And according to the Inquirer It's 64 bit OS only, 32 bit need not apply, As Microsoft said they won't support a 32 bit UEFI(Replacement for the BIOS on motherboards).

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1033405/msi-trials-efi-bios-replacement

It should be noted that while the 64-bit version of Vista supports EFI in SP1, the 32-bit versions will not, Microsoft states:

"Given the advent of mainstream 64-bit computing and the platform costs previously discussed, Microsoft determined that vendors would not have any interest in producing native UEFI 32-bit firmware. Microsoft has therefore chosen to not ship support for 32-bit UEFI implementations."

Looks like 32 bit MS OSes are doomed.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

And according to the Inquirer It's 64 bit OS only, 32 bit need not apply, As Microsoft said they won't support a 32 bit UEFI(Replacement for the BIOS on motherboards).

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1033405/msi-trials-efi-bios-replacement

It should be noted that while the 64-bit version of Vista supports EFI in SP1, the 32-bit versions will not, Microsoft states:

"Given the advent of mainstream 64-bit computing and the platform costs previously discussed, Microsoft determined that vendors would not have any interest in producing native UEFI 32-bit firmware. Microsoft has therefore chosen to not ship support for 32-bit UEFI implementations."

Looks like 32 bit MS OSes are doomed.

Why would you care about OS's that are limited to 3.1G max ram in this day or going forward? If you use Windows Vista or 7 you are almost forced by the OS to have more ram then that if you want to do anything productive without the dreaded hard drive swapping issues. The processors soon should be 64 bit only and shouldn't worry about 32 bit compatibility. WoW in Windows is a joke and horribly slow and buggy.

Now if you use Linux all bets are off. :)

---

And according to the Inquirer It's 64 bit OS only, 32 bit need not apply, As Microsoft said they won't support a 32 bit UEFI(Replacement for the BIOS on motherboards).

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1033405/msi-trials-efi-bios-replacement

It should be noted that while the 64-bit version of Vista supports EFI in SP1, the 32-bit versions will not, Microsoft states:

"Given the advent of mainstream 64-bit computing and the platform costs previously discussed, Microsoft determined that vendors would not have any interest in producing native UEFI 32-bit firmware. Microsoft has therefore chosen to not ship support for 32-bit UEFI implementations."

Looks like 32 bit MS OSes are doomed.

Why would you care about OS's that are limited to 3.1G max ram in this day or going forward? If you use Windows Vista or 7 you are almost forced by the OS to have more ram then that if you want to do anything productive without the dreaded hard drive swapping issues. The processors soon should be 64 bit only and shouldn't worry about 32 bit compatibility. WoW in Windows is a joke and horribly slow and buggy.

I should have mentioned that I use XP x64, Upgrading to Vista or Win7 right now is out, As I have other fish to fry.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

And according to the Inquirer It's 64 bit OS only, 32 bit need not apply, As Microsoft said they won't support a 32 bit UEFI(Replacement for the BIOS on motherboards).

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1033405/msi-trials-efi-bios-replacement

It should be noted that while the 64-bit version of Vista supports EFI in SP1, the 32-bit versions will not, Microsoft states:

"Given the advent of mainstream 64-bit computing and the platform costs previously discussed, Microsoft determined that vendors would not have any interest in producing native UEFI 32-bit firmware. Microsoft has therefore chosen to not ship support for 32-bit UEFI implementations."

Looks like 32 bit MS OSes are doomed.

Why would you care about OS's that are limited to 3.1G max ram in this day or going forward? If you use Windows Vista or 7 you are almost forced by the OS to have more ram then that if you want to do anything productive without the dreaded hard drive swapping issues. The processors soon should be 64 bit only and shouldn't worry about 32 bit compatibility. WoW in Windows is a joke and horribly slow and buggy.

I should have mentioned that I use XP x64, Upgrading to Vista or Win7 right now is out, As I have other fish to fry.

You also understand that whoever is looking at using UEFI would need a new motherboard that actually has the bios option, right? If you get a new motherboard (computer) to have UEFI then you will probably be able to get a 64 bit OS unless you can find a new motherboard for your current processor. I build my own computers so this isn't much of an issue for me (compared to prebuilt computers, IE Dells). Linux 64 bit is free and easy to install.

---

Looks like 32 bit MS OSes are doomed.

According to the rumors I've been reading on the net, Microsoft has also stated that their next version of Windows will be the most risky to date. Some have speculated that it might be a 64bit only OS, negating the worry of "dooming" 32bit MS OSes.

And according to the Inquirer It's 64 bit OS only, 32 bit need not apply, As Microsoft said they won't support a 32 bit UEFI(Replacement for the BIOS on motherboards).

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1033405/msi-trials-efi-bios-replacement

It should be noted that while the 64-bit version of Vista supports EFI in SP1, the 32-bit versions will not, Microsoft states:

"Given the advent of mainstream 64-bit computing and the platform costs previously discussed, Microsoft determined that vendors would not have any interest in producing native UEFI 32-bit firmware. Microsoft has therefore chosen to not ship support for 32-bit UEFI implementations."

Looks like 32 bit MS OSes are doomed.

Why would you care about OS's that are limited to 3.1G max ram in this day or going forward? If you use Windows Vista or 7 you are almost forced by the OS to have more ram then that if you want to do anything productive without the dreaded hard drive swapping issues. The processors soon should be 64 bit only and shouldn't worry about 32 bit compatibility. WoW in Windows is a joke and horribly slow and buggy.

I should have mentioned that I use XP x64, Upgrading to Vista or Win7 right now is out, As I have other fish to fry.

You also understand that whoever is looking at using UEFI would need a new motherboard that actually has the bios option, right? If you get a new motherboard (computer) to have UEFI then you will probably be able to get a 64 bit OS unless you can find a new motherboard for your current processor. I build my own computers so this isn't much of an issue for me (compared to prebuilt computers, IE Dells). Linux 64 bit is free and easy to install.

Sorry I'm not interested in Linux, As I've tried that nightmare, Sure It's easy to install the OS, But almost nothing else is, I was barely able to install Boinc once and I couldn't figure out how to give It or Firefox the equivalent of a windows shortcut(a Menu Item on Linux) so that I didn't have to go to the install folder everytime I wanted to start It, Nor did I ever figure out how to shut the OS down. I'll stay with Windows, Linux is not ready for Prime Time.

Nor will Linux be discussed in this thread anymore, As It's now off topic beyond this point.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

WoW in Windows is a joke and horribly slow and buggy.

I would beg to differ. I use WoW (Windows on Windows, or more accurately, Windows 32 subsystem on Windows 64), and I've had no problems at all. This is not only my 8 personal machines using some variation of 64bit Windows, but also the 64bit ones I've managed out in the field and on servers I've managed in the past and present.

I will agree that there is a minor speed boost using purely 64bit software, but it's not 'horribly slow' or 'buggy' at all.

Looks like 32 bit MS OSes are doomed.

According to the rumors I've been reading on the net, Microsoft has also stated that their next version of Windows will be the most risky to date. Some have speculated that it might be a 64bit only OS, negating the worry of "dooming" 32bit MS OSes.

They talked about doing that with Windows Vista also but got so much back lash from all the people with older programs that they changed it. 64 bit XP wasn't that popular being all the bugs it had and MS didn't really support it but it was their version with WoW and almost everything ran through the 32 bit interface. I had a copy and didn't really like it. You could do registry changes in 32 bit XP to get it to support over the 4G limit.

---

WoW in Windows is a joke and horribly slow and buggy.

I would beg to differ. I use WoW (Windows on Windows, or more accurately, Windows 32 subsystem on Windows 64), and I've had no problems at all. This is not only my 8 personal machines using some variation of 64bit Windows, but also the 64bit ones I've managed out in the field and on servers I've managed in the past and present.

I will agree that there is a minor speed boost using purely 64bit software, but it's not 'horribly slow' or 'buggy' at all.

Perhaps He uses slow and older hardware, Older than My QX6700 B1 equipped Asus P5K Deluxe motherboard, As I've never had trouble with WoW either.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

I'm going to amend the title some.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Looks like 32 bit MS OSes are doomed.

According to the rumors I've been reading on the net, Microsoft has also stated that their next version of Windows will be the most risky to date. Some have speculated that it might be a 64bit only OS, negating the worry of "dooming" 32bit MS OSes.

They talked about doing that with Windows Vista also but got so much back lash from all the people with older programs that they changed it. 64 bit XP wasn't that popular being all the bugs it had and MS didn't really support it but it was their version with WoW and almost everything ran through the 32 bit interface. I had a copy and didn't really like it. You could do registry changes in 32 bit XP to get it to support over the 4G limit.

I don't remember the talk during Vista's release, but I'll take you at your word. However, that was a different time 3 years ago, and that's a long time in the industry. I would agree with you that 64bit XP wasn't very well supported. I actually forgot to include the one 64bit XP machine that I built and support for someone in my counts too.

Yes, you could enable PAE mode in 32bit Windows (NT, 2K and XP), but that would often break many drivers and other software expecting things to be the way Microsoft originally designed them causing all sorts of instability on 32bit Windows - and that has been my personal experience using the PAE switch on three different systems.

WoW in Windows is a joke and horribly slow and buggy.

I would beg to differ. I use WoW (Windows on Windows, or more accurately, Windows 32 subsystem on Windows 64), and I've had no problems at all. This is not only my 8 personal machines using some variation of 64bit Windows, but also the 64bit ones I've managed out in the field and on servers I've managed in the past and present.

I will agree that there is a minor speed boost using purely 64bit software, but it's not 'horribly slow' or 'buggy' at all.

Perhaps He uses slow and older hardware, Older than My QX6700 B1 equipped Asus P5K Deluxe motherboard, As I've never had trouble with WoW either.

Ok, go read some of the reasons that MS is having to do updates to the allowable 32 bit software for Windows Vista/7. If it works right then it isn't so bad for speed, you can't see much of a difference. If it doesn't or isn't an allowed program then you can try to install it with some interesting side effects. Now these are previously working programs on a 32 bit OS but not with Vista/7.

some cool reading btw on UEFI:

http://www.uefi.org/news/uefi_industry/UEFIEvaluationPlatforms_2010.pdf

---

WoW in Windows is a joke and horribly slow and buggy.

I would beg to differ. I use WoW (Windows on Windows, or more accurately, Windows 32 subsystem on Windows 64), and I've had no problems at all. This is not only my 8 personal machines using some variation of 64bit Windows, but also the 64bit ones I've managed out in the field and on servers I've managed in the past and present.

I will agree that there is a minor speed boost using purely 64bit software, but it's not 'horribly slow' or 'buggy' at all.

Perhaps He uses slow and older hardware, Older than My QX6700 B1 equipped Asus P5K Deluxe motherboard, As I've never had trouble with WoW either.

Ok, go read some of the reasons that MS is having to do updates to the allowable 32 bit software for Windows Vista/7. If it works right then it isn't so bad for speed, you can't see much of a difference. If it doesn't or isn't an allowed program then you can try to install it with some interesting side effects. Now these are previously working programs on a 32 bit OS but not with Vista/7.

I'm currently contracting with a company to migrate their 32bit Windows XP machines to 64bit Windows 7, and they are still using much of their older, pre-Vista/7 software. Thus far, we've only had an issue with one of their programs not working, but that has more to do with the fact that it was written for 32bit Windows 98 than it does with the 64bit OS. Most other 32bit software they use from the Windows 2000 era has had no ill-side effects.

WoW in Windows is a joke and horribly slow and buggy.

I would beg to differ. I use WoW (Windows on Windows, or more accurately, Windows 32 subsystem on Windows 64), and I've had no problems at all. This is not only my 8 personal machines using some variation of 64bit Windows, but also the 64bit ones I've managed out in the field and on servers I've managed in the past and present.

I will agree that there is a minor speed boost using purely 64bit software, but it's not 'horribly slow' or 'buggy' at all.

Perhaps He uses slow and older hardware, Older than My QX6700 B1 equipped Asus P5K Deluxe motherboard, As I've never had trouble with WoW either.

Ok, go read some of the reasons that MS is having to do updates to the allowable 32 bit software for Windows Vista/7. If it works right then it isn't so bad for speed, you can't see much of a difference. If it doesn't or isn't an allowed program then you can try to install it with some interesting side effects. Now these are previously working programs on a 32 bit OS but not with Vista/7.

I'm currently contracting with a company to migrate their 32bit Windows XP machines to 64bit Windows 7, and they are still using much of their older, pre-Vista/7 software. Thus far, we've only had an issue with one of their programs not working, but that has more to do with the fact that it was written for 32bit Windows 98 than it does with the 64bit OS. Most other 32bit software they use from the Windows 2000 era has had no ill-side effects.

Excuse Me? Win 98 32bit? Ha! It's 16bit only.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

WoW in Windows is a joke and horribly slow and buggy.

I would beg to differ. I use WoW (Windows on Windows, or more accurately, Windows 32 subsystem on Windows 64), and I've had no problems at all. This is not only my 8 personal machines using some variation of 64bit Windows, but also the 64bit ones I've managed out in the field and on servers I've managed in the past and present.

I will agree that there is a minor speed boost using purely 64bit software, but it's not 'horribly slow' or 'buggy' at all.

Perhaps He uses slow and older hardware, Older than My QX6700 B1 equipped Asus P5K Deluxe motherboard, As I've never had trouble with WoW either.

Ok, go read some of the reasons that MS is having to do updates to the allowable 32 bit software for Windows Vista/7. If it works right then it isn't so bad for speed, you can't see much of a difference. If it doesn't or isn't an allowed program then you can try to install it with some interesting side effects. Now these are previously working programs on a 32 bit OS but not with Vista/7.

I'm currently contracting with a company to migrate their 32bit Windows XP machines to 64bit Windows 7, and they are still using much of their older, pre-Vista/7 software. Thus far, we've only had an issue with one of their programs not working, but that has more to do with the fact that it was written for 32bit Windows 98 than it does with the 64bit OS. Most other 32bit software they use from the Windows 2000 era has had no ill-side effects.

Excuse Me? Win 98 32bit? Ha! It's 16bit only.

Sorry buddy, but you're wrong this time. 95, 98 and ME had a lot of 32bit code in them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98

WoW in Windows is a joke and horribly slow and buggy.

I would beg to differ. I use WoW (Windows on Windows, or more accurately, Windows 32 subsystem on Windows 64), and I've had no problems at all. This is not only my 8 personal machines using some variation of 64bit Windows, but also the 64bit ones I've managed out in the field and on servers I've managed in the past and present.

I will agree that there is a minor speed boost using purely 64bit software, but it's not 'horribly slow' or 'buggy' at all.

Perhaps He uses slow and older hardware, Older than My QX6700 B1 equipped Asus P5K Deluxe motherboard, As I've never had trouble with WoW either.

Ok, go read some of the reasons that MS is having to do updates to the allowable 32 bit software for Windows Vista/7. If it works right then it isn't so bad for speed, you can't see much of a difference. If it doesn't or isn't an allowed program then you can try to install it with some interesting side effects. Now these are previously working programs on a 32 bit OS but not with Vista/7.

I'm currently contracting with a company to migrate their 32bit Windows XP machines to 64bit Windows 7, and they are still using much of their older, pre-Vista/7 software. Thus far, we've only had an issue with one of their programs not working, but that has more to do with the fact that it was written for 32bit Windows 98 than it does with the 64bit OS. Most other 32bit software they use from the Windows 2000 era has had no ill-side effects.

Excuse Me? Win 98 32bit? Ha! It's 16bit only.

Sorry buddy, but you're wrong this time. 95, 98 and ME had a lot of 32bit code in them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98

Yeah but 16/32 bit converter:

Windows 98 (codenamed Memphis) is a graphical operating system by Microsoft. It is the second major release in the Windows 9x line of operating systems. It was released to manufacturing on 15 May 1998 and to retail on 25 June 1998. Windows 98 is the successor to Windows 95. Like its predecessor, it is a hybrid 16-bit/32-bit[2] monolithic product with an MS-DOS based boot loader[3]. Windows 98 was succeeded by Windows 98 Second Edition on 5 May 1999, then by Windows Me (Millennium Edition) on 14 September 2000. Microsoft support for Windows 98 ended on 11 July 2006.

Makes you wonder if Windows 8 will actually be hard coded to only use 64 bit or not. I sure hope they cut the 32 bit strings already. I can't imagine how much code they would be able to cut out of the OS and get rid of some bloat.

---

Yeah but 16/32 bit converter

I'm not arguing. But it did have a lot of 32bit code in it. In fact, to try to prepare people for the coming 32bit world, Microsoft also released a 32bit extension for Windows 3.1 (which was completely 16bit) called "Win32s" (or the Windows 32bit subset). The laughable part is that most software written for Windows 95 would not work with Win32s save for a few programs like the Calculator that came with Windows 95.

[Edit] Face it, we've been using 32bit for over a decade now. We're getting better though. The first 32bit x86 microprocessor was the Intel 80386 released in 1986 and it wasn't until Windows 95 being released in 1995 to actually make use of it, or 9 years later. The first x86-64 microprocessor was released by AMD in 2003 and the first Microsoft OS to support 64bit was released in 2005, and we're quickly picking up on using it in the consumer space. 64bit Windows 7 has already out-sold 32bit Windows 7 and 64bit Windows Vista.

Makes you wonder if Windows 8 will actually be hard coded to only use 64 bit or not. I sure hope they cut the 32 bit strings already. I can't imagine how much code they would be able to cut out of the OS and get rid of some bloat.

I seriously doubt they'll cut the 32bit subsystem out altogether. My guess is they'll just release the OS as 64bit only. There's far too much 32bit software out there to cut them all off, and too many companies would be seriously pissed off.

Personally, I don't see Windows as bloated any more than I see Linux as bloated when it can pack a full 4.5GB DVD. Most of it is features and drivers. Sure, you could slim both Windows and *nix down and still be functional, but too many people expect a full-featured OS these days.

Yeah but 16/32 bit converter

I'm not arguing. But it did have a lot of 32bit code in it. In fact, to try to prepare people for the coming 32bit world, Microsoft also released a 32bit extension for Windows 3.1 called "Win32s" (or the Windows 32bit subset). The laughable part is that most software written for Windows 95 would not work with Win32s save for a few programs like the Calculator that came with Windows 95.

Makes you wonder if Windows 8 will actually be hard coded to only use 64 bit or not. I sure hope they cut the 32 bit strings already. I can't imagine how much code they would be able to cut out of the OS and get rid of some bloat.

I seriously doubt they'll cut the 32bit subsystem out altogether. My guess is they'll just release the OS as 64bit only. There's far too much 32bit software out there to cut them all off, and too many companies would be seriously pissed off.

Personally, I don't see Windows as bloated any more than I see Linux as bloated when it can pack a full 4.5GB DVD. Most of it is features and drivers. Sure, you could slim both Windows and *nix down and still be functional, but too many people expect a full-featured OS these days.

I remember the calc issues. It is a much easier program to rewrite then most of the other programs that are in Windows. Just like if you remember or look at IE, they have a full 64 bit version and the 32 bit version. Not like they used to say it was 64 bit but actually ran on WoW as a 32 bit app in reality.

Well normally a *nix install disk has a ton of add on programs that Windows doesn't. Which can be very nice if you don't want to get them off the net. IE Ubuntu normally has a ton of other programs that come with the install not like Gentoo or Debian where you can get a nice stripped down version and install only what you want/need.

---

Just like if you remember or look at IE, they have a full 64 bit version and the 32 bit version. Not like they used to say it was 64 bit but actually ran on WoW as a 32 bit app in reality.

I only recall that people thought it was a 64bit app but it always was in fact 32bit. I think some people misunderstood.

Well normally a *nix install disk has a ton of add on programs that Windows doesn't. Which can be very nice if you don't want to get them off the net. IE Ubuntu normally has a ton of other programs that come with the install not like Gentoo or Debian where you can get a nice stripped down version and install only what you want/need.

You can also get a slimmed down version of Windows off the net too, though you run into licensing issues. It used to be a Windows Guru's biggest feat to get Windows down to as small of a footprint as possible while remaining functional. I believe one of the most impressive numbers was getting Windows 98 down to 15MB of disk space. You could also technically get DOS to run in as little as three files (MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS and COMMAND.COM). But again, many people want a full-featured OS. They liked SCANDISK.EXE and DEFRAG.EXE among many others.

Linux might include a lot of programs, but Windows focuses on packing as many drivers as they can because it supports so much. I couldn't even get 3 current copies of Linux to support a very popular 3COM 3C905B-TX 100Mb NIC. I'd rather have the driver support of Windows than Linux's attempt to over-compensate their lack by throwing in all sorts of mostly useless software that I'll probably never use.

Linux as I said is off topic, please Windows only from now on.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's