Is Vista x86 a Trojan Horse after-all?

[Anach]

http://www.neowin.net/

OK so here's the question "what does it take to kill the 32bit platform and Microsoft's Windows Vista OS, not even a year out of its beta code...The answer as bugged and blogged on the forums

Step 1: buy cheep Graphics card with 512MB onboard memory, 4GB ram and a few system resources. Windows can't see all 4GB. The usual range is approx 3.2GB - 3.6GB usable memory depending on onboard devices.

[indent][/indent]Simple Maths: 4GB RAM - GPU RAM - System RAM/ROM = Total Ram usable by Windows Vista

And this time MS is not to blame (well they would say that )

This is down to the 32bit 4GB address space limit, but come on Microsoft why-oh-why bother in the first place? Everyone knows you need 2GB to run Vista smoothly, so it wasn't a giant leap that us guys shove in 4GB or even 8GB to keep our Quad cores running smooth? I'm sure they saw the same Intel/AMD product maps that the rest of the world did right?

Intel already sells them and AMD/Intel are planning to release true (4 independent cores) Quad core platforms with plans to double that core count that within 12 months of release...they require GB's of fast memory for their multi-threaded, multi-core processors.

An easy rule of thumb is about 1GB per core. 4 cores need 4GB breaking Vista x86. Only seeing around the 3GB mark. 8 cores equates to a black hole in Vista's reported 3.2GB in Welcome Center with 8GB installed onboard which is also one of the current max installable memory configs on a lot of motherboards.

Get the idea? Well guess what 12-16 cores are in the future map and not much time traveling will be needed to get one of the shelf in PCWorld (24-36 months). 16-32GB of fast DDR3/4 memory to feed all those busy cores effectively.

So clearly Vista x86 is already at its memory limits less than a year after it RTM'ed. Then there's the bad news too - the more Graphics ram the worse the effect. Oh that's right 1GB cards are available now and the more that's onboard the less system ram Vista can use and see, so add a Pair of 1GB SLI/Crossfire cards (if you can get them working with the current drivers) and your down to less than 2GB and what about (working) Quad SLI/Crossfire is around the block, 4 1GB cards and you are in negative memory territory. Maybe the graphics cards will rent out use of theirs instead?

That brings us full circle to the question at hand "Why would MS release an OS that within 12months of its life cycle, won't be able to fully utilise all its onboard memory resource's. Usually the OS gets faster with new hardware & OS limits (e.g. FAT/FAT32/NTFS) are overcome with Service packs (XP SP2) and OS revisions. Remember Windows 95 OSR2 (Windows 95b) as it was affectionately known

Answer 64Bit & Vienna (Windows 7)!

Officially MS hasn't decided on Vienna's feature set. And 64bit has never taken off in any meaningful way, it can be hard enough to get Vista 32bit drivers let alone x64 versions.

That for once isn't all MS own fault though they did help 32bit platforms survive the way of the PATA HDD, FDD, And the PS3 (Fan-boys dont kill me ) by making it mandatory to digitally sign your driver - all well and good?

Not quite those secure digital certs cost serious money. Reducing margins and budget breaking for lots smaller and self employed software developers. So its a catch 22 keep x86 because if they only release x64 it would have made most hardware unusable with a 64bit driver and 32bit software breaks with impressive frequency to easily in Vista x64. No one would have brought it. Everyone looses and we never see 64bit only OS future

Surly even MS can see that 32bit era is over? We have out grown it, we can add it to the OS history books like hybrid - 16/32bit OS Win95/98/Me, and 32bit OS NT/2000/XP.

If the 4GB limit is so obvious why bother with making Vista x86 then?

My bet is financial insurance for those shareholder types. Added to the extended 5 year development cycle without a new desktop OS release. (we had a-bit of hybrid 32bit code Win95/95b/98/2000 native 32bit code base in that time scale)

Many people and companies will be reluctant to jump the XP ship It has become the most stable, supported & and understood OS in its life time. Its a sign of a new era when Apple has to compete on looks and flashy interfaces rather than the usual BSOD jokes, FAT jokes and least not forget Me.

Hypothetically speaking:

3 years time - Vista still bombs in retail sales, its mostly sold OEM (new machines), SLI & Crossfire never work properly, most enthusiasts pay of the mortgage on their house due to stopping buying better bits as it has no effect or benefit on there system and there is no choice but to stay 32bit as most software/games are still 32bit. Most older printers, scanners and cameras still dont have any kind of driver support. Business decided to say with with lower TCO XP systems, and creative release working Audiology/XFI driver updates more than twice a year and you dont have to pay for the privilege of downloading and using. Nah OK i wouldn't go that far but you get my drift.

Along comes a shinning saviour Vienna/ Windows 2010 (using the flashy bits from the epilepsy triggering London 2010 Logo.

Its Gonna be 64bit, its gonna have a different interface "touch space"- an adaptation of the WiiMote and a web cam. expect more Aero style 3d interface as well as voice recognition finally becoming a reality due to 4-8-16 cores & 8+ GB ram & TB storage all star trek real voice & understanding verbal requests and commands.

Sales go off the chart, its billed as the greatest advance in GUI since "The Start button". developers & driver wizards chip in under MS Open source 64bit driver initiative (under orders from EU/DOJ) giving virtually every piece of modern hardware open-source 64bit drivers. Problem Solved then. I always did trust MS to sort it.

One problem tho, that's from my imagination Vista not seeing more than 3.X GB is real today. Hopefully MS will be able to fudge a fix, or motherboard makers come up with something along the lines of the OS2 > 64MB Ram limit.

Now all i need to do is go check my 64 bit Vista Driver list and there's still a good few boxes to tick before I can transition to Vista 64...

[A'Ton Sands]

Well there are a couple of things that need to be sorted out.

1) an x64 OS that is cheap, stable an backwardly compatable, thats not Vista btw.

1) many more applications and games need to be ported to x64, then you will realy see the differences.

[Anach]

Im already capped at 3gig RAM and 512MB video on XP at the moment. So really the only option for me is Vistat 64 for my next OS. The other issue is of course DX10.

Compatibility is a major issue, as it was for many of those people going from 98 to XP in the early days. Many old compoents simply didnt have driver support anymore.

Ive got the same issue with my SBLive sound card. It wont work in Vista. Even with the vista drivers. It also requires about 15gig minimum install space, which is quite a lot just for OS without any apps.

What i dont like about vista is that it takes longer to do everything. Even copy a file from one folder to the next. MS's definition of security is to prompt the user so often for input that they end up disabling the feature anyway.

If we're lucky they will bring out DX10 for XP, then we can skip Vista (WinME2) altogether. Right now my XP looks just like Vista, with most of Vista's eye candy available to add to XP including transparent "Glass" effects and flip3D, its just DX10 is not allowed according to MS.

[A'Ton Sands]

Someone did create DX10 computability libraries so games compiled with them will run under XP.

also applications and games need to be compiled for x64 to take advantage of the addressing space and the bigger busses.

It sounds like you are like me, I just want a simple x64 windows operating system, I'm not interested with all the extras, if I want extras I will install them.

atm Vista is an expensive, slow, bloated OS which doesn't really give you anything that XP can give, dont forget there is an x64 XP

[Anach]

Someone did create DX10 computability libraries so games compiled with them will run under XP.

also applications and games need to be compiled for x64 to take advantage of the addressing space and the bigger busses.

It sounds like you are like me, I just want a simple x64 windows operating system, I'm not interested with all the extras, if I want extras I will install them.

atm Vista is an expensive, slow, bloated OS which doesn't really give you anything that XP can give, dont forget there is an x64 XP

Im using compatibility libraries to run the Vista sidebar and games on XP currently. I believe Gelf is now too .

http://www.fallingleafsystems.com