Microsoft Reveals Main Windows 8 Editions

[FierceRed]

Oh, I was exhausted yesterday and it's obvious I misread a lot in there. In which case, kudos to Microsoft for finally doing the right thing:

Windows 8 32-bit
Windows 8 64-bit
Windows 8 Pro 32-bit
Windows 8 Pro 64-bit
Windows 8 RT

Windows Server "8" 64-bit (editions are unnamed)

I still don't get why at this juncture they're still putting out a 32bit version. (Yes, I get it works fine for Tablets, doesn't diminish my point though)

Don't get me wrong, I understand the whole "dinosaur Enterprise spanning IT system may be incompatible" argument or the "but my 32bit programs won't be able to run!~" FUD. It's just brow furrowing why the built in memory limitations of a 32bit OS wouldn't be Scorched Earthed out of the upcoming OS releases by now. We have very literally gotten to the point where John Average could buy a computer with a 32bit OS and yet it contain more than 4GB of memory resources. Unless I'm mistaken (and if I am please correct me, I love learning), LAA helps applications bypass this, but it doesn't help the entire OS be aware of and efficiently use/manage the resources available.

I just don't see what crashes and burns so horribly when it attempts to run on a 64bit OS as opposed to a 32bit OS that the entire existence of a 32bit OS continues to be justified. Can't these mission critical problem programs just get a workaround developed? Is NASA, NORAD, ECHELON and the entire Pentagon running on 32bit or something??

At this point, the only way the world is going to get on 64bit is if the OS developers shove it down all throats, everywhere. Moore's Law, like Time, isn't going to wait for the inept technological Man much longer.

 

[Drone]

More info + comparison table from PCMAG

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403126,00.asp

 

[RevengE]

Back during Windows 95-XP, they released a new one every 2-3 years (95 -> 98 -> 2000 -> ME -> XP). They're returning to that rapid release schedule.

I agree. I just think its kind of silly when 7 works fine.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

At this point, the only way the world is going to get on 64bit is if the OS developers shove it down all throats, everywhere. Moore's Law, like Time, isn't going to wait for the inept technological Man much longer.

Windows 8 is likely the end of the road for 32-bit. Windows Server 2008 R2 already ended 32-bit support.

Keep in mind that not all hardware has 64-bit drivers and there's software out there that forbids itself from being installed/running on 64-bit operating systems. This is why Microsoft keeps making 32-bit available for desktops/laptops. The time when they shift away from 32-bit is when OEMs (like Dell and HP) stop selling computers with less than 4 GiB RAM.

 

[TurdFergasun]

Windows 8 is likely the end of the road for 32-bit. Windows Server 2008 R2 already ended 32-bit support.

Keep in mind that not all hardware has 64-bit drivers and there's software out there that forbids itself from being installed/running on 64-bit operating systems.

why should the onus be on the os to maintain archaic programs and drivers when it should be pressured upon the hardware and software vendors to support their products properly into the future if they want to maintain an industrial/professional user base? so much garbage legacy junk in windows is probably the main reason why it's still such a convoluted mess in alot of ways.

 

[newtekie1]

Windows 7 reduced hardware requirements compared to Windows Vista, especially the memory footprint.

In my experience the hardware requirements for 7 aren't that much less than Vista. The memory footprint might be slightly smaller, but nothing that I would even be concerned with, and certainly nothing that would make Win7 functional on a machine that Vista wasn't functional on.

I still don't get why at this juncture they're still putting out a 32bit version. (Yes, I get it works fine for Tablets, doesn't diminish my point though)

Don't get me wrong, I understand the whole "dinosaur Enterprise spanning IT system may be incompatible" argument or the "but my 32bit programs won't be able to run!~" FUD. It's just brow furrowing why the built in memory limitations of a 32bit OS wouldn't be Scorched Earthed out of the upcoming OS releases by now. We have very literally gotten to the point where John Average could buy a computer with a 32bit OS and yet it contain more than 4GB of memory resources. Unless I'm mistaken (and if I am please correct me, I love learning), LAA helps applications bypass this, but it doesn't help the entire OS be aware of and efficiently use/manage the resources available.

I just don't see what crashes and burns so horribly when it attempts to run on a 64bit OS as opposed to a 32bit OS that the entire existence of a 32bit OS continues to be justified. Can't these mission critical problem programs just get a workaround developed? Is NASA, NORAD, ECHELON and the entire Pentagon running on 32bit or something??

At this point, the only way the world is going to get on 64bit is if the OS developers shove it down all throats, everywhere. Moore's Law, like Time, isn't going to wait for the inept technological Man much longer.

That is all very nice and all, but I actually have machines that I plan to put Win8 on that don't have 64-bit processors in them. That is why 32-bit OSes are still around.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

why should the onus be on the os to maintain archaic programs and drivers when it should be pressured upon the hardware and software vendors to support their products properly into the future if they want to maintain an industrial/professional user base? so much garbage legacy junk in windows is probably the main reason why it's still such a convoluted mess in alot of ways.

The onus is on OEMs that field thousands of calls saying such and such program isn't working which concludes with "oh, it's because you have 64-bit Windows." As such, OEMs would prefer to sell 32-bit operating systems but if they put 4 GiB RAM in a 32-bit OS, they'll get just as many calls asking "why do I only see 3.25 GiB RAM when I bought 4 GiB?" This is why the extra RAM will ultimately win out and, with RAM so cheap, it will happen sooner rather than later.

In my experience the hardware requirements for 7 aren't that much less than Vista. The memory footprint might be slightly smaller, but nothing that I would even be concerned with, and certainly nothing that would make Win7 functional on a machine that Vista wasn't functional on.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/how-well-does-windows-7-handle-512mb/672

 

[newtekie1]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/how-well-does-windows-7-handle-512mb/672

Vista actually runs just fine on 512MB as well. Yes, it uses more memory, but not a whole lot. Even in the article it was only using ~80MB more RAM, and that was with SP1. SP2 helped reduce Vista's footprint a little. With 8GB of RAM costing less than $50, 80MB just isn't a significant enough reduction in resource requirements to worry about.

 

[dlpatague]

I don't like the Metro UI because I am a person that has a clean desktop. I don't have any icons, not even the recycle bin on my desktop. I even make the task bar auto-hide because it is annoying to see when I don't need it. I am more then happy to use the start menu to find my programs. If I have programs I use all the time I like to pin them to my start menu so that they show up at the top of the start menu for easy access.

Like everyone else says and knows is that the Metro UI is great for touch screens and mobile devices. It isn't a desktop PC interface. I hope they give us the option of having the start menu back in Windows 8 when it is released or someone does come out with a way to do it.

32bit will still be around for a while. I use Windows 7 Ultimate 32bit on my old machines even my old IBM Thinkpad T30 and it runs Windows 7 just great.

 

[naoan]

Vista actually runs just fine on 512MB as well. Yes, it uses more memory, but not a whole lot. Even in the article it was only using ~80MB more RAM, and that was with SP1. SP2 helped reduce Vista's footprint a little. With 8GB of RAM costing less than $50, 80MB just isn't a significant enough reduction in resource requirements to worry about.

darn I should have gotten sp2 and 8gb of ram for less than $50 back in 2006. :shadedshu

 

[eidairaman1]

Windows 7 reduced hardware requirements compared to Windows Vista, especially the memory footprint.



Good thing Windows 8 RT is designed for mobile devices then.

i know it did, vista would choke on anything less than 4 Gibs of ram

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Vista actually runs just fine on 512MB as well. Yes, it uses more memory, but not a whole lot. Even in the article it was only using ~80MB more RAM, and that was with SP1. SP2 helped reduce Vista's footprint a little. With 8GB of RAM costing less than $50, 80MB just isn't a significant enough reduction in resource requirements to worry about.

80 MiB is a lot of RAM when you only got 512 MiB. That means 80 MiB less for the application to use which, in turn, means 15.6% more likely applications will use virtual memory which is excruciatingly slow.

The systems you see with 512 MiB RAM are often DDR modules which are substantially more expensive than DDR3. 512 MiB is PC2100 is going for about $16 (more than 5 times more expensive per MiB).

 

[newtekie1]

80 MiB is a lot of RAM when you only got 512 MiB. That means 80 MiB less for the application to use which, in turn, means 15.6% more likely applications will use virtual memory which is excruciatingly slow.

The systems you see with 512 MiB RAM are often DDR modules which are substantially more expensive than DDR3. 512 MiB is PC2100 is going for about $16 (more than 5 times more expensive per MiB).

All good in theory, but in practice the difference isn't really that substantial, and SP2 makes the difference pretty much non-existent as I said.

Win7 on the left, Vista on the right:

Both install fresh, and fully updated and nothing else. Same exact hardware with 2GB of RAM.

I wouldn't run either on under 1GB of RAM, but on 512MB they both run just fine actually, and Vista with SP2 uses almost no extra RAM over Win7. Slow for my tastes, but usable for sure.