Windows 7 for x86, x64, and IA64 systems

[Bobsama]

Released prior this week on the Microsoft Download Center, we have some information about Windows 7. First item is that there will be an x86 version and an x64 version. In addition to this, there will be an IA64 version for Intel Itanium systems. I assume that the IA64 version will be similar to Windows XP for IA64. Anyways--not really THAT newsworthy, but the security updates for each version was released October 22nd and there is a now a document regarding the Windows 7 Logo requirements--but I didn't see a set of minimum specs attached.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/B...5-CD021F777A70

[lowfat]

Why don't they just drop 32-bit OS already.

[Movieman]

Why don't they just drop 32-bit OS already.

because there are still tons of systems out there that aren't capable of running a 64 bit OS..
I have a system that crunches thats a Intel server board with essentially 2 yonah laptop chips in it..and they aren't 64 bit capable but they are every bit as good as any modern chip..

[GAR]

im down with droping 32bit, BUT alot of people still need it.

[karl_eller]

I think it'd be fairly safe to say that anyone buying Windows 7 would have a machine running AT LEAST an Athlon X2, most likely Core2's, all of which are 64-bit capable CPUs. I'm all for dropping 32-bit support.

They should at least make the 64-bit version to be the standard, making you have to get a 32-bit disk (the opposite of how it is with Vista).

Eller

[Seraphiel]

because there are still tons of systems out there that aren't capable of running a 64 bit OS..
I have a system that crunches thats a Intel server board with essentially 2 yonah laptop chips in it..and they aren't 64 bit capable but they are every bit as good as any modern chip..

But are they those Yonahs using Windows Vista or Server 2008 at present ?

Point being, that few that only have x86 chips, have upgraded from XP and can be expected to do so

[ak_47_boy]

They should really drop 32bit. Causes too many headaches.

I read they are really trying to cut back on bloat. I recall reading on a dev blog that they are aiming for under 15 processes

[RejZoR]

im down with droping 32bit, BUT alot of people still need it.

So they can whine again how slow Windows 7 is on their Pentium III 1,33GHz systems with most probably just 512MB of RAM? Right.
I say drop the 32bit version...

[T_Flight]

I've seen no reason to switch to Vista yet, and from the rumors so far Win7 isn't looking very promising either.

MS needs some new magic. Rebranding Vista is not gonna make it any better. I'm hoping they step back and spend some time on this and re-think things, and make this a truly new OS. The rumors don't make it sound like they are heading in that direction though.

[RejZoR]

Well if you haven't seen any reason yet, those with 4GB of RAM or moe dissagree with ppl like you. Either WinXP 64bit or Vista 64bit. And we all know WinXP 64bit is crap.
SO what else do we have? Besides on rigs like this you actually gain more than you lose, especially with native 64bit apps but 32bit ones run faster anyway.

[STaRGaZeR]

Systems not capable of running 64 bit apps should not be running Vista or 7 in the first place. You have XP for them. Down with 32 bit OSes!

[Shintai]

Systems not capable of running 64 bit apps should not be running Vista or 7 in the first place. You have XP for them. Down with 32 bit OSes!

Agree! Burn them!

[Movieman]

But are they those Yonahs using Windows Vista or Server 2008 at present ?

Point being, that few that only have x86 chips, have upgraded from XP and can be expected to do so

good point

[Hoboclese]

i don't think that MS is releasing win 7 as a minor change of Vista, i think that the hostile attention that Vista drew was enough for them to realize that they wouldn't be able to shove the same old sh|t down peoples throats.

[Calmatory]

They should really drop 32bit. Causes too many headaches.

I read they are really trying to cut back on bloat. I recall reading on a dev blog that they are aiming for under 15 processes

I am sure this means that they will integrate the smallest processes to one process/service. E.g. networking process handling all kinds of stuff. ethernet, wireless, remote computers, printing and fileservices.

If they wanted to cut bloat, why wouldn't they break backwards compatibility for pre-2k3 devices, with few critical exeptions? I am sure that if I have a 720k floppy disk drive, successor of Windows 7 will be able to use it. I am sure that if I have a motherboard with ISA slot, and plug a soundcard from 1995, Windows 7 will have available drivers for it and it will work flawlessly.

Like, is there anyone out there having ISA slots in desktop computers since 2000? Floppy drives might be useful even today, but what about in 2015 or so? Sure they will support them! Just as they will support PATA devices in 2015 etc.

[Stevethegreat]

i don't think that MS is releasing win 7 as a minor change of Vista, i think that the hostile attention that Vista drew was enough for them to realize that they wouldn't be able to shove the same old sh|t down peoples throats.

The hostility against Vista was mostly a result of Microsoft's policy, namely that they let a given OS to run 6 years straight without serious competition, especially on businesses. Since only them can create competition to their own OS they created a monster that even them couldn't take down and its name was windows XP.

In fact Vista are far less bloated relative to how XP were when they were first out. Since half a decade came to pass -and that's half a century in the tech world- people forgot how disgruntled were by XP as well and how people were preferring 2000 or even 98 for well over a year after XP's release. It seems like Microsoft learned from their mistake and they won't let Vista -or 7 for that matter- to become the reigning OS and they're retreating to their (far more) frequent release cycle. I mean if you take -one for one- Vista's supposed problems all had to do with the paradigm of software having been nested to the Windows XP way of doing things for far too long. The OS itself was far more modern and better all around than XP.

If 7 would be more easily accepted than Vista would be only because Windows XP are already showing their age (DX9, crap x64 support, no SSD support, no multi-touch support and many more things that would be essential in the near future) and people won't like the idea to finally accept that Vista was a move to the right direction (which had to come sooner)....

[Helmore]

Systems not capable of running 64 bit apps should not be running Vista or 7 in the first place. You have XP for them. Down with 32 bit OSes!

I agree, you can't convince me that we still need a 32-bit version of Windows in 2010, that would be absurd. There still are some things, like WiFi adapters, where there is only a 32-bit driver available, if they simply did away with the 32-bit version then those developers will have to make a 64-bit version.

[m^2]

In fact Vista are far less bloated relative to how XP were when they were first out.

Now that's a bold statement. Care to prove it with some facts like number of services running by default or amount of memory used while idle by both early XP and Vista? You can count Vista with prefetch off, this would obviously prevent it from showing it's great lead in terms of lightweight computing.

Since half a decade came to pass -and that's half a century in the tech world- people forgot how disgruntled were by XP as well and how people were preferring 2000 or even 98 for well over a year after XP's release.

That's true, XP is arguably an improvement over 2000.
Just like Vista over XP.

Windows XP are already showing their age (DX9, crap x64 support, no SSD support, no multi-touch support and many more things that would be essential in the near future)

Just LOL.
DX10 being Vista only is a marketing decision and has nothing to XP getting old.
x64 mechanisms changed very slightly.
XP works better with SSDs than Vista does.
Where are the touchscreens that you find so essential? I haven't seen any out of MS commercials.

[pawl]

I have used XP64 for several years now - since it was beta - its great. the only critisism i have seen of xp64 is the lack of driver support for various bits of hardware. it would be a shame to stop innovation because we wanted to retain compatibility with our antique hardware.

its also a pity that microsoft cant make its mind up on driver models - although it seems that 7 is going to be able to use the same or similar drivers to vista saving us some pain on the upgrade.

i suppose we also need to remember the cost to vendors to create bespoke drivers for hardware on x64 when thier sales to that segment are very small. perhaps if it were easier to port the drivers to x64 this wouyld be less of an issue in the future.

[naokaji]

because there are still tons of systems out there that aren't capable of running a 64 bit OS..
I have a system that crunches thats a Intel server board with essentially 2 yonah laptop chips in it..and they aren't 64 bit capable but they are every bit as good as any modern chip..

True, but they are crunchers, they dont need a os that has any new features, they just require one that is compatible with boinc and if possible not overly bloated.

Besides, at some point ms does have to make a cut for old stuff if they ever want to be able to shrink down a new windows and make it faster.

[Shintai]

DX10 being Vista only is a marketing decision and has nothing to XP getting old.<-- Wrong
XP works better with SSDs than Vista does. <-- Wrong

The new VDDM was needed to actually make DirectX progressing aswell as lowering the API execution overhead, increase the amount of objects and such. And oh..not least...remove the drivers ability to BSOD the system. All those things is simply not possible in XP due to the driver model there.

SSDs...no...blame jmicron. Intel already showed how to make SSDs for Vista.

[Helmore]

The new VDDM was needed to actually make DirectX progressing aswell as lowering the API execution overhead, increase the amount of objects and such. And oh..not least...remove the drivers ability to BSOD the system. All those things is simply not possible in XP due to the driver model there.

SSDs...no...blame jmicron. Intel already showed how to make SSDs for Vista.

In other words, if you want DX10 on XP, you will have to turn XP into Vista and then you can just as well buy Vista.

[Stevethegreat]

Now that's a bold statement. Care to prove it with some facts like number of services running by default or amount of memory used while idle by both early XP and Vista? You can count Vista with prefetch off, this would obviously prevent it from showing it's great lead in terms of lightweight computing.

To be fair, I wrote "for its time". Bloatware is relative to the hardware available around at the moment of release. There was a time that even DOS was considered bloated and in some sense it was. Modern systems are unbelievably less efficient than they could be but that's to be expected with the added complexity (and the lack of real competition). With the prices of memories today and how easily you can install 3 gigs of RAM in your PC these days, I find Vista to be *relatively* less bloated than Win XP (at which time getting 256MB worth of ram was a pain in the ass and less people would afford it than those that can afford 3gigs nowadays)...

[m^2]

The new VDDM was needed to actually make DirectX progressing aswell as lowering the API execution overhead, increase the amount of objects and such. And oh..not least...remove the drivers ability to BSOD the system. All those things is simply not possible in XP due to the driver model there.

My bad, thanks for correction.

SSDs...no...blame jmicron. Intel already showed how to make SSDs for Vista.

No, I blame Microsoft. There are several tests w/out JMicron that show Vista to be a few percent slower than XP (like Buckeye's) and I haven't seen anything different.

[szukalski]

Bottom line with 32-bit... people will buy it. Why wouldn't you want the demographic?