051445)

When the hell was the last time you had to use "edit.com" to edit a file or "sysedit" to adjust your system settings under windows xp??

If those were the only 2 16-bit apps you could find, then just delete them, they aren't likely required by the system to run, just there for teh sake of being there.

Re:Let me know when 16-bit code is dead, let alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051578)

MS Edit is the closest equivalent to vi in the MS world (except for vi itself, of course) and is still the most effective, user-friendly text editor that Microsoft has created. You don't try to code in notepad/wordpad/Word, do you?. Sysedit isn't really all that useful, no.

Re:Let me know when 16-bit code is dead, let alone (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051452)

Windows XP 64bit has all the 16 bit subsystems removed, and can't run any 16bit software.

Something's not right (1, Interesting)

rob_squared (821479) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051317)

Microsoft is breaking backward compatability?

Anyone have anything debunking this?

Re:Something's not right (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051352)

This doesn't appear to break backwards compatibility.
All it does is force MS software onto new hardware.
Double plus good for tech support in their eyes, just makes the TCO increase for the end user.

No more running server from that old p166 lying around.
What it might do is make the driver compatibility easier, for instance, is there 64bit mobos with ISA slots?

Re:Something's not right (2, Informative)

Craster (808453) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051369)

Just because the OS requires a 64-bit processor, doesn't mean that 32-bit apps won't run in a virtual machine environment, much the way that 16-bit apps run in the wowexec VM on Microsoft's current 32-bit OSs.

Re:Something's not right (4, Informative)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051375)

Microsoft is breaking backward compatability?

That's not how I read it. Microsoft is going to require 64 bit processors for its new software. That's about equivalent to them requiring a 32-bit processor for Windows 95, and thereby excluding everyone on a 286. No reason why these systems shouldn't run legacy 32-bit apps - and maybe even 16-bit apps - but they're going to need a 64-bit processor.

Re:Something's not right (2, Informative)

ggeens (53767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051453)

That's about equivalent to them requiring a 32-bit processor for Windows 95 and thereby excluding everyone on a 286.

Actually, 80286 support was dropped in Windows 3.1 (AKA Windows For Workgroups). WFW could only run 16 bit code [1], but it needed the virtual memory features of a 80386.

[1] Except if you installed "win32s", a subset of the Win32 API.

Re:Something's not right (4, Informative)

CDPatten (907182) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051390)

"Microsoft is breaking backward compatability? "

I'm assuming you are talking about 32bit? If you are then... Longhorn Server R2 doesn't come out until 2009, the 2007 version will come out with a 32bit counterpart Their 64 bit platform run 32 bit code without degrading performance.

The only thing that has to be re-written is 32-bit drivers. They are only breaking "driver" compatibility for legacy hardware. However hardware makers have started (last summer) to write the 64 bit drivers for their hardware, so I wouldn't worry to much about that.

Is that enough info to debunk?

Re:Something's not right (1)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051420)

Yeah, its utter bollocks.

It was news to Eileen Brown [technet.com] and the Exchange team who have been busily building and testing Exchange on 32 / 64 bits.

I'm not sure why Microsoft announced this - but I'm quite sure that they're going to be building and testing 32 and 64 bit versions of all their major products right until far closer to release date, then they will decide what to release based on what their customers are asking for.

Offtopic: Can anyone think of a good update to this:
Windows is a 32-bit shell for a 16-bit extension to an 8-bit operating system designed for a 4-bit microprocessor by a 2-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

Re:Something's not right (1)

cogg (864885) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051473)

Windows is 64-bit polish to a 32-bit shell.... yada yada yada.

But this is /. so maybe is should add in "turd" in the appropriate place...

Re:Something's not right (2, Funny)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051490)

Windows is the 64-bit frontend of a 32-bit shell for a 16-bit extension to an 8-bit operating system designed for a 4-bit microprocessor by a 2-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.
?

Re:Something's not right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051422)

Absolutely not. AMD64 can run 32-bit legacy processes and 64-bit processes at the same time. It's actually a pretty cool architecture. You can find more information here: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/DevelopWithAMD /0,,30_2252_11395_11428,00.html [amd.com] .

Next time maybe inform yourself before making uninformed comments. (OK, this is /., how could I suggest... :()

That's two to the fighting seventh power (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051322)

Yossarian Lives!

All future "processor releases"? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051326)

Someone didn't proof read this - since when have Microsoft released processors?

Re:All future "processor releases"? (1)

cloudturtle (260857) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051386)

Actually microsoft is about to release two processors in a couple of days, the CPU and GPU in the Xbox 360 are both MS processors. (although you are completly correct about the typo)

Re:All future "processor releases"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051503)

"...the CPU and GPU in the Xbox 360 are both MS processors."

Actually they are more IBM processors than MS processors. IBM designed them off of their PowerPC architecture to Microsoft's requirements. Microsoft had very little to do with actually designing them or building them. IBM may be making them exclusively for MS but to say they are MS processors is misleading.

Re:All future "processor releases"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051526)

actually, IBM makes the CPU in the xbox360. its based on the G5 processor used by current Macs. and if I'm not mistaken, nVidia has made the custom GPU.

Re:All future "processor releases"? (3, Informative)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051541)

Uh ya, right, GPU is an ATI design and CPU is a 3-core PowerPC by IBM.

Both were created in cooperation with Microsoft and are fully custom made (the Xenon CPU took 2 years), but they're still not "MS processors".

Good, and bad. (2, Insightful)

bogado (25959) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051329)

Microsoft is pushing the 64bits, so it will become the standard and will be cheaper. On the other hand it will force people to buy new hardware, every one knows that the new office will have a new, incompatible, format. People will start using it and will force others to install a new 64bits CPU.

Off course people could simply return the software that don't work and the adoption rate will be slower then before...

Re:Good, and bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051528)

Microsoft is pushing the 64bits, so it will become the standard and will be cheaper.

and suddenly, 32-bit processors entered the "name-your-own-price" category. With an announcement that they'll be unable to run on the upcoming operating system of the overwhelming majority of the market, they're officially obsolete and useless for new system purchases.

If you're a corporate IT purchaser, you'd better take note and tell your suppliers no more 32-bit. But the good news is that I fully expect 32-bit architecture to plummet in price now (making for an even greater difference in the TCO between Linux and Windows for a period). I'm telling my suppliers that as of this announcement, I won't buy from them unless I see a cut in cost greater than 50% from yesterday's price. Pentium 4 3.4 GHz 800 MHz FSB was $282... don't bother me until it's under $140. Top end AMD Semprons at $110 in quantity - nope, try $50 or less. I'm not even factoring in the 32-bit motherboard which will also lack salvage value, plus any other accessories tied into that architecture.

Even if I use it for Linux, I'm losing serious salvage value in it by having 90% of the market disappear from disposing of it to used market buyers after two years. Two-year-old systems are usually half-depreciated and the salvage value compensates for the impact. Or if you're on a capital lease and don't buy it out, you'd better understand the leasing parties should wise up to the lack of salvage value.

So if you buy systems for work, take a look at the prices today and let your buyer know you won't buy 32-bit without a 50% or greater discount in price. If they don't play, don't buy and they'll either meet the market drop in demand at the lower price or sit on inventory rapidly becoming worthless.

That Does IT !! (5, Funny)

Artie_Effim (700781) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051330)

Finally a new use for my Commodore 64!! I cannot wait to hand input hex strings for Exchange 12 ;)

You know what that means, don't you? (3, Funny)

Sduic (805226) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051331)

>2GB minimum memory requirement! :)

Re:You know what that means, don't you? (1)

Sduic (805226) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051396)

Oh, and before someone corrects me, I know it's 4GB for 32-bit. The other 2GB is for the 64-bit malware to run in! :)

Re:You know what that means, don't you? (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051430)

This moderated funny, but actually the only reason 64 bit's make sense is for applciation with big memory requirements. Since 32 bits application are fine handing 2 GB, and can do 3.5 Gb with a little bit of tuning, this might not be enough for some applicaitons. ("bloatware")

Re:You know what that means, don't you? (0)

open_source_dweeb (789983) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051525)

In 1994, 16MB desktop memory costs around $600. Now, you can get 2GB for under $200. It is not really unreasonable to expect newer software to be written in such a way to take advantage of this extra memory. There is really not much point in developing a generic desktop OS that can still fit into 16MB.

What about G5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051333)

Naturaly they won't be available for 64-bit PPC architecture.

Typo? (2, Informative)

TeleKawaru (639739) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051334)

I think they meant "future product releases." You can't say that processors include "Exchange 12, Longhorn Server R2 and Small-Business Edition Longhorn Server"

Re:Typo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051391)

What they really meant was Products-charged-on-a-per-processor-basis releases...

Re:Typo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051463)

Or maybe bits-per-processor basis...

(Shudders)

Good for gamers, bad for companies (3, Insightful)

lightweave (522226) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051336)

I guess this is good news for gamers. If MS starts to enforce 64Bit machines, then game developers will also turn around and start making more for 64Bit machines. Of course this will still take some time as the 32Bit machines will still be available for quite some time. As for companies it is probalby not so nice, because MS constantly forces them to upgrade without need. And as somebody else said: Some time we have to bite the bullet anyway, so why not now?

Re:Good for gamers, bad for companies (2, Insightful)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051398)

companies it is probalby not so nice

Just what I thought. It's enough hassle to update a company full of PCs for a next Windows version. Next they will have to junk all their desktop hardware and not just update the Windows line, but also buy a sh*t load of new hardware. Hardware wendors will _love_ Microsoft for this move. I guess Dell will owe them one.

Re:Good for gamers, bad for companies (1)

lightweave (522226) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051446)

In my company we already had this kind of problem. About 1400 PCs were replaced because we were still running NT4.0 which would have suited our needs quite fine. Since MS doesn't support it anymore, we had to upgrade to W2K and consequently replaced also the hardware because it was rather old. Of course personall I'm more happy with the newer machine, but from the business point of view it wouldn't have been required as W2K offers us nothing that we need.

Re:Good for gamers, bad for companies (1)

Imsdal (930595) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051500)

This is at least four years away, and will be done over several years. This was very undramatic and in fact a non-issue when going from 3.11 to 95. I do not expect it to be a major issue this time either.

Re:Good for gamers, bad for companies (1)

Seraphnote (655201) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051442)

And this being FORCED is EXACTLY why corporations should wean themselves off of Microsoft.
I certainly am going to try and convert my company away from Microsoft.
Fortunately everytime they do one of these complete paradigm shifts, they toss business-reasons to give up the Microsoft software products right into our laps.
Unfortunately most companies probably don't have someone who's been bitten one to many times by M$ to say "Hey, we don't need to keep doing this." and to add a cold dose of reality to counter the M$ marketing hounds that get unleashed everytime they do one of these overhauls.

Re:Good for gamers, bad for companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051513)

Yeah - you people here are so hypocritical. When Apple does things like this
(no PCI ports for example), then everyone is lauding them for being innovative
and that it is cool that legacy stuff gets kicked out - but when MS does it,
it's obviously evil...

Digg.com did it again (-1, Offtopic)

axonis (640949) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051356)

This story was posted much earlier on digg.com, what is going to happen to slashdot ?.

Check out digg vs dot [diggvsdot.com] to see how slashdot is falling behind this new upstart site that allows its own readers to select stories, not editors.

Re:Digg.com did it again (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051406)

Stop fucking whoring Digg so blatantly . you are giving the site a bad reputation

Re:Digg.com did it again (2, Funny)

cloudturtle (260857) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051413)

Slashdot is only falling behind because that site doesn't include all the dupes.

Re:Digg.com did it again (1)

axonis (640949) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051498)

I agree !!

Re:Digg.com did it again (1, Informative)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051516)

Huh, digg. kuro5hin.org [kuro5hin.org] did it first, and fark.com [fark.com] does it funnier. When will you begin cross-promoting with myspace?

Re:Digg.com did it again (0, Offtopic)

axonis (640949) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051552)

cool sites --> thanks !

Chief Big Heap has spoken (2, Interesting)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051364)

First of all, yes this is probably a good move on their part. Yet, its not like they can dictate anything. Yes, they have a monopoly but there are cracks in it. There are alternatives now. The really ironic thing is they're talking up 64bit but they were the last to even have compatibility for it.

Please, somebody parse this sentence: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051372)

they will require 64-bit instruction set processors (AMD64/EMT64) for all future processor releases
So Microsoft is going to require 64 bit processors for all the processors Microsoft(not a hardware company) releases? My brain hurts....

Mailbox size?!? (5, Funny)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051374)

From the article: "IT professionals will be able to consolidate the total number of servers running 64-bit (processors) and users will be able to have bigger mailbox size."

How big are these mailboxes that you need 64-bit processing space??? *boggle*

Re:Mailbox size?!? (2, Funny)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051410)

Don't worry. 64-bit SPAM is coming any day now...

Re:Mailbox size?!? (3, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051417)

How big are these mailboxes that you need 64-bit processing space??? *boggle*

I knew that goddamned HTML mail would lead to this!

-jcr

Not quite (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051376)

I guess we have to bite this bullet sometime... if we don't build from source.

To all my homies running 386SX, ARM and 68020 print servers: Open source repruhzent!

Duke Nukem SixtyForEver (2, Funny)

0110011001110101 (881374) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051389)

Good lord... won't a required move to 64 bit architecture put all those gaming addicts with drug addictions into a heroin induced frenzy? I mean if you think it's hard to kick the 32 bit habit.. now they'll be selling their own mothers to get the next copy of Duke Nukem 64ever...

oh Bob, (2, Funny)

in10d (555219) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051392)

you are so brilliant!

"IT professionals will be able to consolidate the total number of servers running 64-bit (processors) and users will be able to have bigger mailbox size," he said.

twice bigger, i guess?

Re:oh Bob, (1)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051459)

4294967296 bigger, actually.

upgrade cycle? (2, Insightful)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051394)

And whoever said that Microsoft was a key player in forcing people to upgrade their hardware?!?

Biting the bullet (2)

harris s newman (714436) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051399)

"I guess we have to bite this bullet sometime." means changing operating systems to an open one which isn't so restrictive.

Great!! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051401)

Now even Microsoft has a reason not to worry about bloat software...those 64bit CPU requirements will help keep the current trends of bloated code for years to come!

What's the old line "Buy a 4893439834392MHZ CPU, so you can reboot faster!"

Ok, my daily Microsoft bash is out of the way for today.

I guess we have to bite this bullet sometime. (3, Insightful)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051409)

I guess we have to bite this bullet sometime.

That should be we as in "we MS windows users" that have to bite this bullet thank you very much.

We as in "we people with high memory requirements" will need 64 bits because we actually need them.

Wrong article summary? (5, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051423)

According to News.com Microsoft has said they will require 64-bit instruction set processors (AMD64/EMT64) for all future processor releases.

I think "all" should be "some" and "processor releases" should be "software releases"... Here's CNET's take on it:

Microsoft said some upcoming products, including its Exchange 12 e-mail server, will run only on 64-bit processors.

It seems to be mostly a focus on 64-bit server products from now on to me, and far from a total switch to 64-bit.

Room to Make Demands (1)

Razorblade_Romance (931485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051434)

For a failing company, Microsoft sure is making a lot of demands. What's that old saying? 'Beggars can't be choosers'?

Re:Room to Make Demands (2, Interesting)

level_headed_midwest (888889) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051543)

Heh, you're seeing them in full-panic-attack mode. TCPA, DRM, new Office file formats, and now this is just exemplifying how MSFT knows they are losing ground. They are giving a huge last shot at lock-in with the DRM, file formats and getting people to buy a new server with Windows licenses before Linux gets to be way too good of a choice to simply ignore.

My prediction is that if TCPA/DRM/new Office 12 file formats fail to have market penetration, MSFT will take a HUGE hit in the next five years and lose their majority in ten.

A Good Thing, Maybe (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051447)

Because typing
cd C:\\Program\ Files\ \(x86\)\\ ...
in bash is killing me.

Other requirements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051455)

4GB memory minimum
1GB graphics card
12.1 192bit surround sound card
IPv6 ;)

Isn't it a bit early to require 64-bit? (1, Troll)

cloudmaster (10662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051467)

I mean, just a short while ago, MS didn't even have an OS that worked properly (ie, utilized more than 32-bit compatibility) on 64-bit processors. I find it difficult to believe that they're so confident in their code's stability and have adequately tested it... Oh, yeah, this is MS, company who forces upgrades for extra fluff features rather than real usability, functionality, or stability. Nevermind.

Seriously? (3, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051475)

There is no problems with linux pumping out binaries for x86, x86-64, PowerPC, ARM, and a multitude of other architectures. Why does windows only run on 1 type of processor? Wouldn't they have a much bigger market segment if the allowed you to run it on a larger variety of hardware? Microsoft used to have an Alpha version of NT. Did nobody want it? or was it just so bad that nobody could use it? This move will make more people shy away from upgrading their MS software. Software upgrades usually aren't *that* expensive, but if you have to upgrade your servers just to upgrade your software, then a lot less people will be doing it.

Updates for this quote (5, Funny)

cciRRus (889392) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051487)

In view of the future 64-bit requirement, can anyone update this neat quote?

Windows 9x: noun. A collection of 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor. Written by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

--- Anonymous

Re:Updates for this quote (5, Funny)

sucker_muts (776572) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051570)

Longhorn: noun. A 64-bit recompile of a collection of 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor. Written by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

Easy enough, or could it be better?

Because, all anyone would need.... (1)

hcob$ (766699) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051506)

Is a 64-bit 5GHz processor, with .5TB ram, .25TB video ram, LN2 based cooling system and 6TB Hard drive......

Re:Because, all anyone would need.... (1)

cciRRus (889392) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051524)

Or just use Linux and you may stick to your Pentium 3 system.

ReactOS an alternative for Companies? (4, Interesting)

lightweave (522226) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051509)

If you don't know what ReactOS is, it is a replacement for Windows which aims to get 100% binary compatible. http://www.reactos.org/ [reactos.org]
Just like Wine does on Linux, but with the advantage that there is no Linux underneath it. It is a fully working OS on it's own.

One of the initial motivations for this project was to brake this MS enforced cycle, and so far they made good progress. They are already capable of running some serious stuff like Unreal Tournament (Serious in terms of implementation not neccessarily for companies :) ). Of course there is a long way to go still, but since the aim is to stay binary compatible, if they progress as good as in teh last two years, then this could become a serious thread if it would be adopted by companies to avoid hardware changes when they don't even need them. And of course, since it is an Open Source OS you still have room for improvement and fixing of exploits that may be discovered. Which is more than you can expect from a Microsoft Windows.

Like we didn't see this coming (1, Interesting)

Autonomous Crowhard (205058) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051517)

One of the reasons for doing is this is to force people to upgrade.

Let's fgace facts, Longwait and Office 2**n have nothing compelling enough to warant upgrading. But this move ensures that you will not be able to find any 64 bit machines that don't have them on it (Even if you don't want them at all)

Plain and simple... It's their attempt at replicating Windows 95 all over again.

64-bit processors ought to be enough for anybody (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14051547)

We will soon be looking back at the 64-bit processor as archaic and quaint.

mo3 Up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14051565)

be on a wrong ir3.secsup.org or mo3 points and out of bed in the Disgust, or been
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?