Windows Server 2003 for 64-Bit Extended Systems provides high performance for both 32-bit and 64-bit applications on the same system. The underlying architecture is based on 64-bit extensions to the industry-standard x86 instruction set, allowing today’s 32-bit applications to run natively on 64-bit extended processors such as AMD Opteron. At the same time, new 64-bit applications are executed in 64-bit mode, which processes more data per clock cycle, allows greater access to memory, and speeds numeric calculations. Read the newly published information here.
Windows Server 2003 for 64-Bit Extended Systems
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
There have been articles dealing with AMD’s 64-bit processor as early as October 2001. Considering that AMD works closely with Microsoft, I wonder why the latter wasn’t able to develop an Athlon64 version of Windows before that chip was officially launched.
Another aggravating circumstance is the fact that Microsoft has done whatever it could to position Windows against 64-bit operating systems like Solaris or AIX in the public opinion. Were the Redmond engineers stuck in 32-bit land while their marketing colleagues were touting Windows as a high-end solution ?
I think porting the kernel was simple, the problem must have been the enormous amount of api’s, especially legacy api’s and hardare specific stuff like drivers and directx.
you get a 64 bit OS, but most of the stuff you’ll need isn’t available yet. the only thing you can really use it for is datacenters (because sql server is 64 bit ready), but for any kind of application serving that needs the .NET framework you’re stuck with 32bit, atleast until whidbey comes out. (unless you jump on pnet and the like)
there’s still plenty of other stuff either running in 32 bit, or not running at all so you should pay close attention before buying your 64bit hardware thinking you’ll throw windows on it.
Windows has been 64-Bit for quite some time now. I can understand the delay with the AMD64 version of windows. I think they got burned with the 64-Bit Itanium version of windows. The AMD64 processors are the first AMD processor i have considered buying from the company since the last AMD processor i bought (a K-6 300Mhz) which was POS. When AMD64 windows comes out i am definitely going to do a build up. Perhaps sooner to test out AMD64 Linux or BSD.
Windows has been 64-Bit for quite some time now. I can understand the delay with the AMD64 version of windows. I think they got burned with the 64-Bit Itanium version of windows. The AMD64 processors are the first AMD processor i have considered buying from the company since the last AMD processor i bought (a K-6 300Mhz) which was POS. When AMD64 windows comes out i am definitely going to do a build up. Perhaps sooner to test out AMD64 Linux or BSD.
I think “quite some while” is a bit of a stretch. It only became 64bit way back in Windows 2000 when Microsoft released “Windows 2000 Limited Edition” which was like a technical preview of Windows 2000 for Itanium.
The version of NT that ran on Alpha was not 64bit but actually 32bit and required you to loaded a new firmware onto the machine so that you could use it. Basically it was a beefy 64bit machine crippled with a cruddy 32bit operating system.
Also, Itanium is a completely different architecture to x86-64. Itanium, in the strictest sense is RISC pushed to the absolutely extreme. RISC suffered from the same problem in the early days in relation to crappy compilers, however, eventually the compilers matured. Itanium is going through the same rough patch, however, that isn’t the only thing buggering up the Itanium train. Intels not allowing distributors to distribute Itanium motherboards and CPUs to small server vendors.
I had a reselling contract with Melco and I had access to almost every chip I wanted except for Itanium, I checked out Techdata Pacific, again, they couldn’t either. Heck, even VST which has everything but the kitchen sink couldn’t get access to these CPUs. If one can’t get access to components, how is one meant to assemble and sell Itanium servers? anyway, thats a different argument altogether.
Linux distros changed to 64 bits in one monsth, why took so much time for Microsoft?
Linux distros changed to 64 bits in one monsth, why took so much time for Microsoft?
Come off it. It took Linux longer than one month. That doesn’t take into account the toolchain that needed to be ported or the libc library and the many other parts.
Sure, bash Microsoft but actually use some substaintiated facts rather than pro-Linux drival dragged up from The Register.
>> dabooty: you get a 64 bit OS, but most of the stuff you’ll need isn’t available yet. the only thing you can really use it for is datacenters (because sql server is 64 bit ready), but for any kind of application serving that needs the .NET framework you’re stuck with 32bit, atleast until whidbey comes out. (unless you jump on pnet and the like)
Perhaps that is why it is called a beta.
NT has been 64 bit for the alpha and ppc for quite some time.
> Linux distros changed to 64 bits in one monsth,
> why took so much time for Microsoft?
This is so wrong, The orignal port of Linux to 64 bitness was the Alpha (AXP) port. It was painful and still the code is not 64 bit clean.
> The version of NT that ran on Alpha was not 64bit but
> actually 32bit and required you to loaded a new firmware
> onto the machine so that you could use it.
Clarification:
The new bios was to support the loading process (alphabios) but the firmware also supported linux and was more familiar to intel users. (not command line) The HAL layer in windows was 64 bit and the fx32! layer provide the translation. Towards the end native(axp) compilers, word office suite, and doom were avialable.
As far as anyone knows the FX32! layer is now providieing the Itanium port IA32 compatability. On AMD64 the WOW! layer provides the same functionality as FX32! but WOW! is an order of magnitude simplier since you don’t need to translate instructions.
Donaldson
What’s up with the exclamation points? Is that part of the technology’s official name?
I mean, “WOW!” I can understand, but “FX32!”? Or is my browser just displaying things incorrectly?
Uh oh — I’m being humorous on OSNews. Expect this post to disappear in T minus 10, 9, 8…
> Perhaps that is why it is called a beta.
microsoft has XP and 2003 64 bit releases, all crippled in the same ways. of no use unless you run a datacenter.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/10/17/41FE64win_1.html
I think they got burned with the 64-Bit Itanium version of windows.
Awwww.. poor Microsoft. There there..
“The version of NT that ran on Alpha was not 64bit but actually 32bit and required you to loaded a new firmware onto the machine so that you could use it.”
Clarification: The new bios was to support the loading process (alphabios) but the firmware also supported linux and was more familiar to intel users. (not command line) The HAL layer in windows was 64 bit and the fx32! layer provide the translation. Towards the end native(axp) compilers, word office suite, and doom were avialable.
http://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=1461
“8/23/99 — Compaq Computer Corp. today confirmed it is ending development for 32-bit versions of Windows NT and Windows 2000 on its Alpha platform, but the Houston-based computer maker says Alpha development for 64-bit Windows 2000 will continue.”
So actually, you ARE wrong. Windows 2000 was going to be the first 64bit version of the NT line, which as we know was cancelled.
“Linux distros changed to 64 bits in one monsth, why took so much time for Microsoft?”
Myabe for the same reason it takes 4-5 months to build a house vs. 1 week to manufacture a mobile home.
>> dabooty: microsoft has XP and 2003 64 bit releases, all crippled in the same ways. of no use unless you run a datacenter.
There are currently no Windows *releases* which support x86-64. On January 6th, 2004 Microsoft released an x86-64 *beta* of Windows Server 2003. This *beta* is the only official publicly available copy of Windows that has supports x86-64. This *beta* is time-limited to 360 days, which obviously puts the release date somewhere in 2005. As such, coming to conclusions about its compatibility *now* and advising people not to use it *now* in production machines is asinine.
Stop spreading FUD and read the information that was linked to in the news story.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/extended/default.m…
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/extended/standard….
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/extended/enterpris…
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/extended/trial/def…
exclamation points?
As far as I rembere those are the correct names. I think
it may had to do with copyrighting. I’ll check the code
again to be sure though.
RE: So actually, you ARE wrong. Windows 2000 was going to be
> the first 64bit version of the NT line, which as we know
> was cancelled.
1. HAL = Hardware Abstraction Layer
Windows 2000 was moving more of the core libraries to AXP
code. I never said NT 4.0 was 64 bit what I said was the
alphabios was not just for windows. The HAl was AXP
compiliant and had 64 bit paths. MS did release some 64
applications that went around FX32! emulation layer.
And on this point for those who wonder, You only need two
native libraries. libc and lm. ALL othe library calls end
up going through these two libraries.
Donaldson
That Microsoft is not new to 64-Bit computing platforms. The complexity of windows coupled with the infinte array of hardware it supports makes it no small task ot move to a new platform.