Should Microsoft made Vista 64bit only?

[aj654987]

It seems Vista will be a repeat of XP in the case of 64bit support. The 64bit version of Vista is already behind the 32bit version in terms of support and compatibility.

I cant help but think that MS should have waited another year on Vista, and released it as 64bit CPU only with full support for 32bit apps.

With the exception of the Pentium M, the majority of the systems capable of running Vista have 64 bit CPUs so it would make sense to help usher in a new era and have a standard OS that fully supports 64cpus. With the 32/64 split, it seems like it wont be until the next OS from MS that 64 bit software will be finally the majority.


Im not saying all new software had to be 64bit either. The OS could be made to support win32 apps, so software developers can still sell their product to XP users and Vista users. However, with Vista standard as 64 bit and the Vista drivers as 64 bit it seems it would get the industry started more in that direction.

[outlaw2001it]

Hello,
That would have made more sense, but they have to give time for the software programmers to catch up to 64 bit. MS also had to give time for users to go out, and buy a new 64 bit computer (Not everybody has the money to upgrade computers every 6 months to a year). Even if you don't go out and jump on the Vista bandwagon, XP will still be supported until 2011. So by that time people will be going out, and buying new computers (which will have 64 bit processors). When MS's next OS comes out (it will be strictly 64 bit), and if you still have a 32 bit computer, you will have no choice but to upgrade. Before that time you will see a lot more 64 bit games/applications/drivers...etc. Take Care.

[usslindstrom]

Agreed. MS was smart to release both versions. I'm sure the 32bit version is generating a CRAPLOAD of revenue in sales.

I bought one of each (OEM), as not all of my machines are 64bit. That's $200 in MS' payroll for the x86 version, just from me.

[aj654987]

only 2 responses?

it was just a thought i had, and Im interested to hear more opinions whether they agree or disagree.

[Cmptr-Gy-Dv]

64bit has allot of running to do,

You know that MS and the software co. are playing leapfrog,

MS just jumped and now the software guys need to do the same,

Question is how much improvement 64 bit has over 32 bit,
In the real world, is the average home body going to see the difference,
If it’s not that big a deal, the average guy won’t care, and then there’s no point,
It won’t sell, if 64 bit costs much more than 32 bit, and it don’t shine like
A beacon on a hill, forget it, the home guy will go 32 bit, most
People don’t even know what 32 or 64 bit means any way,
So it will be a tuff sell,

[batmeat]

The average run of the mill home user will see no difference from 32bit to 64bit software. The power user and gamer will see some improvement. The server admin will see the biggest improvement imo. I personally notice a decrease in performance from 32 to 64 bit processing, only because driver support is lagging behind.

[vass0922]

like Cmptr-Gy-Dv said, only the extreme folks would of bothered with it. It would of been a total and utter flop. Its bad enough businesses will already have to upgrade ram on even good boxes to run the POS vista to get ... NOTHING in return except pretty.
Many articles out there stating vista's "security" is nowhere near enough to make it worth upgrading for.

I dont think most gamers would bother with it other than bragging rights if it hadnt' been for DX10... its the only reason to upgrade.. and even thats not worth it now because so few games (currently) make use of it