when will ubuntu drop support for 32 bit cpus

[atlfalcons866]

hi
I read on wikipedia that windows vista will be the last os that is shipped as 32bit. Windows vienna will be only in 64bit. does that mean ubuntu will follow whatever microsoft does and drop 32bit?

[Compucore]

I don't think that Ubuntu woiuld do that. Most of my computers here are only 32 bit and not 64 bit versions. I think it would be wise to still make it both 32 and 64 bit for those who have older machines like mine and the others.

COmpucore

[starcraft.man]

hi
I read on wikipedia that windows vista will be the last os that is shipped as 32bit. Windows vienna will be only in 64bit. does that mean ubuntu will follow whatever microsoft does and drop 32bit?

Vista promised to be a complete rewrite of their OS, including a new filesystem... do you see that even today (6 months post launch)?. I don't give much credence to Microsoft's words. They have failed to deliver so often it's best to take odds against what they say happening...

I equally don't see Ubuntu dropping 32 bit in the near future... don't worry.

[atlfalcons866]

what was the new file system going to be called?

[Turboaaa2001]

OMG!!! If thats true MS is more full of itself than I thought.

In todays market, I would say that 68% of all PC users are people who check e-mail, listen to music, look at photos, and balancing the check book. These things do not need 64bit processing, only 32. If MS pushes 64bit only then that will cut compatability yet again.

The problem is that to use 64bit software you need 64bit hardware and the OS. Of course by then this will be more available but will alienate the other 32% of the market.

Will Ubuntu go that way? Absolutly not! Ubuntu and open source is all about choice. That means that you will be able to use 32bit Ubuntu that will be supported for many years to come.

[starcraft.man]

what was the new file system going to be called?

WinFS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS)

Don't put your hopes on that either, I bet Starcraft Ghost comes out first with it's incompetent development/management.

[Dimitriid]

Vista promised to be a complete rewrite of their OS, including a new filesystem... do you see that even today (6 months post launch)?. I don't give much credence to Microsoft's words. They have failed to deliver so often it's best to take odds against what they say happening...

I equally don't see Ubuntu dropping 32 bit in the near future... don't worry.

I don't know, some of those promises they DO uphold, I can tell you from 1st hand experienced that not only they discontinued support for win 2000 and older but they actually forced a major pc manufacturer to remove all support including no distribution of drivers or recovery disks which the customer is entitled to.

Thats how far they are willing to go for something that seems ridiculous so I could see them trying to force everybody into 64bit platforms prematurely for no logical reason at all.

[atlfalcons866]

from wikipedia
WinFS is not a physical file system; rather, it provides schematized data modeling capabilities on top of the NTFS file system. It still uses NTFS to store its data in physical files.

It is not a new file system It is showing how lazy microsoft is

[jdrodrig]

I think the statement made by MS was that the last 32bit *server* OS was the just released. On the client segment, they have not claimed such thing...

[Spaceman3750]

It is not a new file system It is showing how lazy microsoft is

Every Windows with a GUI was a GUI on top of DOS until Windows XP ;).

[starcraft.man]

I don't know, some of those promises they DO uphold, I can tell you from 1st hand experienced that not only they discontinued support for win 2000 and older but they actually forced a major pc manufacturer to remove all support including no distribution of drivers or recovery disks which the customer is entitled to.

Thats how far they are willing to go for something that seems ridiculous so I could see them trying to force everybody into 64bit platforms prematurely for no logical reason at all.

LOL! I don't count that as a promise, that's simply Microsoft business practice at work removing choice so that people are forced to buy a product they don't want (i.e. Vista). Just look at the anger people are giving MS over Vista (mostly drivers), and it's still predominantly 32 bit... If they went full 64 bit support and had a launch remotely similar to Vista they would have a riot at Redmond.

[Hex_Mandos]

Debian just now discontinued support for the Motorola 68k architecture (and it's still available in Unstable/testing). So they'll support i386 for years (maybe decades) to come. Ubuntu will be able to support i386 until the platform is completely obsolete.

[Spaceman3750]

I'm going to go a little bit into conspiracy theories and say that hardware manufacturers cut deals with MS to make the OS super-hardware intensive... If that were true, it wouldn't surprise me to see Windows go full 64-bit.

[shen-an-doah]

Considering one of the things Linux is best for is running on old machines, I would doubt they'd do something as stupid as discontinuing support for the majority of processors on the market.

And since when did anyone in the open source world just blindly follow what Microsoft does?

[Dimitriid]

LOL! I don't count that as a promise, that's simply Microsoft business practice at work removing choice so that people are forced to buy a product they don't want (i.e. Vista). Just look at the anger people are giving MS over Vista (mostly drivers), and it's still predominantly 32 bit... If they went full 64 bit support and had a launch remotely similar to Vista they would have a riot at Redmond.

No pc that ships natively with Windows 98 can run Vista at all anyway ( And thats because im certain this manufacturer I work for does not ship consumer products with windows 2000 ) so I do not think they would be selling any Vista copies for people running on such ancient hardware. In fact most of them are not adequate enough for XP which I dont see em selling anymore anyways. It just seems like an arbitrary move to screw over Manufacturers and customers, after all what would you gain from banning other people for providing support you refuse to provide anyway?

[Dimitriid]

I'm going to go a little bit into conspiracy theories and say that hardware manufacturers cut deals with MS to make the OS super-hardware intensive... If that were true, it wouldn't surprise me to see Windows go full 64-bit.

Feasible, but isn't the fact that they are now pushing things like multicore processors a sign that they are getting
near technological walls for the consumer market anyway? Besides if there ever was a company capable of overdoing the bloated OS thing that would be Microsoft, If I was Intel or AMD or whomever I wouldn't trust em to know when to stop :D

[PatrickMay16]

Every Windows with a GUI was a GUI on top of DOS until Windows XP ;).

That's absolutely wrong. There was windows NT 3 as far back as 1993 or something which was its own OS. Then windows NT 4, then windows 2000, and then windows XP which is windows 2000 with some extra features and a new theme.

[Spaceman3750]

That's absolutely wrong. There was windows NT 3 as far back as 1993 or something which was its own OS. Then windows NT 4, then windows 2000, and then windows XP which is windows 2000 with some extra features and a new theme.

Eh, what I heard anyways.

[Hex_Mandos]

While PatrickMay is right, NT and 2k weren't consumer versions of Windows. The regular upgrade path went this way: Windows 3.x → 95 → 98 (and 98SE) → Me → XP → Vista. So, for home users, the first NT based Windows version was XP.

[FuturePilot]

Probably not for a long time. Most people don't need a 64 bit processor. If MS releases a version of Windows that's only 64 bit, it's just them trying to manipulate the PC market even more.

[Quillz]

WinFS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS)

Don't put your hopes on that either, I bet Starcraft Ghost comes out first with it's incompetent development/management.
WinFS was canceled because it's technology was already integrated into NTFS and other technologies that are in fact a part of Vista.

[Quillz]

Probably not for a long time. Most people don't need a 64 bit processor. If MS releases a version of Windows that's only 64 bit, it's just them trying to manipulate the PC market even more.
Just like Windows 95 manipulated the market because god forbid they tried to move people to 32-bit computing?

[eentonig]

knowing how linux development usually goes. support will be dropped around 50 years after 64bit architecture gained 99,9% marketshare.

[Quillz]

knowing how linux development usually goes. support will be dropped around 50 years after 64bit architecture gained 99,9% marketshare.
Absolutely not, I would say 64-bit computing will be mainstream within 5-6 years.

[steven8]

knowing how linux development usually goes. support will be dropped around 50 years after 64bit architecture gained 99,9% marketshare.

Yeah. . .the slackards!! Lazy bums! eentonig is gonna lead the charge and start programming all the 64 bit 'bits' we need because he's on top of it! Go, man, go! Show 'em how real development is done.

[Iarwain ben-adar]

You say when the next version of Windows will come.

I don't know how long it took for XP->Vista (about 6-7 years i presume?) so it would be like 2013-2014-2015
for Microsoft to come with their new OS (that's without the delays offcourse ^^ )

In that time, i think if marketing is done correctly, all who purchase a new pc will be purchasing 64 cpu's. (except for the exceptions :D )

Just don't take my words for truth, it's all speculation


Iarwain

[Arathorn]

The reason for cutting 32 bit support from Vienna is quite simple. Almost all processors sold today are 64 bit, and only relatively new computers nowadays are able to run Vista nicely. So I don't think Vista's successor (which I don't expect soon, despite Microsoft's claims of a release in 2009) will run at all on computers that are relatively even older.
Because of it's open nature, there will be 32 bit Linux versions as long as people compile them. I rather wonder when Ubuntu will finally support 64 bits nicely.

[Quillz]

The reason for cutting 32 bit support from Vienna is quite simple. Almost all processors sold today are 64 bit, and only relatively new computers nowadays are able to run Vista nicely. So I don't think Vista's successor (which I don't expect soon, despite Microsoft's claims of a release in 2009) will run at all on computers that are relatively even older.
Because of it's open nature, there will be 32 bit Linux versions as long as people compile them. I rather wonder when Ubuntu will finally support 64 bits nicely.
Doesn't Feisty Fawn 64-bit edition work well? I haven't tried it yet, although I do have an Intel Core 2 Duo, which is 64-bit ready.

[ezsit]

Every Windows with a GUI was a GUI on top of DOS until Windows XP

Ah, youth.

Windows XP came from Windows 2000 which came from Windows NT 4.0 which came from Windows NT 3.X. Windows NT 3.1 through 3.51 was written as a microkernel replacement operating system for OS/2 2.0. Microsoft/IBM OS/2 1.X was the first operating system with a GUI that was a complete break from DOS. Windows NT 3.X was originally planned as OS/2 3.0, but due to friction between IBM and Microsoft, Windows NT 3.1 was a break from OS/2 and was released back in 1993. Windows NT 3.1 was the first true 32 bit, protected mode operating system from Microsoft and represented Microsoft's break from DOS.


While PatrickMay is right, NT and 2k weren't consumer versions of Windows.
What? I bought retail versions of Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4.0, and Windows 2000. If those purchases don't count as 'consumer versions' I don't know what will. I believe two out of three of those purchases were made at CompUSA! That's consumer enough for me.

[Arathorn]

Doesn't Feisty Fawn 64-bit edition work well? I haven't tried it yet, although I do have an Intel Core 2 Duo, which is 64-bit ready.
I must admit I haven't tried Feisty yet. After upgrading to Edgy failed I decided to do a fresh install of 32 bit Kubuntu again.

[Somenoob]

Most today's PC are 32-bit, so in all probability no.

[EdThaSlayer]

It will be 20 or so years before everyone has an 64 bit cpu.

[ssam]

Debian just now discontinued support for the Motorola 68k architecture (and it's still available in Unstable/testing). So they'll support i386 for years (maybe decades) to come. Ubuntu will be able to support i386 until the platform is completely obsolete.

http://www.grep.be/blog/en/computer/debian/m68k/exaggerated
68k debian is not dead

ubuntu will probably drop i386 as an official arch before debain do (asuming debian and ubuntu don't change their goals over the next 10 years).

it is also easy to emulate i386 hardware on 64_x86 computers, so it is easier to test i386 even if the developers dont have access to old machines (compared to testing powerpc releases)