VNU Net: Microsoft's 64bit struggle for the enterpriseJul 20, 2000, 14:09 (24 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Guy Matthews)
WEBINAR: On-demand Event
Replace Oracle with the NoSQL Engagement Database: Why and how leading companies are making the switch REGISTER >
By Guy Matthews, VNU Net
The Windows operating system (OS) has taken its first faltering steps towards a full 64bit future.
Last week, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates proudly showed off a near complete version of Windows 2000 to run on Intel's IA-64 hardware, promising that the transition to 64bit would be "much easier" than the move from 16bit to 32bit.
Tellingly, his words were aimed not at those who will buy or deploy 64bit Windows, but at code-crunchers attending the Microsoft Professional Developers Conference in Orlando, Florida. They will benefit, Gates claimed, from a shiny new instruction set that Microsoft and Intel have "poured billions into".
But for everyone else, including Microsoft itself, the move to a 64bit world looks like being anything but simple.
So far, this latest staging post for the Windows OS has been greeted with relative indifference. This is hardly surprising, however, as the odd preview version here and there represents nothing but a pawn in a much longer-term game. But into the future, Microsoft has a great deal at stake.
Gunning for Unix
To this end, Microsoft will initially release two flavours of 64bit Windows, one for servers and one for workstations, which will be launched simultaneously following the shipment of the first 64bit Intel-based machines later this year.
In yet another attempt to bolster the credibility of its enterprise ambitions, Microsoft has also generously pre-announced details of the next two versions of Windows 2000, namely Whistler, due out in the second half of next year, and Blackcomb, which is expected a year later.
But there are various flies in this smooth-sounding ointment. Most notably, Microsoft's plans have been undermined by its failure to synchronise shipment of its 64bit baby with the most crucial part of the jigsaw, Intel's IA-64 chip.
The Unix community and other Microsoft critics are cock-a-hoop that almost every flavour of Unix will steal a march on Windows by being available on IA-64 before it.
IBM's Monterey/64 will be pretty much ready when Intel launches the first member of the IA-64 family, Itanium, later this summer. And doubtless to the particular chagrin of Gates, Linux too looks like beating Windows to 64bit status.
In fact, some industry watchers argue that a full and final version of 64bit Windows might not even be available for as much as six months after the processor arrives.
A lack of 64bit hardware
In its defence, Microsoft cites the forthcoming Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, an extension of 32bit Windows 2000, as evidence that it is already highly active in the enterprise space. It claims that Datacenter, which is well overdue but scheduled to ship imminently, is a more than credible offering for demanding applications such as ecommerce, data mining and online transaction processing.
The software giant argues that the offering will provide all of the functionality currently found in Windows 2000 Advanced Server, but will also include 64Gb of memory, support for 32 processors, four-node clustering, process control and network load balancing.
Microsoft's keenness to stress the strengths of Datacenter suggests that it is not expecting a stampede for early copies of 64bit Windows. Analysts have certainly warned that no one should hold their breath waiting for a headlong rush of potential users.
But does any of this matter in the long term?
Exploiting critical applications
Matt Hanrahan, an analyst at Bloor Research, says: "Only a maniac would want to be first to deploy crucial applications on 64bit technology. If you're going to use this kind of thing in anger, it's got to be totally watertight."
He believes that the only corporates likely to be rushing for early editions of 64bit Windows will be those wanting to install it in a laboratory for test purposes.
However, Hanrahan says that it is still far too early to declare who the winners and losers in the 64bit space will be, and adds that Microsoft has as much chance of getting it right or wrong as anyone else.
Many analysts are describing the early rush by vendors to produce operating systems that work with Itanium as a phoney war anyway. Clive Longbottom, an analyst at Strategy Partners, argues: "For most people, Intel's McKinley will be the first true 64bit architecture, but that's not happening until the latter half of 2001. Then the race between Microsoft and Linux will really start."
If evidence for the irrelevance of Itanium were needed, he continues, it can be found in the apparent decision by Hewlett Packard (HP) not to base its servers on IA-64 until McKinley arrives. HP, as the co-creator of the whole IA-64 project with Intel, is in a position of some influence and authority in 64bit matters.
Shock to the systems
In the same way, application developers are unlikely to bust a gut to produce the goods for early versions of 64bit Windows.
All this means that Microsoft's early forays into 64bit territory are little more than marketing exercises. And the company may have to resign itself to this situation for some time, if some influential voices are to be believed. Indeed, analyst firm Gartner does not foresee that 64bit Windows will find a significant market presence until 2003.
But if the software giant, on its long trek down the 64bit path, wants to remind itself why it is bothering at all, it need only look at the huge sums of money involved in this space. In the first three months of this year alone, Sun, IBM, Compaq, HP and SGI, each of which has a 64bit version of Unix that runs on their own 64bit hardware, claimed the lion's share of a server market worth $6.6bn.
However, users would also be unwise to sit out the dance. As Hanrahan says: "The power that 64bit technology delivers is something nobody can afford to ignore."
0 Talkback[s] (click to add your comment)