Sry, but I am against a 64bit only implementation. I still have x86 based machines. I really regretted not buying an AMD64 processor that time instead I bought the Intel NorthWood. To side track a bit I really hate Intel. They like to feature price their Processor. While all AMD Processor except the Sempron support AMD V Intel turn VT off for some of their systems without a clear guideline, worse some vendors code BIOS without VT when it is there. Anyway I hope BIOS mode extends to VT unlock here besides SLIC.
By the time W8 come(about 2012), you may have a brand new 64-bit PC already(or even 128-bit one, who knows). If not, you still can stick with 7/vista. New OSes are meant for new PCs and technologies anyway.
Actually my AMD Athlon X2 3800+ does not have AMD-V .And worse yet.I have been running more and more virtual machines lately.Its pain in the arse to run them without proper hardware acceleration
Erm AMD V was only out in 2006, your Processor was in 2005, logically it isn't supported. What I mean is when AMD V was out, all Processors it released later is supported except Sempron.
Good luck using your new 8gb laptop in 2012 with a 32bit OS then....... Shame it will only address 3gb of that ram and the rest is wasted...
Why not?? Windows 7 x86. The lower system requirements will help. I am already running it on Vista Currently.
Even if 64bit might be the future, this isn't arrived at a lot of software manufacturers. Have you ever tried to get a plugin for Photoshop 64bit? Have you ever tried to synchronise a lot of soho devices, where only a 32bit device driver is available?
i cant wait for 128 bit puters with no ram chips to plug in just ssd drives and something simular for memory with 400 gigs used for memory just think instant on games that are so close to real wow, by the way anybody seen my vic 20 around
No x86 processors were sold between 2008-2010 Best example is Intel Atom N270 and N280 Microsoft is a fool if they say that x86 is dead, because x64 hasnt really come to the mainstream in comparision to x86 which has practically every possible application coded for it.
What we call x86 is actually x86-32 and x64 is x86-64. But do they really mean x128 (x86-128)? I heard somewhere that they mean ia128, or it could be for the filesystem, but that's also unrealistic I think
Its about damn time, 32bit is a thing of the past. Its time for the industry to move on. so much more is capable with 64bit programing. Letting software devleopers keep on with outdated crap just slows down innovation in newer technologies. 32 bit CPUs havn't been manufatured in the last 5 years, its time for the software to follow suit.
Read recently that 46% of win 7 installs are 64 bit and 54% are 32 bit. However, win 7 has a market share of 13%. XP has close to 62-63% but falling. Of this, only around 1% is 64 bit. Vista has 14.7% share but only 11% of vista PCs are 64-bit. So, 64 bit is gaining in new installs, but the stock of PCs already operating is heavily in favour of 32 bit. Seems like business sense for MS to explore 64 bit version only for win 8 (2012). As noted and through extrapolation, PCs unable to run 64 bit at that time would be more than 6-7 years old at the least and no sense in making products that are compatible with those ancient PCs. They can stick with XP or windows 95 or whatever. For newer PCs, 64 bit is not an issue at all.