Win 8 Server Will Support Exclusively 64-Bit (x64) CPU

[JMH]

Windows 8 Server Will Support Exclusively 64-Bit (x64) CPUs.

The next major iteration of Windows Server would support exclusively 64-bit (x64) processors, Microsoft revealed, opening up a little bit on the successor of Windows Server 2008 R2. Windows 8 Server, or Windows Server 8, whichever you prefer, will not play nice with 32-bit (x86) CPUs, just as its predecessor, but will also not feature support for the Intel Itanium architecture. Dan Reger, senior technical product manager Windows Server, revealed that Microsoft had already built the last version of Windows Server designed to work with Itanium CPUs.

“Windows Server 2008 R2 will be the last version of Windows Server to support the Intel Itanium architecture. SQL Server 2008 R2 and Visual Studio 2010 are also the last versions to support Itanium,” Reger stated. In all fairness, Reger did not mention Windows 8 Server, or even deliver a hint, but it’s easy to see what the Redmond company is saying, even without whispering the Win8 moniker.

Source -
Windows 8 Server Will Support Exclusively 64-Bit (x64) CPUs - Microsoft drops support for the Intel Itanium architecture - Softpedia

 

[HerrKaLeun]

I don't understand why desktop OS (like W7) still have a 32-bit option at all. But it really surprises me that 64-bit-only is something new for servers. Does someone really operate a professional server with less than 4 GB? I mean it is not WHS, it is an (expensive) professional server OS we are talking about here. Or am I missing something here?

Getting rid of 32-bit support is long overdue.

But I don't understand ditching Itanium support, especially since Intel keeps making them. Not sure what OS they will be using then...

 

[seekermeister]

There are a multitude of people that still use 32 bit hardware, so attempting to force them to discard what they have would simply cause them not to pay for updating to Windows 7. I'm supposing that is not the case for those who operate servers, so MS doesn't feel compelled to support something that may not be used much anyway.

 

[pparks1]

I don't understand why desktop OS (like W7) still have a 32-bit option at all.

Primarily it exists because there is still a fair amount of hardware out there without 64-bit driver support. The current company that I work for has a Checkpoint VPN solution that currently doesn't support 64-bit without us having to invest fairly substantially to change stuff out. Windows 7 is the very first time that I have dabbled with a 64-bit operating system for home personal use.

But it really surprises me that 64-bit-only is something new for servers. Does someone really operate a professional server with less than 4 GB?

Well, server 2008 R2 is only 64-bit...so it's not really a new thing with servers. An enterprise class server with 4GB of RAM or less is not terribly uncommon based on what that server is doing. For example, you don't need that much RAM in domain controllers, dns servers , dhcp servers, many web servers, ftp servers, mail relay servers, and many smaller application servers...including small to medium sized Exchange implementations. The only servers at work that I have with more than 4GB of RAM are my VMWare ESXi boxes...which I have 24GB installed in each of them.

And RAM for enterprise class servers can get very pricey very fast...much more so than RAM for home computers.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

There are a multitude of people that still use 32 bit hardware, so attempting to force them to discard what they have would simply cause them not to pay for updating to Windows 7. I'm supposing that is not the case for those who operate servers, so MS doesn't feel compelled to support something that may not be used much anyway.

But when was the last server CPU sold that didn't support 64-bit? I know my 4 year old laptop has a 32-bit CPU and I have W7 on it. So the home OS upgrade path is valid. But servers?

I'm not up to date on OS history, but XP 64 came out in 2005 or so. I assume server 64-bit OS came out way before 2000. No one who spends money on a new server OS still has that old hardware.

I'm not dismissing old hardware, but people that have old hardware typically don't spend money on an OS that costs more then the hardware is worth.

Edit: pparks1 post came at the same time... now I understand. Somehow the article made it look like 64-bit only on server OS would be something new. It seems has been 64-bit only for a while. Still a shame, that manufacturers switched to 64-bit so late.

 

[pparks1]

But when was the last server CPU sold that didn't support 64-bit? I know my 4 year old laptop has a 32-bit CPU and I have W7 on it. So the home OS upgrade path is valid. But servers?

It's not that the server hardware itself won't support 64-bit...but rather the add-on controller boards, software applications that are sometimes used way beyond their supported life by the manufacturer, etc....that are the real issues.

 

[yowanvista]

At least MS is getting rid of 32-bit

 

[abuttino]

Isn't this kinda old news?

Server 2008 R2 and Exchange 2010 are 64bit only anyway?

 

[cclloyd9785]

I heard that Windows 8 and Windows 8 server are also going to have full support for 128bit proccessing.

 

[Adamd]

Good!

I know Microsoft is kind of stuck with big upgrades because to many people have old hardware but I think this is great.

Sure they might lose some business but they must keep doing this to keep up with the times. I am just surprised it is taking this long.

 

[cclloyd9785]

Good!

I know Microsoft is kind of stuck with big upgrades because to many people have old hardware but I think this is great.

Sure they might lose some business but they must keep doing this to keep up with the times. I am just surprised it is taking this long.

Just remember, that Windows 8 is planning on coming out in 2012, in which many old computer users will have upgraded to a cheap but much more powerful computer. For example, my grandma recently upgraded from Windows 2k to a new machine with 7 HP. Think that by 2012, there will be a lot of people that have done something similar.

 

[z3r010]

Isn't this kinda old news?

Server 2008 R2 and Exchange 2010 are 64bit only anyway?

Yep, I couldn't understand why this is news either, Server 2008 R2 is already x64 only

 

[pparks1]

Isn't this kinda old news?

Server 2008 R2 and Exchange 2010 are 64bit only anyway?

Yep, I couldn't understand why this is news either, Server 2008 R2 is already x64 only

Yeah, I commented about that same thing in my response above as well.

 

[jimbo45]

I don't understand why desktop OS (like W7) still have a 32-bit option at all. But it really surprises me that 64-bit-only is something new for servers. Does someone really operate a professional server with less than 4 GB? I mean it is not WHS, it is an (expensive) professional server OS we are talking about here. Or am I missing something here?

Getting rid of 32-bit support is long overdue.

But I don't understand ditching Itanium support, especially since Intel keeps making them. Not sure what OS they will be using then...

Hi there
You obviously don't work in an environment where there might be over 30,000 desktops still running OS'es such as Windows 2000 and XP.

Small installations can change rapidly but large organistations such as for example SHELL, IBM etc etc can't replace the HUGE number of workstations still running these OS'es overnight even if they DO change their servers.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[HerrKaLeun]

Hi there
You obviously don't work in an environment where there might be over 30,000 desktops still running OS'es such as Windows 2000 and XP.

Small installations can change rapidly but large organistations such as for example SHELL, IBM etc etc can't replace the HUGE number of workstations still running these OS'es overnight even if they DO change their servers.

Cheers
jimbo

I get your point. I work in an organization with 1,600 PCs. they are on a 3-year replacement cycle, so old hardware is not such an issue. the multifunction printers etc. devices are leased too, so they are up to date. But they don't switch to "7" before SP 1 comes out, and then only for new PCs (probably start 3 months after SP1 comes out). I was promised to at least get 64 bit then. Currently it is all XP 32-bit. This might be compatible to old hard and software. but compatibility to new hard and software is horrible. Try using Autocad on a 32-bit 4GB PC and you know what I mean. The problem here is that they treat a secretary's IT needs the same as an engineer's. For writing a letter, it doesn't really matter, 16 bit probably would do . but when using software (that cost $ 700 subscription every year) that has 8 GB recommended minimum, it really matters that you have strong hardware and OS. My PC is one year old, so I won't get a new one before in 2 years. The time and frustration when the software crashes when running out of memory, probably will be worth a couple of PCs with 8 GB and an SSD. But they pay me by the hour, that gives them the right to save a few bucks on hardware and OS (and I installed the software at home on my 8 GB rig as well... runs like a charm with no single crash)

 

[jimbo45]

Hi all
With even small machines able to run Virtual Machines I can't see why MS doesn't go for full 64 bit support only in the latest server and applications (Office 2010 for example).

Anybody needing 32 bit versions can always run these OS'es in a Virtual Machine -- I'm running some W2K3 servers quite happily as Virtual machines --these won't be got rid of for a few YEARS yet whatever new OS comes out.

The desktop is another matter however - no organisation wants to suddenly change a shedload of fairly decent computers currently - especially if they all perform OK and run the main corporate applications.

The "32 bit" compability need is overblown these days for corporate servers.

The only people who will have significant problems are those heavily into Video editing and game playing until these apps are 64 bit. These apps unlike a lot of corporate and office type stuff access the REAL hardware and therefore are difficult to virtualise.

Cheers
jimbo