A Digital Age Deserves A Digital Leader

XP or Vista - Which is more at risk from Windows 7?

Re: XP or Vista - Which is more at risk from Windows 7?

Postby NT50 » Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:56 pm

As far as I am concerned I wish MS would bite the bullet and produce 64 bit OS and software only that will not run 32 bit at all.
Give the OEMs and hardware/software mfg 1 year to get aboard and then quict supplying updates or support or anything for the older software.
Let the strong survive per say.
Dogs Have Owners; Cats Have Staff
PROfessional Member
User avatar
Posts: 8220
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: Jackson, TN USA
Real Name: Jeff Replogle

Re: XP or Vista - Which is more at risk from Windows 7?

Postby gries818 » Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:58 pm

Apple's doing that with Snow Leopard... I'm quite looking forward to have the completely rewritten 64 bit Applications.
Image

Mac OS 10.6.7 - Personal
Ubuntu Server 11.04 - Server
Software Development
User avatar
Posts: 3991
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:28 pm

Re: XP or Vista - Which is more at risk from Windows 7?

Postby imnuts » Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:09 am

I say that Windows 7 is the last desktop OS to be 32/64 bit. You can't get any of the server products in 32-bit anymore (except home server AFAIK). There are a lot of open-source and smaller programs making the leap to 64-bit as well. 7-zip, WinRAR, and Media Player classic all have a 64 bit version available. Many video codecs have 64 bit versions as well. I feel like getting Office 2010 released as 64-bit will encourage other developers to move to that platform as well, and should hopefully be a wakeup call that full 64-bit is not far behind. I can't imagine how fast Windows would be if they went fully 64-bit and dropped all the 32/16bit codebase and other files from the system.
Image
PRO SUPREME
User avatar
Posts: 7457
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:19 am
Location: Boothwyn, Pennsylvania
Real Name: Mark

Re: XP or Vista - Which is more at risk from Windows 7?

Postby gries818 » Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:43 am

imnuts wrote:I say that Windows 7 is the last desktop OS to be 32/64 bit. You can't get any of the server products in 32-bit anymore (except home server AFAIK). There are a lot of open-source and smaller programs making the leap to 64-bit as well. 7-zip, WinRAR, and Media Player classic all have a 64 bit version available. Many video codecs have 64 bit versions as well. I feel like getting Office 2010 released as 64-bit will encourage other developers to move to that platform as well, and should hopefully be a wakeup call that full 64-bit is not far behind. I can't imagine how fast Windows would be if they went fully 64-bit and dropped all the 32/16bit codebase and other files from the system.


Yeah I can see that. Though I don't see the 64 bit OS as a transition that many home users will see very much... but I could be wrong.
Image

Mac OS 10.6.7 - Personal
Ubuntu Server 11.04 - Server
Software Development
User avatar
Posts: 3991
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:28 pm

Re: XP or Vista - Which is more at risk from Windows 7?

Postby JabbaPapa » Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:34 am

imnuts wrote:I say that Windows 7 is the last desktop OS to be 32/64 bit. You can't get any of the server products in 32-bit anymore (except home server AFAIK).


There *is* a 32-bit version of Server 2008, and the Home Server is based on Server 2003 and furthermore 32-bit *only* IIRC

Vista was supposed to be the final 32-bit desktop Client OS from Microsoft, so look how that went :lol:
Image
PRO VETERAN
User avatar
Posts: 9538
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:17 pm
Location: Monte-Carlo
Real Name: Julian Lord

Re: XP or Vista - Which is more at risk from Windows 7?

Postby gries818 » Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:28 am

JabbaPapa wrote:
imnuts wrote:I say that Windows 7 is the last desktop OS to be 32/64 bit. You can't get any of the server products in 32-bit anymore (except home server AFAIK).


There *is* a 32-bit version of Server 2008, and the Home Server is based on Server 2003 and furthermore 32-bit *only* IIRC

Vista was supposed to be the final 32-bit desktop Client OS from Microsoft, so look how that went :lol:


I suppose they didn't think they were going to have to replace it so fast though so that might account for why they did 7 in 32 bit
Image

Mac OS 10.6.7 - Personal
Ubuntu Server 11.04 - Server
Software Development
User avatar
Posts: 3991
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:28 pm

Re: XP or Vista - Which is more at risk from Windows 7?

Postby imnuts » Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:00 am

From what I've read, Windows 7 is basically meant to replace Vista completely. They probably want to get as much of Vista gone as possible. In the process, they want to make XP disappear as well since it's been available for nearly a decade now, so the 32 bit version is to get the XP folks to upgrade as I'm guessing that most XP folks don't have hardware that could support 64 bit. I'd say that most systems still around that have XP on them should be able to run W7 fairly well. I have it installed on an old Dell laptop that has 512MB of RAM and it works fine, and the dedicated graphics allow for transparency even. The other thing to think about is that MS is marketing heavily in the netbook segment as well, and I don't think that the Intel Atom processors that are in most of them are capable of 64bit instructions yet, but I could be wrong. It actually wouldn't surprise me if they fork at some point and start developing a different OS just for netbooks at some point, depending on how hardware advances in that segment compared to the deskop and full size laptop arena over the next couple of years.
Image
PRO SUPREME
User avatar
Posts: 7457
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:19 am
Location: Boothwyn, Pennsylvania
Real Name: Mark

Re: XP or Vista - Which is more at risk from Windows 7?

Postby JabbaPapa » Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:15 am

imnuts wrote:... I don't think that the Intel Atom processors that are in most of them are capable of 64bit instructions yet, but I could be wrong.


Atom CPUs are, I believe, perfectly capable of handling the x64 instructions -- but many of the netbooks that incorporate them do not have the official 1GB RAM requirement of the 64-bit version of W7.
Image
PRO VETERAN
User avatar
Posts: 9538
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:17 pm
Location: Monte-Carlo
Real Name: Julian Lord

Re: XP or Vista - Which is more at risk from Windows 7?

Postby imnuts » Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:51 pm

JabbaPapa wrote:
imnuts wrote:... I don't think that the Intel Atom processors that are in most of them are capable of 64bit instructions yet, but I could be wrong.


Atom CPUs are, I believe, perfectly capable of handling the x64 instructions -- but many of the netbooks that incorporate them do not have the official 1GB RAM requirement of the 64-bit version of W7.


Looking at Wikipedia (which is by no means official), it seems that some Atom processors can handle x86-64, but the ones that are shipping in most netbooks can't and only support x86.
Image
PRO SUPREME
User avatar
Posts: 7457
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:19 am
Location: Boothwyn, Pennsylvania
Real Name: Mark

Re: XP or Vista - Which is more at risk from Windows 7?

Postby Ztrl » Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:28 pm

Atom processors are x86 only. Some of the newer models like the Z520+ have virtualization technology and the N270+ have Hyper Threading.
All these years women have had slogans to confuse us. When a woman says "no" she means no. When a man says "yes" it means he pobably hasn't understood the question.


Intel Atom N270
Intel 945 Integrated Chipset
2GB RAM
160GB HD
Windows 7 Ultimate
PRO Level 3
User avatar
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:29 pm
Location: US

PreviousNext

Return to General Windows Support

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests