Latest Windows 8 Rumor Says RTM by April 2012

They're still making windows for X86? Why? 64 bit is superior in so many ways, and 90% of applications will run on it. People need to get away from the 32-bit only nonsense.

I agree. The problem is that even though most of the chips made in the past few years support 64 bit, there are still plenty of 32bit systems out in the wild. However if Windows stops supporting 32bit, people will finally be forced to upgrade.

Could you please explain why 64bit is better beside 32bit memory limitation?

A hit: X86 is not real 64bit, it only have 64 bit extensions.

Because most Atom processors are x86. (Diamondville and mobile Pineview are the only 64bit Atoms so far)

I tried (because I only had the 64bit media handy) to install 64bit on my netbook and it said the processor was not compatible with 64bit so I had to go with 32bit.

Can't wait for a windows 8 tablet.

Until Microsoft lets me install un-signed drivers in x64, I'm sticking with x86.

Please tell me what benefits I will see by switching to 64 bits.

Every X86 cpu sold after jun 2006 have 64bit extensions. Apple stopped 32bit support with OSX 10.7. Micosoft should do the same. People with 6 years old PCs are not prime candidate to upgrade to Win8.

The problem is that software does not get any boost on X86 64bit sine X86 is not a real 64bit processor.

In 1995 when UltraSparc went 64bit, software became almost twice as fast on 64bit, then 32bit.

In windows 64bit software usually are a couple of % slower then the 32bit version.

More importantly: BIOS needs to be killed. It is redicious that they are selling 4 gig grapchic cards, and BIOS can only adress a bit over 2gig. People are so uneducated!

EFI has been around since 2006. If Apple can boot Windows with EFI, why cant Dell? Just removing BIOS make the computer much faster. (this is the reason why Apple Windows machines beats same clocked Dell/HP PCs)

Lets hope Microsoft adopt Apple software pricing and price windows 8 ultimate edition 29 dollars.

if the beta convinces me I'll upgrade to windows 8 from windows 7 (highly doubt it) but only if it's priced bellow 30 dollars (almost impossible)

Uhmmm you can address more then 3gb of memory, meaning I can hold alot more of the OS and programs in memory which will always be faster than having to go to hard drive. I can't believe you just asked this question?

Because still... for most OFFICE / internet users... 4GB of RAM with Windows7 will do just fine.

Why, were you born knowing the answer to the question?

It does let you install unsigned drivers if you like....I do that alot especially with video drivers and I do run a 64bit OS

Agreed. The tech snobs make me wanna puke. The funniest part is I bet he only learned of this in the past year or so himself.

[citation] BIOS needs to be killed. It is redicious that they are selling 4 gig grapchic cards, and BIOS can only adress a bit over 2gig. People are so uneducated! EFI has been around since 2006. If Apple can boot Windows with EFI, why cant Dell? Just removing BIOS make the computer much faster. (this is the reason why Apple Windows machines beats same clocked Dell/HP PCs)[/citation]
Can you explain why removing BIOS can make computer much faster. As I understand, BIOS is only useful for booting the computer, after OS takes control BIOS is not directly called. So by removing BIOS, the computer can boot up faster.

I haven't seen one thing about windows 8 to even slightly peek my interest.

I don't really beleive windows 8 is actually a desktop OS, but rather a tablet and smart phone OS because Microsoft needs something to complete with Android...who btw is kicking MS's butt in that market area.

BIOS is the Basic Input Output System of a computer.
UEFI is the Unified Extensible firmware interface.

The biggest problem with BIOS is that it has a maximum addressable memory size of 1MB, and that it's hard drive support is limited to MBR. With only 1MB of memory there isn't a lot you can cram into the BIOS. An MBR (master boot record) has in inherent size limitation of just over 2 terabytes, and with disks already passing 3TB in size the BIOS needs to die.

UEFI can address up to 9 ZetaBytes (that's 9 billion terabytes)on a single drive, and allows for a full 64bit memory map. So if they wanted to make a motherboard that had the factory restore disk actually built into the UEFI they could.

Class dismissed. =D

64bits is only better than 32bits if you have more than 4G of RAM

I'm no expert, but x86-64 doubles the number of general purpose registers (16 instead of 8), which means the CPU needs to access memory/cache less often.
The larger registers themselves should also increase the speed of some operations.

The advantage isn't huge, but purpose made 64bit applications should be faster than 32bit applications.

I say why not support x86 still. I mean there are still a lot of computers out there that can only support 2gb or 3gb of ram that are still very capable of running Windows 8. My Compaq Presario F700 series is a prime example of that. It runs Windows 7 32bit fine with 2gb of DDR2 667 Ram, AMD Turion 64 TL-58 and an Nvidia Geforce Go 6150 IGP.

The one thing to remember when running stuff in true 64bit,is that your using more memory then you would use running the same program in 32bit.

My system runs faster overall in 64bit,but,in reality it isn't a huge differance from 32bit after you get past the fact that 64bit systems be default,use more system memory

I dunno whether the bios limitation is true or not. I just hope EFI is not bloated. The bios in the other hand is exactly that very basic. I keep seeing wonders of bios being modified to overcome limitation. remember the 32gb and 120GB limitation. Turns out it was a service pack issue and depending of the bios as well. So overall its was the combination of all.

Tell me about it. Mosst of the people on this board were still crapping yellow a year ago.

I have three PCs, a desktop (4GB), a netbook (2GB), and a media-center PC (2GB). I have 64bit Win7 on ONE of them. Why on earth would I want the bloated 64bit drivers/apps on the latter PCs (not to mention lose support of my older peripherals which still work perfectly well, for which 64bit drivers don't exist)? MS would LOOSE sales from users like myself, who only want to install 64bit software on systems where 64bit software makes actual sense, i.e. those with >3GB RAM.

I used to be on 32bit till I upgraded 64Bit Having more than 4gb of ram 32bit does not cut it. Sadly most games are still in 32 bit mode , and for those that says "why Microsoft is still supporting 32bit still" should be asking the same question to Linux distros as well. Just thought I point that out

Well, in response to the many questions to my first post...
A) Obviously, 64-bit allows addressing of more than 4 gigs of RAM.
B) 64-bit programs run somewhat faster
C) 64-bit OSes are marginally more secure than their 32-bit counterparts

I shall clarify my initial post as well: Why should a newly created OS tentatively thought to be released in 2012 support legacy tech that is more than a few years old? Linux shouldn't support this old tech either. Frankly, it would be beneficial to get all of the ancient software (some of it dating back to the 80s!) that businesses are running, and aging hardware out of the wild. Outside of the nightmare this ancient stuff creates for IT departments everywhere, it would also give the tech industry a nice little economic boost if a good many customers had to buy new equipment. Frankly I'm of the opinion that a new, 2012 OS such as Windows 8 should be released solely as a 64 bit OS, and those who continue to use 32-bit only hardware/software (out of necessity or pure stubborness) can use Windows 7 32-bit until MS decides to cut support. Which, if it goes the same way as XP, will be a good long time after Windows 8 releases, so there will be no worries. And the REALLY stubborn can be like the occasional person I run across these days still running 98... still on XP!

Why do they need to cut support when there is still a big market out there for 32bit systems still? It's not about necessity or stubborness it's about what does your typical pc consumor acutally benefit from going to 64bit. What actual benefits are the typical pc consumer will from going from 32bit to 64bit if all they do is surf the internet, do some word processing, listen to music and watch movies on their pc every now and again like the vast majority of your typical pc consumer does? There is no benefit for those types of consumers which makes up the majority of pc consumers out there. So there isn't a need for them to jump on 64bit when they aren't going to see any benefit from it.

Lolz... oh man... they're still going to keep dragging 32-bit around?

Also, after seeing what they've done to the desktop side of Windows... I'd love to see what their new Server OS is like...

I Think people are forgetting one VERY important aspect...

UNLESS YOUR CPU SUPPORTS VT-x, you are STUCK VIRTUALIZING a 32-bit only environment.

And when do your virtual machines every use more than 4GB or memory each?

case closed.