Vista 32bit

[Fluff]

Why did they release a 32 bit os when most of the chips support 64bit?

[schmosef]

because most software and drivers are still 32 bit.

[VJ]

And there is a huge amount of 32 bit systems out there, that are very capable of running Vista (including mine ).

Jörg

[Technoid]

Why did they release a 32 bit os when most of the chips support 64bit?

the bit capability of the cpu's has never really mattered for MS

win 3.* (16bit) ran on 32bit cpu's for years

the 80386 came out 1987, the first widely used consumer pure 32bit OS was xp in 2001

I don't really get this "I have a 64 bit cpu, I must crave a 64bit os" crase we have had since the A64 was released

[Umfriend]

Well, if I had some inkling it would really improve performance of my SQL Server 2005 DB to go 64bit OS and 64bit SQL Server then it would not be a craze, it'd be a sound move. Unfortunately, I still have no clue whether moving to 64bit should matter or what kind of imporvement I could hope for.

[Gurm]

Well, if I had some inkling it would really improve performance of my SQL Server 2005 DB to go 64bit OS and 64bit SQL Server then it would not be a craze, it'd be a sound move. Unfortunately, I still have no clue whether moving to 64bit should matter or what kind of imporvement I could hope for.

Sure it'll help. I think we all said that in the other thread. It would, however, be inviting more problems than it's worth for the 5% performance gain.

[MultimediaMan]

I have to take exception to your 5% performance improvement assertion, Gurm.

That 5% performance advantage is head to head with 32Bit software and a 32Bit OS using an object size compatible with a 32Bit OS. This start changing when you hit 2GB and things get dramatic when the databases start edging over 4GB in size. When you take into account larger objects (>2GB), there really is no comparison; Databases have gotten to be so large as to need a true 64bit environment to be run in.

One thing Microsoft is doing (underhanded and arbitrary though it may seem, I think this will turn out ultimately to be one of the smartest things they ever did) is that drivers developed for Vista/Longhorn/Server 2003 must have the 64Bit drivers submitted to WHQL review before their 32Bit counterparts will be accepted for WHQL review. Vista64 MUST have signed drivers; either from Microsoft or through some other internal CA scheme. Forced upgrade path? Yes, but first for the hardware vendor. Followed by the users who choose to upgrade.

[DGhost]

MMM - it's not so much about 32/64bit WHQL review. It's the fact that in order for a product to get WHQL certified and be able to sport the "Designed for Vista" logo it has to have 64 bit certified/signed drivers. period. This doesn't mean a product (namely older, legacy products) could ship minus logo and without 64bit drivers. or with non certified drivers.

Anyways, the roadmap that Microsoft put out for the 64 bit transition was pretty much like this: Windows XP x64 was Workstation/Enterprise level and to primarily to provide a platform for developers to build off of and start targeting/optimizing for. Vista was to be the stepping stone - it brings x64 to the masses and forces everyone to start transitioning over. The next OS is probably going to target x64 as the main platform.

Vista is to the x64 concept what XP was to the Windows NT kernel. In short.