I’ve just read an article written by an author who is currently running 32-bit versions of Windows on hardware that is capable of running 64-bit versions. He says that his major concern is about compatibility were he to go 64-bit when he installs Windows 7, although he would find the vast amount of RAM that he could use most useful. He’d nevertheless, until recently, been planning to stick to 32-bit because one of his most-used applications didn’t have a 64-bit version available. This situation has recently changed; and therefore he is now considering running 64-bit Windows 7, although still with some trepidation as far as hardware compatibility is concerned:

To quote: “Hardware vendors need to update their drivers for 64 bits, and some have not. Hopefully, more and more will over time, but it’s the most likely area of concern, particularly for older machines. Hardware vendors will of course focus their efforts on newer hardware and are less likely to provide updated drivers for their older equipment.”

That is to my mind a defeatist attitude: It’s saying that since hardware vendors can’t be bothered to update their drivers for their hardware; we have to stick to a 32-bit operating system, with its memory limitations, and put up with it, because it makes things easier for existing market forces.

I think that’s totally the wrong way to look at it:

If we’d have said “OK; we’ll stick with 32-bit single-core processors because it’s easier on Intel and AMD,” then we’d still all have slow computers, incapable of running multiple programs efficiently, with less than 4 gigabytes of memory, to this day. The gaming industry’s innovations would have been snubbed, and people would be getting fed up with computers by now due to technological stagnation and blockage.

- So why, then, should we say die on moving to 64-bit just because the hardware manufacturers and vendors can’t be arsed to write 64-bit drivers for their products? IF, rather than lying down and accepting it, we refused to buy any piece of hardware that didn’t have a 64-bit driver accompanying it; and I’m talking about secondhand as well as new here, then the hand of manufacturers and vendors would be forced into action; and they’d have no choice but to provide 64-bit drivers with their products.

The same goes for programs: If everyone who owns a computer capable of running a 64-bit operating system did so; and those whose computers were incapable of doing so bought or built new machines capable of doing so and did so, then 32-bit would be no more: This would make all 32-bit drivers, and, to a large extent, 32-bit programs also, virtually worthless to anybody: Therefore industry would start turning out all 64-bit application software and all-64-bit drivers for hardware. 64-bit Windows is backwards-compatible with 32-bit applications; so where there is no choice but to use a 32-bit program or driver, it could be done in secret, while at the same time rallying and hassling manufacturers and vendors to hurry up with their new 64-bit drivers.

- Remember; under this plan, nobody would buy any hardware that didn’t have a 64-bit driver available. Existing hardware, however, would continue to be used in 32-bit-mode if at all possible until a compatible 64-bit driver was released. – So unless a device was sold with a 64-bit driver; the manufacturer or vendor wouldn’t get a sale at all. If something was so old that it just wasn’t worth writing a 64-bit driver for it, then with the low-price of hardware these days it wouldn’t hurt the owner to recycle the old unit(s), or donate them to a museum, and upgrade their hardware to something newer.

I realise that this plan would hit secondhand hardware traders such as eBay and the like rather hard in a number of departments. I realise that it would also hit a number of users too; and force them to dump old but working hardware and spend a little cash to buy new; but isn’t it worth a little sacrifice in the name of progress?

Here I’m going to do something unusual for a Wintard and praise the Mac: Macs are all 64-bit. The Mac OS and all the related software are 64-bit, as are pretty much all the new Linux distros which are being produced these days. Windows is probably the only operating system which is encouraging hanging on to 32-bit. That is not acceptable; especially in the light of the fact that Windows has the largest market share, and should be leading the progression; rather than dragging behind.

But that’s the way things are: Microsoft; for reasons best known to themselves, have always been a little slow on the uptake recently. Perhaps if they did but realise that they’ll never be able to keep up with the running pack if they keep shooting themselves on the foot; they’d be able to be the true market leaders that they should be.

-For example: They do what they should have done ages ago finally and ask their customers what they’d like in the next operating system. (It took Vista to teach them that; and as a result they probably lost billions of potential dollars in revenue as a result.) When it comes to pricing it however, they use the same type of system that they used with Vista; various “versions” with x number of features disabled in proportion to the level of cost. That is a stupid marketing strategy; and I’ll explain why:-

All the various versions are sold on an almost identical disc. That disc contains a full-featured Windows installation of Ultimate edition; regardless of which “version” it is. The only difference between the Ultimate disc and any other is the number of features disabled: It costs them exactly the same to produce the most disabled version as it does to produce the Ultimate version. By disabling certain features they’re cutting the sale value of the product.

If, instead of doing as they are, charging $300 for the ultimate version, and say, $75 for the most-disabled version, they instead sold nothing but Ultimate and charged $188 for it; then they’d make exactly the same sales revenue, yet not have to spend a bit extra to produce discs with features disabled.

If my information is correct they’re packing both a 32-bit and a 64-bit version of 7 into a single DVD case also. – Again this is counterproductive: If they sold nothing but 64-bit Ultimate for $188 they’d cut their production costs dramatically. – PLUS anyone who is still running a 32-bit processor/motherboard setup wishing to run 7 would have to get a new setup or upgrade their existing system by necessity: Think of all the benefits to hardware manufacturers plus the extra number of sales of preinstalled Windows 7 installations!

- But Microsoft aren’t that good at thinking ahead, as can be seen here.

“Wait a minute…” You interject. “Not every computer is capable of running Windows 7 Ultimate: What about netbooks, for example?”

You would be mightily surprised: Rich Menga of PC Mech.com recently installed Windows 7 Ultimate RC (32-bit) on his Dell Inspiron mini 10v. I can’t link to the article really, as it’s in the PC Mech Premium section, so it’s not free to view. (What I will say; however, is that it is well worth joining PC Mech Premium. I won’t advertise too heavily here; but that is a fact.) I’ll give away a couple of tiny snippets of information from the article, and I do hope the guys at PC Mech won’t be too annoyed by my doing so: -

“Problems encountered[:]

None.”

- No word of a lie: That is directly copied & pasted from the article. – As is the following:

“System Performance[:]

Shockingly good. You’d think with a 1.6GHz Intel Atom mobile processor and 1GB of RAM with a 5400rpm hard drive that Windows 7 would run as slow as molasses. Not true. In fact it runs about the same speed XP did. In some instances even faster.”

- I don’t see any problems there, do you? These “versions” appear unnecessary; they’re just marketing hype. – A load of BS with the intention of making more money? Probably; but despite the intention, it doesn’t appear to be working. Agreed that some comps won’t be able to run certain features perhaps. – Even in the light of the above. There’s a simple enough solution to that: If your computer can’t run something then don’t try to run it. – Easy, isn’t it?

Microsoft must be a centipede or a millipede; as it still manages to stay upright despite repeatedly shooting itself in the foot.

- So a draconian plan has been hatched to kick-off the 64-bit revolution. ‘Too radical? Well it needs to be; or Microsoft will have us lagging back in the 20th Century for the rest of this century.

Backwards-compatibility is never a bad thing: In fact it’s probably one of Microsoft’s leading qualities. – But backward-thinking and everything associated with it is something that technology could well do without.

What are your thoughts on all this?