My reason for Microsoft to exclude a 32-Bit verson of Vista.

[Das Capitolin]

As everyone knows by now, Microsoft plans on releasing it's new Operating System in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. I disagree with their decision, and will lend insight to why it should only be a 64-bit O/S.

To begin with, the new release of an Operating System is at its core meant to accomplish one single thing: Improvement. You can change the look and feel of an O/S, but that cannot be called an improvement to the O/S. A true improvement will reduce problematic features, and introduce new features. While Vista may introduce new features, it will do so on two seperate foundations.

The mansion that is Windows Vista can be built with a nice solid foundation based on the technology developed in this current market (64-bit), or it can built on a ten year old technology (32-bit). Just in those terms alone, 32-bit seems like it would be a step back for the Operating System. But just what exactly does it limit you to? Well, the new bigger and better Windows Vista will be limited to functioning on less then 4GB or RAM. Your CPU will more then likely support 64-bit architecture, but it will be forced to operate the less efficient 32-bit code. In addition, hardware manufacturers will be more apt to resist 64-bit development if the majority of users remain on a 32-bit platform.

In conclusion, a 64-bit Windows Vista will give the users what they really need: room to grow. Users can add up to 8GB or RAM, have larger hard disks available to the O/S, and directories can hold more files. A 64-bit Windows Vista also gives the hardware industry what it needs: reason to progress forward, and a demographic to build technology around. How can a user be happy with an Operating System that yearns for more power then a 32-bit system can happily offer? It can't. A 32-bit Windows Vista does only one thing: dissappoints the user.

[werty316]

Vista would be toast if there was only a 64-bit version and there isn't any driver and application support like WinXP 64-bit.

[tomato]

Gotta agree with Das on Vista being 64-bit only... we need evolution! Vista could be held back if M$ continues to develop technology for both versions, they need to make a decision and stick with it.

[Das Capitolin]

Vista would be toast if there was only a 64-bit version and there isn't any driver and application support like WinXP 64-bit.

This is not true. Presently there are all kinds of 64-drivers for the Beta release of Vista, and this assumes that Vista won't already have the driver in its library. In addition, with every new O/S the vendor puts out a new driver or modifies an existing one, which could easily be done here. Your point is null, IMHO.

[werty316]

Who cares if there is a 32-bit and 64-bit version as you'll obviously get the 64-bit version. Let Mircosoft waste their cash by developing a 32-bit and 64-bit version. Remember that the average joe user won't be thinking that deep as you did.

There were 64-bit drivers for WinXP and its bunk. Time will tell for Vista.

Never assume either as it make an ass of you and me.

[Das Capitolin]

Who care if there is a 32-bit and 64-bit version as you'll obviously get the 64-bit version. Let Mircosoft waste their cash by developing a 32-bit and 64-bit version. Remember that the average joe user won't be thinking that deep as you did.

Did you even read my post? :confused:

Let me answer why someone should care about the difference by quoting my conclusion: "In conclusion, a 64-bit Windows Vista will give the users what they really need: room to grow. Users can add up to 8GB or RAM, have larger hard disks available to the O/S, and directories can hold more files. A 64-bit Windows Vista also gives the hardware industry what it needs: reason to progress forward, and a demographic to build technology around."

[werty316]

XP doesn't support large HDs? 750GB is large to me and who is gonna have 8GBs of ram. By the time 8GBs is the standard, if it gets to that, most likely there will be a new OS. Its every users choice as to what bit version of Vista they want to use and Mircosoft has most likely thought of this. I mean you have to think about the none computer savvy people too who really don't think about those points you stated. You could phone Microsoft and ask them why they are gonna release a 32-bit version.

Restating your post doesn't answer my post you quoted and yes I read your post.

[Das Capitolin]

XP doesn't support large HDs? 750GB is large to me and who is gonna have 8GBs of ram. By the time 8GBs is the standard, if it gets to that, most likely there will be a new OS. Its every users choice as to waht bit version they want and Mircosoft has most likely thought of this. Microoft aren't dumb so phone them ans ask them why they are gonna release a 3-bit ersion. I mean you have to think about the none computer savvy people too who really don't think about those features..

Windows XP was released in very late in 2001. It has been almost five years that it has been around. I am already building systems for people who request 4GB of RAM on a regular basis. I expect that Vista will be around for at least four years or more, and that it will easily see the dawn of an 8GB RAM hungry user in that time. Stick with 32-bit and you will see what I mean in two years.

[werty316]

I won't be using the 32-bit version of Vista if I do get it. I mean I am not your average user who doesn't know sqaut about computers. You have to remember not every user has a 64-bit CPU so a user with a 32-bit CPU can't use 64-bit Vista so what could they use then?

[GIBSON]

I won't be using the 32-bit version of Vista if I do get it. I mean I am not your average user who doesn't know sqaut about computers. You have to remember not every user has a 64-bit CPU so a user with a 32-bit CPU can't use 64-bit Vista so what could they use then?
The not so savy computer users which are still running 32-bit cpu's don't expect their rigs to be able to run vista. So your point kind of ends there IMHO.
I have to totally agree with Das here. Doing so will only hold back the technological advacements, plus it will keep vista delayed. Vista would probably have a lot less bugs if they were to focus on 64-bit alone. The more versions there are, the more complex it gets for the programmers to work without making errors.

[Das Capitolin]

Vista would probably have a lot less bugs if they were to focus on 64-bit alone. The more versions there are, the more complex it gets for the programmers to work without making errors.

I am surprised that I didn't even think of this as another reason to stay 64-bit only in the Vista release. It really would make a difference is release time, as well since they wouldn't have to double code Vista.

[werty316]

The not so savy computer users which are still running 32-bit cpu's don't expect their rigs to be able to run vista. So your point kind of ends there IMHO.
I have to totally agree with Das here. Doing so will only hold back the technological advacements, plus it will keep vista delayed. Vista would probably have a lot less bugs if they were to focus on 64-bit alone. The more versions there are, the more complex it gets for the programmers to work without making errors.

I guess you haven't read the requirements? You are saying someone with a AXP can't run it even though the minumin requirement is 800MHz CPU? Microsoft has to think of every user as not everyone has a 64-bit CPU. If Microsoft ony made a 64-bit version alot of users would be alienated. Why do you think there are five versions. There is a 64-bit version so whats there to complain about? All you need to do is ignore the 32-bit version in your mind.

[GIBSON]

I guess you haven't read the requirements? You are saying someone with a AXP can't run it even though the minumin requirement is 800MHz CPU? Microsoft has to think of every user as not everyone has a 64-bit CPU. If Microsoft ony made a 64-bit version alot of users would be alienated. Why do you think there are five versions. There is a 64-bit version so whats there to complain about? All you need to do is ignore the 32-bit version in your mind.
I didn't say it won't run it. I said the average joe wouldn't expect his old machine to run it. This is like one of those situation where the average joe/not so savy consumer says: "I'll wait out on buying a new pc until that new Windows thing comes out, whatever it's called. It'll sure be too heavy for that old vacuum cleaner of mine."

[Kougar]

From a business standpoint, I think it would have been wrong of MS to not release a 32bit OS. Firstly if you log on to dell.com or better yet walk into any store selling computers, a sizeable portion of these will still be selling with only 32bit processors. Most Semprons, all Celerons, all Pentium Ms, about half of the Pentium 4s, a few models of Pentium Ds, and even all Core Duo based systems do not support 64bit processing. If I walked into the local computer store, more than half of the retail boxed processors on their shelves are NOT 64-bit capable. CompUSA would be about the same judging by their instore displays, although to a slightly less degree. A quick search on NewEgg yielded quite a few there too, and this isn't even mentioning those people still buying AMD socket A processors from these places.

Most users at this present time do not use even 1gig of RAM, let alone 2gb. The 4gb RAM limitation will not be an issue until the next round of OSs in my opinion, and by that time I do believe MS will only release 64bit OSs. Hard disk size limitations will be fixed in Vista anyway.

Those users that know what they are doing well simply buy a 64bit Vista, and that's fine. MS would have been given a very bad black eye and raked over the coals of the television airwaves for not releasing a 32bit Vista if they had tried to do so.

[GIBSON]

From a business standpoint, I think it would have been wrong of MS to not release a 32bit OS. Firstly if you log on to dell.com or better yet walk into any store selling computers, a sizeable portion of these will still be selling with only 32bit processors. Most Semprons, all Celerons, all Pentium Ms, about half of the Pentium 4s, a few models of Pentium Ds, and even all Core Duo based systems do not support 64bit processing. If I walked into the local computer store, more than half of the retail boxed processors on their shelves are NOT 64-bit capable. CompUSA would be about the same judging by their instore displays, although to a slightly less degree. A quick search on NewEgg yielded quite a few there too, and this isn't even mentioning those people still buying AMD socket A processors from these places.

Most users at this present time do not use even 1gig of RAM, let alone 2gb. The 4gb RAM limitation will not be an issue until the next round of OSs in my opinion, and by that time I do believe MS will only release 64bit OSs. Hard disk size limitations will be fixed in Vista anyway.

Those users that know what they are doing well simply buy a 64bit Vista, and that's fine. MS would have been given a very bad black eye and raked over the coals of the television airwaves for not releasing a 32bit Vista if they had tried to do so.
Except for the pentium M and the core duo, it would have been just right. It would make sure that everyone who wants to run the latest OS gets some decent hardware (most people will already do so anyway, so if microsoft would only release a 64-bit OS they would send out a clear signal to the buyers to buy a 64-bit system as to be future proof.) The ones that would be protesting would be the resellers/hardware manufacturers as they would have a lot of "32-bit crap" in stock that they'd have a hard time selling with.

[werty316]

Not everyone can afford to shell out the cash for a new rig. By having a 32-bit and 64-bit version, its more money in Microsoft's wallet. Kougar (http://www.bjorn3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=42054&postcount=14) has a good point.

[Das Capitolin]

Except for the pentium M and the core duo, it would have been just right. It would make sure that everyone who wants to run the latest OS gets some decent hardware (most people will already do so anyway, so if microsoft would only release a 64-bit OS they would send out a clear signal to the buyers to buy a 64-bit system as to be future proof.) The ones that would be protesting would be the resellers/hardware manufacturers as they would have a lot of "32-bit crap" in stock that they'd have a hard time selling with.

I wonder if this will still be the case in Q1 2007? I think that by that time the OEM's will have already made a big push towards 64-bit computing, and system builders will have done the same in effort to future proof new systems.

[GIBSON]

I wonder if this will still be the case in Q1 2007? I think that by that time the OEM's will have already made a big push towards 64-bit computing, and system builders will have done the same in effort to future proof new systems.
I think they'll only start doing that when they've got rid of all their 32-bit stock. Only future will tell though, but that's my idea.

[Kougar]

I wonder if this will still be the case in Q1 2007? I think that by that time the OEM's will have already made a big push towards 64-bit computing, and system builders will have done the same in effort to future proof new systems.

It would only happen if AMD stopped shipping 32bit only Semprons, and Intel stopped shipping 32bit only Celeron Ds. I don't see either of which happening anytime in the near future... Even 32bit Pentium 4s are still being sold. Heck, people think the 478socket platform has been dead for more than a year, but Dell is still currently selling socket478 Prescott Celeron Ds aplenty across their entire entry level catagory.

While Merom and Turion 64 will finally bring x64 capability to the mobile market segment, both of them will likely take almost a full year to mostly displace what is currently there. And neither one will impact the mobile Celeron and Sempron entry level systems that comprise a portion of that market.

[s_gibson]

Wow some of you are very naive as to what people want, need and are buying. To ship a 32bit only operating system would hurt Microsoft rather than help it. Business is an important part of Microsoft's strategy and not every business will want or consider buying 100's of NEW computers just to get the NEW operating system to upgrade to the latest version of the software that runs their companies.

The company I work for I could easily see popping $200 per license for new operating systems for the nearly 300 computers on the network. ($60,000) To tell them that over half their PC's are too obsolete to run it would not only decrease the number of license Microsoft would sell, it would almost hold an entire company back to the older operating system. We are currently running about a dozen 2000 Pro machines, because the drivers were not mature enough for some of our software when the XP upgrades when company wide. If XP had not run on the other 200+ we would probably only have about 100 or so on XP and Gates would be out about $30,000. I'm sure $30,000 isn't going to break the big guy, but think about the model our company uses and multiply it by other like minded companies. Yep, that is a lot of money lost do to a lack of support for old but not near obsolete machines.

Microsoft is smart enough to know that it stands to gain a lot more in the way of license sales by catering to older machines, than aiming an operating system to a handfull of home user that thinks because he has the latest hardware on the shelves the entire planet should.

[Tank]

@ s_gibson

:lol: Well maybe your company can hire Das Capitolin as there sales, marketing, manager-specialist, reasearcher.. ..and lead them to doom. ;-)

[Das Capitolin]

@ s_gibson

:lol: Well maybe your company can hire Das Capitolin as there sales, marketing, manager-specialist, reasearcher.. ..and lead them to doom. ;-)

Is this supposed to be a put-down for me? If I ran his IT department I wouldn't be upgrading to Vista on old boxes in the first place, I would retiring and replacing them where necessary. There isn't enough reason for 300 systems to go from Windows XP Pro to Vista, not for the parts and labor costs. Besides Tank, the companies I manage are very pleased with my service.

Thanks for your well thought out contribution to this thread.

[s_gibson]

@ s_gibson

:lol: Well maybe your company can hire Das Capitolin as there sales, marketing, manager-specialist, reasearcher.. ..and lead them to doom. ;-)

I wasn't trying to take shots at anyone, just adding my thoughts to it. Hope is didn't come across as a slight on anyone.

[Tank]

Is this supposed to be a put-down for me? If I ran..
Thanks for your well thought out contribution to this thread.

No harm intended, everyone has there opinions. I just think that Microsoft has a huge base of users, not just home users, but companys and tons of software,hardware partners that it needs to support in order to make money and because of this Vista (like XP) will have backwards compatibillity with programs and hardware and not a new "grounds up super stable compact" system. THIS is the main reason for delays, cause of bugs and huge filesize, not the 32bit-64bit development process. Simply put the market and obviously Microsoft is not yet ready for such a drastic step and "most" people see this like I so there are no reason in my opinion for me to exclude 32-bit version of Vista in fact I'll be probably useing it. :wink: Thanks

[GIBSON]

Well, my first idea would be to get a 32-bit business version out, but then again some of the smarter home users would start complaining. I guess I'm going to have to agree that microsoft was kind of forced to get a 32bit version out there in this timeframe. I'm pretty confident they'll go 64-bit only with it's follow-up though, as by then there would be absolutely no reason not to.
BTW tank, that did seem like flaming Das, so please leave that kind of remarks behind mkay? ;)

[Das Capitolin]

Microsoft gives gift with 32-bit version of Vista: Vista Lemon-Lime Soda.

The Insider: Microsoft rolls out Windows Vista, the soft drink

You won't find Windows Vista in stores this year -- but on the Microsoft campus, it's already in the refrigerators.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20060731/INSIDERSODA.jpg
Special-edition cans of Talking Rain sparkling water, sporting the logo for the upcoming operating system, have been stocked among the other free sodas available to the company's employees. It's a promotion for the preliminary version of the program, pointing employees to an internal Windows Vista site.
Presumably, the actual operating system won't be available in lemon-lime.
THIS PROBLEM IS LICKED: Contrary to what Microsoft's competitors might say, innovative thinking is alive and well inside the company.
At least it is if Bryan Weinstein is a representative example. The 44-year-old program manager in the company's product activation group attracted attention inside Microsoft last week with a letter to the editor of the internal "Micronews" publication.
It began like this: "I wanted to know if there is any danger to licking our smart cards."
Employees at Microsoft and elsewhere commonly insert such cards into their computers to authenticate themselves on the corporate network when working remotely. But Weinstein says his card stopped working a while back, and the only way he could get it working again was to lick the metallic contact point on the back that makes the connection to the card reader.

Story: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/279428_theinsider31.html

[GIBSON]

Microsoft gives gift with 32-bit version of Vista: Vista Lemon-Lime Soda.

The Insider: Microsoft rolls out Windows Vista, the soft drink

You won't find Windows Vista in stores this year -- but on the Microsoft campus, it's already in the refrigerators.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20060731/INSIDERSODA.jpg
Special-edition cans of Talking Rain sparkling water, sporting the logo for the upcoming operating system, have been stocked among the other free sodas available to the company's employees. It's a promotion for the preliminary version of the program, pointing employees to an internal Windows Vista site.
Presumably, the actual operating system won't be available in lemon-lime.
THIS PROBLEM IS LICKED: Contrary to what Microsoft's competitors might say, innovative thinking is alive and well inside the company.
At least it is if Bryan Weinstein is a representative example. The 44-year-old program manager in the company's product activation group attracted attention inside Microsoft last week with a letter to the editor of the internal "Micronews" publication.
It began like this: "I wanted to know if there is any danger to licking our smart cards."
Employees at Microsoft and elsewhere commonly insert such cards into their computers to authenticate themselves on the corporate network when working remotely. But Weinstein says his card stopped working a while back, and the only way he could get it working again was to lick the metallic contact point on the back that makes the connection to the card reader.

Story: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/279428_theinsider31.html
Doesn't seem like this will be getting out of the campus though, would be a cool collectors' item I guess.

[werty316]

Does that drink include a bug or virus free of charge? :lol:

[SwedBear]

While I see Das and GIBSOn's points and can agree that it would be nice to force people towards 64-bit CPU's and such I kind of think you guys are a bit naive and only see a smaller view of the picture.

The same reason we still see 32-bit versions of Linux is why we will see 32-bit versions of Vista: to cater for all those with a bit older machines or machines that don't support 64-bit yet.

Us savy hard-core users will of course want the 64-bit version of Vista. I think there will be enough of us to get the vendors to continue to create 64-bit drivers. However - Microsoft also wants to reach all those with older computers that today run 2000 or XP. They might not be able to run Vista with all bells and whistles but they will be able to run Vista with Aero turned off, just like slower computers today run XP fine when you turn off some stuff (I got a PIII600 notebook with 256 MB mem that runs XP fine at home).

If MS didn't release a 32-bit version the alternative for these users would be

1/ Stay with the OS they got
2/ Buy a completely new rig
3/ Move to an alternative OS

MS definitely want people to move to Vista, even if it is a cheaper version without the visual enhancements. Less people running the older OS's means they can quicker retire the support and patching for them.

And as for companies. I think there's even more important that they have an 32-bit version since it will be even harder to get companies to upgrade if you are saying that they will need to upgrade all their hardware to.

I do however as I said understand and kind of agree that it would be nice if we could force people to move to 64-bit. My guess is though that it will be the next OS that will only be available in 64-bit.

This discussion kind of reminds me of the state of videro cards and what games requier/support. We all would like games to requier only the latest and fastest video cards so that the developers can concentrate on making the game as good and as fast as possible. Kind of where consoles are (develop for one feature-set). The reality though is that developers have to cater for all those who have slower video cards or even (shudder) integrated Intel video. Otherwise they won't sell much games.

According to Jon Peddie Research Intel actually had the largest market-share in Q2 2006 with 40% followed by ATI with 26% and NVIDIA with 20%.

Does anyone have stats on what the market-share is for different CPU's? Curious how many 64-bit capable CPU's are out there right now compared to the non-64-bit ones.

/B

[Bio-Hazard]

Well put and I agree 100% with what you're saying. I live in a extremely repressed part of my state out in the country where about 99.9% of the computers are not 64 bit. The folks out here are farmers, ranchers and the like who do not have the cash to put out for a new machine but they do like to keep their OS as current at the cost allows. If MS required/forced folks to upgrade HW they would lose out on the vast majority of ed users in middle America or from the mid to lower income part of the users in the world.

[Das Capitolin]

Well put and I agree 100% with what you're saying. I live in a extremely repressed part of my state out in the country where about 99.9% of the computers are not 64 bit. The folks out here are farmers, ranchers and the like who do not have the cash to put out for a new machine but they do like to keep their OS as current at the cost allows. If MS required/forced folks to upgrade HW they would lose out on the vast majority of ed users in middle America or from the mid to lower income part of the users in the world.

When I hear this arguement, I have to wonder the obvious. Why is someone with no budget going to upgrade their O/S for a couple hundred dollars when it will not add any major improvements? Furthermore, if you are going to drop a couple hundred just for the new name, why not go the distance? :confused:

[werty316]

Vista is bloated so far and not everyone is rich to get the fastest computers.

[GIBSON]

When I hear this arguement, I have to wonder the obvious. Why is someone with no budget going to upgrade their O/S for a couple hundred dollars when it will not add any major improvements? Furthermore, if you are going to drop a couple hundred just for the new name, why not go the distance? :confused:
Well, exactly my idea. If you aren't having the hardware to run all the bells and whistles, why get it? It would be an expense that wouldn't make sense at all. Look at how many businesses are still running windows 98SE today. They'll keep on supporting it as long as there are users.

[Kougar]

Considering what XP has brought to the table, I think an OS upgrade on an older rig is definitely within the realm of reason. It makes sense to me because it's definitely more user friendly, at least to some degree more secure, and in Vista in particular should be more efficient in some areas. Anyone should upgrade from Win98se to XP simply for the stability unless they run older programs.

Before you start in on the whole "system is to old" or the OS is to bloated to run as well on an older rig... I think that arguement is getting overused and being populated by people that don't know jack about what they are talking about. I've seen some 800mhz linux systems running twice as slow in computational performance in comparison to the same machine with XP, and both XP and the 'nix OSs were using stock installs.

I avoided saying this before, but I still think this 3.42ghz Northwood P4 is a pretty fast system, and regardless that at best it is equivalent to a Athlon 64 3200+ Newcastle it is more then fast enough for Vista. There are faster Northwoods and Prescotts out there that only support 32bit, but Vista with full eye candy is easily doable and runs just fine. This isn't even mentioning that Vista can be run in less demanding modes with less bloat...

[Bio-Hazard]

When I hear this arguement, I have to wonder the obvious. Why is someone with no budget going to upgrade their O/S for a couple hundred dollars when it will not add any major improvements? Furthermore, if you are going to drop a couple hundred just for the new name, why not go the distance? :confused:
Still money......or lack there of............:mrgreen:

[markkleb]

As a programming idiot I have been using XP 64 for over a year. I have only found 1 prob with drivers and that was a Wireless card.(was for a friend) All the games I try (demos) play fine and all my printers have drivers.

I have Vista 32 and 64 bit and right now I am using the 32 bit on my Via Epia PD 1000 mobo (definately not the CPU for Vista) It works but slow. Vista has tons of extra stuff designed to help out. I heard from a friend at microsoft that the Basic Vista will be the same as XP and the Ultimate will be around $400.

I agree it seems dumb to go backwards to 32 when 64 bit is here, The problem seems to be 99% of the world dosent share my thoughts...

[Bio-Hazard]

99% of the world doesn't have 64 bit CPU...........;) Pretty simple really.

[SwedBear]

How is it going backwards if you don't have a 64-bit CPU to start with? no-one is arguing that 64-bit is the future and considering that MS is pushing 64-bit Vista it's not like they trying to be backwards.

But the simple truth is that we can argue how much we want about how everyone should be using 64-bit CPu's and that no-one should be using Vista on a 32-bit CPU anyway but MS has to make a decission from a business-point also. It's impossible for them to make a clean jump from 32-bit to 64-bit. They have to make a transition. Vista is the transisition. Next OS after Vista will be 64-bit only because by then they know that basically everyone has a 64-bit CPU.

I personally see Vista to be much more than just an visual update to XP so I defintiely see a reason for normal users to upgrade even if they don't want to buy a completely new computer (remember that for most normal users the option isn't necessarily to just get a new CPU - they don't know how to upgrade and thus buy a new computer).

Yes - 64-bit is the future and it would have been nice if we could get everyone to just get the 64-bit version but from a business stand-point I still understand MS.

I guess it is our mission as experienced computer users to help our friends and family to upgrade cheap to 64-bit CPU's to speed up the transition. I do that today with video-cards, giving them tips about cheap ATI and NVIDIA cards that support SM3 to help get away from the slow Intel integrated video.

/B

As a programming idiot I have been using XP 64 for over a year. I have only found 1 prob with drivers and that was a Wireless card.(was for a friend) All the games I try (demos) play fine and all my printers have drivers.

I have Vista 32 and 64 bit and right now I am using the 32 bit on my Via Epia PD 1000 mobo (definately not the CPU for Vista) It works but slow. Vista has tons of extra stuff designed to help out. I heard from a friend at microsoft that the Basic Vista will be the same as XP and the Ultimate will be around $400.

I agree it seems dumb to go backwards to 32 when 64 bit is here, The problem seems to be 99% of the world dosent share my thoughts...

[DragonMaster]

and the Ultimate will be around $400.

And will probably have to be the one everyone will have to buy : Some software only works with WinXP Pro, will software programmers do the same thing with Vista?

[SwedBear]

There is software that only works with Pro? Got any examples? Just curious since I never heard of it. Home is the one usually coming with computers here so it sounds odd if you couldn't use software because of that.

[DragonMaster]

I don't remember where I read this, I think it was in a game's specs, only WinXP Pro was listed, but not Home.

[werty316]

I don't remember where I read this, I think it was in a game's specs, only WinXP Pro was listed, but not Home.
I bet that game would work on XP home as the difference between Home and Pro shouldn't affect how a game's compatibility. I never heard of any app/game that worked on Pro that didn't work on Home.

[Bio-Hazard]

Only the extra feature set is differant between Pro and home. The base OS is 100% the same, it shouldn't make a differance one way or the other which version you use in games, except for the added memory required for the extra services included in the Pro version.

[Das Capitolin]

I bet that game would work on XP home as the difference between Home and Pro shouldn't affect how a game's compatibility. I never heard of any app/game that worked on Pro that didn't work on Home.

A game I could see, but there are many applications that require particular services only available to XP Pro.

Thank you all for going off-topic again.

[werty316]

A game I could see, but there are many applications that require particular services only available to XP Pro.
Like what?

[Das Capitolin]

Like what?

Steering another string of mine off-topic? I don't think so.

Maybe I will just start a list of all the vendors who send software to my clients that cannot be run on XP Home, just for you Werty. GlasPac LX comes to mind, and Deltek FMS is another.

[werty316]

So there isn't any whinning and I didn't put your thread off topic please people continue on topic.

[Bio-Hazard]

Steering another string of mine off-topic? I don't think so.

Maybe I will just start a list of all the vendors who send software to my clients that cannot be run on XP Home, just for you Werty. GlasPac LX comes to mind, and Deltek FMS is another.
I do believe that the coment was about games and not what business clients require out of a OS if I remember correctly. And the additional coments were pertaining to games and that the basic OS was the same, the differances were in the additional services that came with the Pro version.

[Das Capitolin]

I was responding to this:

I never heard of any app/game that worked on Pro that didn't work on Home.

I am pretty sure that there are no games which prefer XP Pro over XP Home, but there are a small amount of apps that will not work on Home Edition.

[DragonMaster]

I bet that game would work on XP home as the difference between Home and Pro shouldn't affect how a game's compatibility.

Probably.

but there are a small amount of apps that will not work on Home Edition.

So I wasn't totally wrong, some apps don't work with Home.

[Das Capitolin]

Microsoft cuts ANOTHER feature: full HD playback in 32bit Vista goes

Microsoft revealed today that no 32-bit versions of Windows Vista will be able to play back “next generation high definition protected content” (translation – studio-released BluRay and HD-DVD movies).
By far the majority of PCs use 32-bit processors, because despite AMD’s efforts to push 64-bit CPUs into the marketplace early, Intel’s first widely-promoted 64-bit CPU is the just-released Core 2 Duo.
PC users will now have to choose between a PC that can play high definition content (64 bit) versus one that can potentially run older devices that only have unsigned drivers available (32 bit).
“Signed drivers” are ones that have undergone a Microsoft quality-assurance process and received a digital certificate that certifies them as stable for installation on 64-bit Windows.
Microsoft’s move to drop support for playback of studio-released HD movies on Vista is likely to anger the large number of people who were hoping they could use their existing 32-bit PC with an upgrade version of Vista.
The surprising disclosure was made by Senior Program Manager Steve Riley during a presentation on Windows Vista security at Tech.Ed 2006 Sydney today.
“Any next-generation high definition content will not play in x32 at all,” said Riley.
“This is a decision that the Media Player folks made because there are just too many ways right now for unsigned kernel mode code [to compromise content protection]. The media companies asked us to do this and said they don’t want any of their high definition content to play in x32 at all, because of all of the unsigned malware that runs in kernel mode can get around content protection, so we had to do this,” he said.
Riley then attempted to pre-empt audience concerns over the newly imposed limitation by asking how many of the Tech.Ed attendees currently played high-definition movies at home.
“How many of you have a DVD player that you know can output a proper 1080 line non-interlaced?”
No-one raised their hands.

[Bio-Hazard]

By the time Vista is released, there might be a reason to use the 64 bit version for home use. Right now there just isn't any............
No games, no nothing that is of any use to the average home user.

[GIBSON]

Heh, this might make a push to 64-bit after all :mrgreen:

[DragonMaster]

“Any next-generation high definition content will not play in x32 at all,” said Riley.
“This is a decision that the Media Player folks made because there are just too many ways right now for unsigned kernel mode code [to compromise content protection]. The media companies asked us to do this and said they don’t want any of their high definition content to play in x32 at all, because of all of the unsigned malware that runs in kernel mode can get around content protection, so we had to do this,” he said.
Riley then attempted to pre-empt audience concerns over the newly imposed limitation by asking how many of the Tech.Ed attendees currently played high-definition movies at home.
“How many of you have a DVD player that you know can output a proper 1080 line non-interlaced?”
No-one raised their hands.

Either an other company will release a 32bit player or it will take a few weeks before a 64-bit version of pirate software will exist.

[Kougar]

Well, it also makes since from a performance standpoint. Without GPU acceleration, a 2.8ghz Northwood P4 isn't powerful enough to play back HD content without choppiness. Even after adding in hardware acceleration CPU usage only lowers to somewhere around 60-70%, and I am not sure if those numbers were with sound enabled or not. Now keep in mind most users don't run a "bare" OS install that those numbers were generated from, and you can see a 2.8ghz P4 simply isn't enough. Most 32bit CPUs fall within that performance bracket or lower.

[Absolut352]

I dont really see an issue here. Besides they are doing the consumer and themselves a favor by eliminating the headache.

[Absolut352]

But then while i was looking at another site i see this article.

But the Microsoft representatives said the support will come from third party HD DVD/Blu-ray movie playback software developers like CyberLink who already make DVD playback software. It's up to these developers to determine whether the environment they have set up will meet the environment criteria the "content owners" impose on manufacturers. So that probably no next-gen playback for Vista out of the box.

Article here http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/windows-vista-32bit-can-play-hd-dvd-bluray-movies-196535.php

[GIBSON]

Well, it also makes since from a performance standpoint. Without GPU acceleration, a 2.8ghz Northwood P4 isn't powerful enough to play back HD content without choppiness. Even after adding in hardware acceleration CPU usage only lowers to somewhere around 60-70%, and I am not sure if those numbers were with sound enabled or not. Now keep in mind most users don't run a "bare" OS install that those numbers were generated from, and you can see a 2.8ghz P4 simply isn't enough. Most 32bit CPUs fall within that performance bracket or lower.
Yup, that would be another great reason for MS not do it as well.

[Vaerilis]

Well, it also makes since from a performance standpoint. Without GPU acceleration, a 2.8ghz Northwood P4 isn't powerful enough to play back HD content without choppiness. Even after adding in hardware acceleration CPU usage only lowers to somewhere around 60-70%, and I am not sure if those numbers were with sound enabled or not. Now keep in mind most users don't run a "bare" OS install that those numbers were generated from, and you can see a 2.8ghz P4 simply isn't enough. Most 32bit CPUs fall within that performance bracket or lower.

That's right, I can play 20-30mbps MPEG2 encoded streams (720p or 1080i) smoothly, but whenever I try to watch a 6-8mbps H.264 encoded stream (720p), I encounter some serious chopping.
I don't think there are any 32bit CPUs capable of playing back certain kinds of HD content smoothly. Hardware acceleration helps, but not a lot of people have 32bit CPUs and video cards from the latest HW acceleration-capable series.

[Bio-Hazard]

Vista to support HD DVD, Blu-ray after all?

August 24, 2006 4:06 PM PDT
Microsoft surprised more than a few people on Thursday when one of its developers told a technical crowd in Australia (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apcstart.com%2Fsite %2Fdwarne%2F2006%2F08%2F1139%2Fmicrosoft-cuts-another&siteId=3&oId=2061-10794_3-6109427&ontId=10784&lop=nl.ex) that 32-bit versions of Windows Vista won't be able to play back next-generation high-definition protected content, i.e. commercial Blu-ray and HD DVD discs.
Later Thursday, representatives in the U.S. said that senior program manager Steve Riley was mistaken.
"The information he provided to that audience was incorrect," a representative told CNET News.com. "Playback is possible with Windows Vista in 32-bit."
The decision of whether to offer that support, the representative said, won't be made by Microsoft but rather by the third-party software makers that create DVD playback software, folks like CyberLink (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberlink.com%2F&siteId=3&oId=2061-10794_3-6109427&ontId=10784&lop=nl.ex) and InterVideo (http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intervideo.com%2Fjs p%2FHome.jsp&siteId=3&oId=2061-10794_3-6109427&ontId=10784&lop=nl.ex).
"It is up to the ISVs providing playback solutions to determine whether the intended playback environment, including environments with a 32-bit CPU, meets the performance requirements to allow high-definition playback while supporting the guidelines set forth by the content owners," Microsoft PR manager Adam Anderson said in a statement. "No version of Windows Vista will make a determination as to whether any given piece of content should play back or not."

No comment needed at all really, 32 bit is good to go on all formats. .........;)

http://news.com.com/2061-10794_3-6109427.html?part=rss&tag=6109427&subj=news

[Kougar]

That's right, I can play 20-30mbps MPEG2 encoded streams (720p or 1080i) smoothly, but whenever I try to watch a 6-8mbps H.264 encoded stream (720p), I encounter some serious chopping.
I don't think there are any 32bit CPUs capable of playing back certain kinds of HD content smoothly. Hardware acceleration helps, but not a lot of people have 32bit CPUs and video cards from the latest HW acceleration-capable series.

Exactly! Most vid cards out there are not going to support hardware acceleration with H.264 encoded videos. I saw one person attempt to play clip at only half the screen size on a 64bit enabled 3.4ghz Prescott and it was a slideshow, and a fullscreen vid encoded with H.264 was simply funny to look at, since you couldn't even "watch" it.

[Vaerilis]

Exactly! Most vid cards out there are not going to support hardware acceleration with H.264 encoded videos. I saw one person attempt to play clip at only half the screen size on a 64bit enabled 3.4ghz Prescott and it was a slideshow, and a fullscreen vid encoded with H.264 was simply funny to look at, since you couldn't even "watch" it.

This is the reason why I don't think a lot of people will miss this feature: those who keep their 32 bit CPUs (Bartons, Northwoods, Prescotts...) won't be playing HD movies anyway, and those of us who want to play HD movies will have 64 bit CPUs by the time Vista comes out.
I know I'll be getting a C2D setup soon. The E6300+DS3 combo is just too tempting :)

[nam-ng]

This is the reason why I don't think a lot of people will miss this feature: those who keep their 32 bit CPUs (Bartons, Northwoods, Prescotts...) won't be playing HD movies anyway, and those of us who want to play HD movies will have 64 bit CPUs by the time Vista comes out.
I know I'll be getting a C2D setup soon. The E6300+DS3 combo is just too tempting :)
Actually 32-bit mode is better for playing HD contents than 64-bit mode.

Two 32-bit HD data streams is better than one 64-bit HD data streams on AMD64, four 32-bit HD data streams is better than two 64-bit data streams on AMD64x2. It is called proper data streaming, it's not how big, it's how used.

And the 32-bit HD data streams will still work on older 32-bit processors and older Operating Systems.

[GIBSON]

Actually 32-bit mode is better for playing HD contents than 64-bit mode.

Two 32-bit HD data streams is better than one 64-bit HD data streams on AMD64, four 32-bit HD data streams is better than two 64-bit data streams on AMD64x2. It is called proper data streaming, it's not how big, it's how used.

And the 32-bit HD data streams will still work on older 32-bit processors and older Operating Systems.
First off, why is there a difference between 32-bit and 64-bit performancewise? Second, why would anyone play 2 files at the same time (or do you mean video + audio stream = 2)

[nam-ng]

First off, why is there a difference between 32-bit and 64-bit performancewise?
There isn't much difference if the CPUs actually do the HD contents, both modes will perform and run like 3-legged dogs.

5MB HD dataset with 100:1 quality compression ratio is 500MB being done by the CPUs and sent to the vid cards, they will never actually work very well as the minimum conservative system bandwidth required for the job is 1GB.

5MB HD dataset with 100:1 quality compression ratio is 5MB being sent to the vid cards to be handled by the GPUs is not a problem, period (minimum conservative system bandwidth required for the job is 10MB).
Second, why would anyone play 2 files at the same time (or do you mean video + audio stream = 2)
The technique is called "Distributed Processing" which is bandwidth based and relied upon parallelism, there are 2 kinds of parallelism...

- co-operative parallelism, ALA RAID_0, Bit Torrents, etc...

- aggregate parallelism, ALA completely different jobs which are parts of whole (video + audio stream = 2), F@H, etc...

- and combinations of both.

To truly understand down to nitty gritty level you need Calculus or equivalent intelligence.

Folding fact #15
Distributed Computing: a type of system that divides a workload to computers connected to a network. The network may be either be enclosed in a room or out in the open, like the Internet. Distributed computing is also referred to as distributed processing, cooperative computing, and collective computing.

[GIBSON]

There isn't much difference if the CPUs actually do the HD contents, both modes will perform and run like 3-legged dogs.

5MB HD dataset with 100:1 quality compression ratio is 500MB being done by the CPUs and sent to the vid cards, they will never actually work very well as the minimum conservative system bandwidth required for the job is 1GB.

5MB HD dataset with 100:1 quality compression ratio is 5MB being sent to the vid cards to be handled by the GPUs is not a problem, period (minimum conservative system bandwidth required for the job is 10MB).

I can understand the first part of your explaination, but not really the second part? Or do you mean that in the second case there is no longer need to send the results to the gpu as it is already there?