why did MS release Vista 32?

[Glaucus]

Probably had this thread a year or so again. But searching vista 32 obviously brings up far to many matches to read through.

But why the hell did MS release Vista 32?

Surly it must have extended the time needed before release. Compromised 64bit programming add unnecessary code.

But more importantly I thing it destroyed the public's opinion of vista. Driver development time only focused on 32bit at the beginning, why does bios show 4gb but vista only show 3GB. The general confusion that vista 32 is every bit as good as 64 apart from the ram. When this isn't the case.

So why did MS decide to go back on what they said and release a 32bit system.

And why did most of the manufacturers pre install 32bit. all there does seem to of been a shift recently with more computers coming pre-installed with 64bit.

 

[Snakedoctor]

I guess its market penetration. Not everyone has a 64 bit processor as yet and some are too worried to move to the platform. I have two Vista Boxes, one x86 one x64, only due to processor limitations

 

[Glaucus]

I guess its market penetration. Not everyone has a 64 bit processor as yet and some are too worried to move to the platform.

But Windows has such a monopoly people would have changed over regardless, especially as MS tried to make it extremely hard to get xp pre-installed.

And 64bit processor have been about for years and any computer capable of running vista will have 64bit processor.

 

[Ethics]

why does bios show 4gb but vista only show 3GB. The general confusion that vista 32 is every bit as good as 64 apart from the ram. When this isn't the case.

So why did MS decide to go back on what they said and release a 32bit system.

And why did most of the manufacturers pre install 32bit. all there does seem to of been a shift recently with more computers coming pre-installed with 64bit.

You're a bit confused, 32bit OS' can only address a total of 4GB, doesnt matter who makes it, that's the address space available, including all IRQ devices.

As for a 32Bit system, if you release both noth only do you guarantee a larger customer base, you also include a lot of developers still writing for legacy 32Bit OS'.

It's business basically, you account for your entire market

 

[Glaucus]

You're a bit confused, 32bit OS' can only address a total of 4GB, doesnt matter who makes it, that's the address space available, including all IRQ devices.

I already know that.

 

[BillytheImpaler]

And 64bit processor have been about for years and any computer capable of running vista will have 64bit processor.

Not true. Most P4s could run Vista but cannot run the x86-64
version because for most of those P4's life it was a 32-bit processor. Core (1) Solo and Duo processors are 32-bit only. Older Semprons are 32-bit only. All of these machines meet Vista's minimum spec but don't do 64-bit.

MS included a 32-bit version for corporate customers. A big shop has 1000 Windows desktops, let's say. 200 of them are replaced every year. Dell had been shipping 32-bit processors in their Optiplexes up until two years ago. 400 of the desktops are 64-bit capable. 600 are older than that. MS wants the company to switch from one of its earlier products to Vista Business. The IT dept will not maintain multiple OSes in deployment. They didn't want to pay for more than one site license or whatever. Thus if this company wanted to move to Vista then they would go with Vista 32. The company would not move to Vista, which is MS's goal, if they'd simultaneously have to replace 2/3 of their desktops.

 

[Snakedoctor]

But Windows has such a monopoly people would have changed over regardless, especially as MS tried to make it extremely hard to get xp pre-installed.

And 64bit processor have been about for years and any computer capable of running vista will have 64bit processor.

So they can sell it to people who do not have a 64 bit processor as yet. Plenty of P4s out there and older AMDs. It's all about maximising the sales.

How many threads do we see asking "Should I get 64 bit as I hear there are problems with that?" and so on.

 

[TheVoice]

Plenty of budget CPUs aren't 64-bit. Don't think the original Core Duos were either, and they were the CPU of choice for laptops when Vista was first released.

 

[Glaucus]

Not true. Most P4s could run Vista but cannot run the x86-64
version because for most of those P4's life it was a 32-bit processor. Core (1) Solo and Duo processors are 32-bit only. Older Semprons are 32-bit only. All of these machines meet Vista's minimum spec but don't do 64-bit.

MS included a 32-bit version for corporate customers. A big shop has 1000 Windows desktops, let's say. 200 of them are replaced every year. Dell had been shipping 32-bit processors in their Optiplexes up until two years ago. 400 of the desktops are 64-bit capable. 600 are older than that. MS wants the company to switch from one of its earlier products to Vista Business. The IT dept will not maintain multiple OSes in deployment. They didn't want to pay for more than one site license or whatever. Thus if this company wanted to move to Vista then they would go with Vista 32. The company would not move to Vista, which is MS's goal, if they'd simultaneously have to replace 2/3 of their desktops.

yeh I see your point. Still it would be nice if every know and then MS would just stop leggacy support and start from scratch again. Yes it would take a while for companies to catch up but think of the software and hardware that could be produced.

 

[Greenlizard0]

I think it's probably a problem with being a member of these forums and extrapolating the machines of members here to the general public. Computers owned by users here are going to be well above the average of what's out there and being used.

 

[BillytheImpaler]

Still it would be nice if every know and then MS would just stop leggacy support and start from scratch again. Yes it would take a while for companies to catch up but think of the software and hardware that could be produced.

Rumor has it that Windows 7 will break binary compatibility with older versions, but I don't believe it. I think that the reason MS stays on top of the pile is not through innovation, not through having the best features, not through performing the best, not by looking the prettiest, but by continuing to support a massive catalog of older software. Windows is where the software is and if you want to run the disks that came in all of those pretty glossy boxes on the shelf then you need Windows.

I imagine that if they did break binary compatibility with older versions of Windows you'd see a huge shift in the marketplace to cheaper OSes. Want to run Crysis on your Windows 7 box? Nope, that installer DVD won't do anything for you. Want to run Photoshop? Nope, the copy you already have won't work. You have to wait for Adobe to pop out a new one. Since you'd have to get new software anyway you might as well move to Mac or *nix.

 

[NathanE]

I honestly believe that if there was only a Vista x64 then the public and media reception of Vista would have been entirely different.

 

[NathanE]

Rumor has it that Windows 7 will break binary compatibility with older versions, but I don't believe it. I think that the reason MS stays on top of the pile is not through innovation, not through having the best features, not through performing the best, not by looking the prettiest, but by continuing to support a massive catalog of older software. Windows is where the software is and if you want to run the disks that came in all of those pretty glossy boxes on the shelf then you need Windows.

I imagine that if they did break binary compatibility with older versions of Windows you'd see a huge shift in the marketplace to cheaper OSes. Want to run Crysis on your Windows 7 box? Nope, that installer DVD won't do anything for you. Want to run Photoshop? Nope, the copy you already have won't work. You have to wait for Adobe to pop out a new one. Since you'd have to get new software anyway you might as well move to Mac or *nix.

They aren't breaking binary compatibility

 

[stoofa]

I feel that Vista should have been 64bit only.
The reason being that if you've got the hardware to run Vista then you should be running the 64bit version.
Basically as far as I'm concerned only those people with EMT-64 processors should be running Vista anyway.
Anything older and the OS is just too much for your machine.

The problem isn't Microsoft - rather the pure lazyness of the hardware manufacturers and software houses.
When Vista 64 first hit the shelves, drivers were few and far between.
HP and Creative Labs were their usual selves - taking too long to get drivers out.
Software houses still haven't embraced 64bit - not that much in the way of proper 64bit applications out there.

Despite what people think Microsoft are at the mercy of these people.
Now if they had the courage to say "Right, next OS is 64bit only" then there would be a race to get drivers and applications out for the OS.
Those company's that didn't would lose out.

The same goes for CPUs as well.
Intel didn't want to bother with hybrid 32/64bit CPU's - they wanted to go straight to 64bit hence Itanium and Itanium 2.
However the pure lazyness of the rest of the industry means we are still using hybrid CPUs.
The 32bit features on these CPUs should have been dropped a generation ago.

 

[Ethics]

I honestly believe that if there was only a Vista x64 then the public and media reception of Vista would have been entirely different.

There won't be, that's the point, if i have to roll out a new OS at work, and subsequently buy new hardware taking up all my meager budget and then some, they can stick it and they know it. Especially a relatively untried and tested one. I will seek alternatives, and since the alternatives are no longer such a stetch, they'll bend over to keep people happy. Last i checked people like Dell don't offer X64 since their retard group of 'tecnical' (used very lightly) mumbai support people can't even say 64bit letalone support it, they will provide legacy solutions. Resellers like Dell are a huge part of MS' business that they can't afford to ignore, especially with them testing the water with *nix OS'.

We're all hobbyists here, we love a new piece of hardware, trying a new OS', tinkering, deploying it in a working environment, or grandma and grandpa needing a new OS aren't going to be interested in something they have to learn.

If windows 7 breaks all binary compatability it'll just be another nail in their coffin. projects like WINE will see bigger investments and spotlight and gain leaps and bounds whilst windows still tries to look as good and functional as Beryl.

 

[Ethics]

There won't be, that's the point, if i have to roll out a new OS at work, and subsequently buy new hardware taking up all my meager budget and then some, they can stick it and they know it. Especially a relatively untried and tested one. I will seek alternatives, and since the alternatives are no longer such a stetch, they'll bend over to keep people happy. Last i checked people like Dell don't offer X64 since their retard group of 'tecnical' (used very lightly) mumbai support people can't even say 64bit letalone support it, they will provide legacy solutions. Resellers like Dell are a huge part of MS' business that they can't afford to ignore, especially with them testing the water with *nix OS'.

We're all hobbyists here, we love a new piece of hardware, trying a new OS', tinkering, deploying it in a working environment, or grandma and grandpa needing a new OS aren't going to be interested in something they have to learn.

If windows 7 breaks all binary compatability it'll just be another nail in their coffin. projects like WINE will see bigger investments and spotlight and gain leaps and bounds whilst windows still tries to look as good and functional as Beryl.

As a sidenote to the message above, it wasn't pure laziness, MS struck deals left right and centre for hardware manufacturers to supply 'Vista ready' machines that simply weren't, they were just capable of minimum spec but running like crap, Which is why most clueless users don't like vista, their new £300 laptop that looks like crap, works like crap but is really cool becase "it looks pretty" can't run Vista very well.

 

[BillytheImpaler]

They aren't breaking binary compatibility

I know that and said so in my post. I was really commenting on AcidHell's comment about starting from scratch and why it would be a very bad for MS's customers, and by extension MS. It's not going to happen, even if MS's engineers really want to do it. Best case scenario for people wanting a fresh start is if they implemented WinAPI in a VM/sandbox with direct hardware access through AMD-V or Intel-VT. tter wpuld be using a system like Xen where everything exists in such a VM running side by side so that the user wouldn't be able to tell the difference between new API programs and old API programs. MS would be tasked with somehow persuading developers to write for the new API though. Think of it as being like putting Windows 95's programs in a directory called Profram Files not Programs specifically to force developers to handle long file names correctly. Even then MS would have to be in dire straits even woret than Apple was late in Steve Jobs's absence in order to completely throw away their existing system.

 

[londonbairn]

I honestly believe that if there was only a Vista x64 then the public and media reception of Vista would have been entirely different.

I think that the media and public reception is half built on not having tried it, and incorrect facts. The worst thing is when people moan about incompatability. You have an OS (Windows) which supports a massive amount of devices, and an almost infinite combination of setups. In that respect, it performs amazing.

Most things I have read about Vista seem to be from people who are manic Mac OS fanboys or people who haven't actually tried it.

In a household with Mac OSX Leopard, XP and multiple Vista machines, I always, always prefer to use Vista. It is 100% stable on all machines I have it on.

 

[Furton]

I bought a Dell Core2 laptop for a family member last month and was rather annoyed that they installed Vista 32bit edition, retailers aren't even helping the situation.

 

[NathanE]

I know that and said so in my post. I was really commenting on AcidHell's comment about starting from scratch and why it would be a very bad for MS's customers, and by extension MS. It's not going to happen, even if MS's engineers really want to do it. Best case scenario for people wanting a fresh start is if they implemented WinAPI in a VM/sandbox with direct hardware access through AMD-V or Intel-VT. tter wpuld be using a system like Xen where everything exists in such a VM running side by side so that the user wouldn't be able to tell the difference between new API programs and old API programs. MS would be tasked with somehow persuading developers to write for the new API though. Think of it as being like putting Windows 95's programs in a directory called Profram Files not Programs specifically to force developers to handle long file names correctly. Even then MS would have to be in dire straits even woret than Apple was late in Steve Jobs's absence in order to completely throw away their existing system.

Microsoft already has an emulation layer, it is called WoW (Windows on Windows) So far there have been 3 variations of it... WOW16 (for 16-bit compatibility), WOW Itanium (for software emulation of x86 programs on Itanium systems) and WOW64 (a thunking layer for x86-32 programs on x86-64).

Microsoft is investing big in virtualisation (see Hyper-V in Server 2008 and Windows 7) and this will form a basis for their future compatibility layers as well.

As a developer, I am not worried at all. So users certainly don't need to worry about Windows 7 in terms of compatibility IMO.

Win32 API is here to stay and won't be deprecated in the foreseeable future. Win32 API would only be deprecated, possibly, in an entirely new OS design. But even then I strongly suspect Microsoft would provide a compatibility layer