backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by yak8998.. on Feb 1 at 4:16 AM


Unreal Tournament 3 -- image courtesy GameSpot
Epic's Mark Rein opens the flood gates for a discussion on the latest tech

Game Informer recently had a chance to chat with Epic's Mark Rein on a variety of subjects ranging from Unreal Tournament 3 to Windows Vista to the PlayStation 3 vs. Xbox 360 battle. Rein, never one to bite his tongue, held nothing back in this one-on-one.

Rein first spoke about Unreal Tournament 3, which will be a headliner title for the PS3. It was also recently announced that the game would see the light of day on the Xbox 360 platform. "I think it was the realization that we might be able to sell a few copies on this PS3. We had a little success on Xbox 360, and we might be able to sell a few copies there," said Rein.

The tide then turned rather quickly to Sony as a whole, given its recent PS3 sales shortfalls in Japan and North America. The PS3 itself also came under attack recently by Valve's Gabe Newell when he stated that the console is a "total disaster." Rein balks at such commentary and says that the PS3 platform is alive and well. "They sold more PS3s in North America than Microsoft sold Xbox 360s in its same period of time, and they clearly aren’t going to have the shortage problems that Microsoft had. So as long as people are willing to pay the price for the machine -- and I’m sure lots of people are -- I think they’re hopefully in a good situation," said Rein. He went on to say "There’s not a lot of games on there, but the ones that are there are really high quality, and I’m really impressed with the games. It’s a beautiful machine, it’s a great-looking piece of equipment, so I think Sony’s going to be fine."

Rein also gave his thoughts on the Windows Vista platform. In his opinion, there are too many version of the operating system and it has boiled down to a love/hate relationship. "So, I love the feel of Vista, and I love all the cool power tools that are built right in this time. I love the way it organizes all your content for you. I love all the gaming features," Rein told Game Informer. "I hate the fact that there’s a 32-bit version of it, and I hate the fact that there are versions that can run without Aero Glass."

Rein blames the reasons for 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the operating system on Intel. "I think these were compromises they made for Intel, and I think those are mistakes that’ll hold the industry back. There’s no reason why every machine out there shouldn’t be 64-bit now. There’s great 64-bit processors -- AMD has been shipping them for years. Intel was shipping them for years -- and then threw the core processor, the original core processor, into the mix and the Core Duos were 32-bit, and they shouldn’t have."

While it's understandable that Rein would like a swift move to 64-bit computing, the rest of the industry doesn't appear to be ready. The driver support just isn't there and the performance advantages on the consumer side haven't been fully realized yet. Rein, however, will likely get his wish with the next generation Windows operating system.

Game Informer didn't let Rein get away without throwing a Halo 3 question his way. Halo 3 is due to ship later this year, just in time for Christmas. "We’re a long way from Halo 3 still, so it’s not like we’re releasing them in the same week. They’re both complementary. I mean if Gears helps build the audience for Halo 3, then I hope Halo 3 helps build the audience for Gears."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

money money money
By someguy123 on 1/29/2007 7:06:40 PM , Rating: 4
Good lord. does this person seriously think everyone is rich? in the last interview he had he talked about intel integrated as a cheap solution noone needs....as though COST is never a factor. where the hell are all these people who can easily afford these $600 video cards and consoles?

Is it me or does it seem like he does absolutely nothing except random interviews now? If he was actually developing for the ps3 he'd realize how insanely expensive, time consuming, and difficult it was compared to the wii and 360. Considering the PC gaming world depends a lot on the gpu....i'd say people actually doing work creating the ps3 version of unreal3 are having the worst time ever trying to meet the gpu power of future pc video cards with multiple threads on the cell processor.




RE: money money money
By ViperROhb34 on 1/29/2007 7:22:37 PM , Rating: 3
I agree.. Sony isn't having trouble selling a PS3 because of the hardware.. but the price of entry is steep.

In all fairness to Mark Rein - He said "..as long as people are willing to pay the price for the (PS3) machine.. PS3 will do well " .. This statement is a oxymoron. He's not lieing that its a beautiful machine and all that though .. but he has to be positive because his company is releasing a game on both consoles and they'd like it to sell well on both consoles!

I think reality is both will look and behave alike on both consoles .. more copies will be sold on Xbox on this games launch.


RE: money money money
By someguy123 on 1/29/2007 7:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
That is true, but he also added "-which they will-" to the line....basicly saying people are willing to/have the kind of money to throw at such a system.

Don't get me wrong, the ps3 is quite the system....however annoying to developers and costly it maybe. It's just that Rein's attitude and comments seem to show that he believes gamers SHOULD be throwing money at devs/consoles as though money flows the streets.


RE: money money money
By greyfade on 1/29/2007 8:07:40 PM , Rating: 2
The base model of the PS3 is $499. The 4GB iPhone will be $499.

People are expected to buy the iPhone in droves.

Explain that.


RE: money money money
By Frosen on 1/29/2007 8:28:20 PM , Rating: 3
That's different. Owning an iPhone is a status symbol for people, just like owning a luxury car. A PS3 does not hit the same market of people, nor does it have the same sort of status influence. One would buy a PS3 to play games or watch movies, but one buys an iPhone to look cool and impress people, many could careless about its increased functionality or ability to play music. I get your point, but the two just don't relate.


RE: money money money
By TomZ on 1/29/2007 8:31:08 PM , Rating: 1
Owning an iPhone will be an easy way for the rest of us to identify an fool from a distance. As in, "a fool and his (her) money are soon separated."

iPhone's impact to the cell phone market will be small. Even if they achieve their 10M unit goal, that is still a small fraction of the overall market.


RE: money money money
By dagamer34 on 1/29/2007 9:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
You cannot easily parade around a PS3 as you can an iPhone, iPod or car, thus, it can't as EASILY fall into pop icon status. I say "as easily", since the Wii is definitely on it's way to being "it" for 2007.


RE: money money money
By jtesoro on 1/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: money money money
By ViperROhb34 on 1/30/2007 10:30:07 AM , Rating: 2
You're missing the point. People who drive luxury cars are outnumbered by Ford, Chevrolet and Honda drivers.

The put this into perspective Luxury car drivers make alot of money of their cars. iphone most likely doesnt cost 800 dollars to make like a PS3. So they'll make money and money off downloads.

Sony loses money on each PS3. The only way for them to come back is to sell so many PS3's they make it all back on software sales ( and yes BLu-ray movie sales )- which wouldnt happen for several years.

If they were fortunate to somehow come in even second place Im not sure if they'd make a profit with 200-300 dollars on each console ?


RE: money money money
By ViperROhb34 on 1/30/2007 10:35:20 AM , Rating: 1
On the last sentence.. I mean 200-300 dollar loses on each console. Sell 5-6 million consoles the 1st year and you're number three and not selling enough software. Come in second place.. sell 13 million multiply that by 250 dollars and that comes to 3 BILLION dollars in losses that have to be made up in Software by Sony.

The only way for them to make it happen is for Bluray to become a sure success.. This is either the the worse or best bet in the world. And one thing is clear.. They had the arrogance to bet it all because they didnt beleive they were betting.


RE: money money money
By jtesoro on 1/30/2007 11:44:31 AM , Rating: 2
Here's what I'm saying. Some people consider cars simply as a tool for them to get from point A to point B, and that's OK. For others that is part of it, but they also see their car as a way to express themselves or show something about who they are. So they buy a Lexus, and that's fine too.

I could also say the same thing about clothes. Some will get nice no-name sweater and others will get some pricey thingie with a big branded logo on the front.

The person who wants an iPhone probably wants to look cool and in his world maybe an iPhone will make it happen. Come on, after all we know that too many people buy an iPod just because of that.

There's nothing wrong with these people. They've got different needs, different views on their things.

iPhone people are different. Not a problem. Not fools too.


RE: money money money
By retrospooty on 1/29/2007 11:06:24 PM , Rating: 3
"People are expected to buy the iPhone in droves."

I highly doubt it. That is expensive as hell for a phone, regardless of what it does. Treo's and Blackberries got away with that price because it is a business tool where you can get your secure corporate email on the go... Therefore most people expense it to their companies. The iphone does not do that and won't have that option. I wonder who exactly is expecting "droves"... Apple? Isn't Apple the same company that had a superior Personal computer platform at one time and charged 2-3x what the competition was paying and eventually lost their marketshare which now hovers around 3% globally? Apple makes me laugh.


RE: money money money
By jtesoro on 1/30/2007 6:07:46 AM , Rating: 2
I have some doubts as well. However, I wouldn't laugh off so easily a company that is able to dominate a technology market using fashion as a major pillar. Who would have thought MP3 player = "cool"?

Will the iPhone fail? It might. Underestimate it's chances? I'd be very careful.


RE: money money money
By gramboh on 1/30/2007 6:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
No it won't. I know tons of idiots who will line up for presales who also own $5,000+ of Apple hardware/software they can't afford. I make fun of them constantly for overpaying for this stuff.

I'll consider one at a lower pricepoint if data plan costs come down 50%.


RE: money money money
By yak8998 on 2/1/2007 4:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I laugh too at how they totally dominate the portable music field as well...

They'll be able to get away with the iphone same way they got away with the ipods. It isn't just the rich that are running out and buying ipods. Your blackberry argument is pretty awful too in relationship to an apple product.


RE: money money money
By Zoomer on 1/30/2007 3:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong!

If aero is a requirement for vista, we'll have fast, good integrated DX9 graphics that has sufficient speed to play most of today's games - perhaps some in crap quality -, it would be a good thing for the industry. For the game industry. ;)


RE: money money money
By Ringold on 1/29/2007 7:29:53 PM , Rating: 3
You've got to consider his audience to which he was speaking, and the medium he was speaking over; to gamers, in a gamer magazine. In that sense, sure, comments like integrated graphics are something no one needs -- in his target audience.

Similar concept to the console crowd, but I wont comment much since I'm a solid pc gaming zealot and dont understand the console craze at all. Nothin' like a good ol LAN for me..

And to be fair, he never said anything about needing $600 video cards, either.

This guy saying integrated graphics are fine (to his audience) would be like Car and Driver saying Ford Pinto's would be a nice used car buy.


RE: money money money
By someguy123 on 1/29/2007 7:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
You make a good point and I agree that hes speaking in a correct manner to the audience of the gamer magazines (aka those probably willing to spend extra on gaming related items). What hes saying his this interview makes sense in that respect....but his comments about integrated being a huge factor in "slowing" the gaming industry still seem way to harsh and senseless even in that context.

It's true he didn't say $600 cards, but it seemed like those were the ones hes referring to (top of the line). lower end cards can seem pretty close to intel's new integrated lines.


RE: money money money
By Ringold on 1/29/2007 7:44:08 PM , Rating: 3
That's true. If he blames lower end hardware on slowing the industry, then.. well, it's a slowing that probably has to happen. I think it would make financial sense maybe not to accomodate integrated (which sucks upon release) but to accomodate older hardware. Steam survey's show that, like you said, not everyone has 8800OMFG's.

Alan Wake and Crysis, on the other hand, don't look very slowed down to me from a technology standpoint.. so I'm not sure where he'd be coming from there either.


RE: money money money
By Lakku on 1/29/2007 11:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
Alan Wake and Crysis also just about require those 8800OMFG's to run well at high resolutions. Alan Wake uses 80% of one core just for physics, and will make use of quad cores. Crysis ran at 30fps or below at 2560x1200 or whatever it was running at during CES, on an unidentified core 2 duo and 8800GTX. Granted, few run at that reso, but you can expect to need an 8800 series card to get 30 to 50fps at 1680x1050 or above. To run these two games at their high settings or the settings you see in the videos, you will need the kind of hardware few people have.


RE: money money money
By BladeVenom on 1/29/2007 10:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And to be fair, he never said anything about needing $600 video cards, either.

QFT. You don't need a $600 video card to play games, you never have. Also their previous game, Unreal 2004, played very well on even low end video cards.


RE: money money money
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2007 7:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
As sad as it is, they're called people with credit cards.


RE: money money money
By rushfan2006 on 1/30/2007 10:36:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As sad as it is, they're called people with credit cards


Yep and its also why, we, the citizens of the USA have more per capita revolving debt (like credit cards) than any other nation on the planet. I believe on average, as of a month or two ago - the report was about $12,000 in credit card debit per house hold.

Also, being in the mortgage business, I can tell you that people mortgage to death, lots of 2nd mortgages and what not to cover pre-existing debt.

Now realize some of these loans are taken out for legitimate investment people -- if you are smart with the markets you can actually make money with OTHER people's money (loans)...but that is NOT the vast majority of the "average jane or joe".

So all data and financial statistics point to the fact -- you know what you see little johnny with a shiney new $600 PS3, or you wonder how in the hell does "THAT" guy afford a BMW?

There is a great chance its all credit card debt and loans on top of loans.

So don't be "so impressed" because of someone's material possessions -- chance are debt wise they are probably worse off than you!





RE: money money money
By PJMODOS on 1/29/2007 7:35:14 PM , Rating: 4
The problem is that Intel integrated solution is much worse than $50 ATI/nVidia card, he wasn't talking about $600 cards at all.


RE: money money money
By phusg on 1/30/2007 3:42:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah they are so much worse when it comes to power consumption and price ;-)

C'mon guys get a grip, it's not all about performance. Not everyone needs to run Alan Wake on a business PC...


RE: money money money
By darkpaw on 1/30/2007 11:11:13 AM , Rating: 2
Business PC's with integrated graphics are fine, but they still ship far too many home pc's with that crap too. A lot of home users would actually like to be able to play games and not necessarily even cutting edge, but most IGP don't even run two year old games well.

I'm always asked for advice from people buying computers and if they want to play and kind of games at all I make sure they go with something better then integrated.


RE: money money money
By jak3676 on 1/30/2007 9:38:35 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say the problem is that they are so much worse than integrated ATI/nVidia cards (x1150/6150). I'll agree that not everyone needs to get a high-end card (especially in laptops), but GMA 950 is pretty sad.


RE: money money money
By vanka on 1/29/2007 7:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
in the last interview he had he talked about intel integrated as a cheap solution noone needs....as though COST is never a factor. where the hell are all these people who can easily afford these $600 video cards and consoles?

Ok, I can understand a reluctance to pay $600 for a graphics card, but paying $50-$80 for a budget DirectX9 card that's Vista capable is a no-brainer. I understand that most computer users are not enthusiasts and so have no need for the high-end cards, but Rein has a point about integrated graphics. My dad and uncle (guys who use their computers exclusively for internet, office apps, and tv/video/music and maybe some solitaire) both recently sprung the extra cash for low-mid range cards. In fact when they first decided to experiment with assembling their own PCs, they opted for the Voodoo 3500 (summer of 99). They understood that a dedicated GPU and dedicated video ram frees up system resources hogged by an integrated solution and gives you breathing room for future upgrades (Vista, etc). I really don't see a place for integrated graphics on the desktop; but that's just me.


RE: money money money
By Chaser on 1/30/2007 10:55:17 AM , Rating: 3
Good Lord. I wonder how many people who find yet another way to complain about PS3s can afford and buy them? Point is just because you and others won't buy a PS3 Blue Ray DVD player doesn't mean its out of the pricing ballpark to be a success. Plenty of people can afford it, are buying it, and will continue to buy it. There's some great games coming out for it in the near future.

For those of you that think $600 is too much for a price for a console then vote with your wallet and leave it at that. Get back to your 360, Wii, and let us enjoy our PS3's without your sour grapes campaign of doom and gloom for it. I want all the consoles to be a huge success!!

Thank you!



RE: money money money
By ViperROhb34 on 1/30/2007 1:47:33 PM , Rating: 1
I disagree.. much of PS2's success has been its headstart over Nintendo, 2yr headstart over MS, and its PRICEPOINT. In one year it went from 299 to 199 dollars. One year. Much of PS2's audience is middle income families with limited incomes. It also helps PS2 sales that it was just released in China over 2yrs ago.. so there its basically "New" since neither Xbox 360 or PS3 is on sale there yet.

Back to your point. Maybe the people who can't afford PS3's have a right to complain. Many of them have PS2's and feel like they're left out.

PS3 price caters it to a different market and different income of people. This alienates PS2 buyers who felt 200 dollars was still alot. I'm surprised Xbox 360 has done as well as it has, but they do have the 299 model if you can't buy the 399 one. And I know some who have bought the 299 model because it was all they could afford for their kids


RE: money money money
By someguy123 on 1/30/2007 2:10:04 PM , Rating: 1
actually i have a ps3. me owning a ps3 doesn't mean that the majority of people can or want to.

my point was that he spoke of the price point as minimal.....which was what seemed very awkward to me considering you'd have to be decently well off (or living with your parents) to be able to toss $600 easily for a console.


RE: money money money
By someguy123 on 1/30/2007 2:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
edit:

also I wish i hadn't bought it until late 07.


Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By Larso on 1/29/2007 7:17:47 PM , Rating: 3
Mark Rein:
"I hate the fact that there’s a 32-bit version of it, and I hate the fact that there are versions that can run without Aero Glass. (...) There’s no reason why every machine out there shouldn’t be 64-bit now."

Uh. So if he gets to decide we must all instantly scrap our perfectly working non 64-bit PCs to get new shiny bouncing windows and self organizing file management. Hmm...

Not me. I'm perfectly happy with my tuned Windows XP system, it does what I need quickly and efficiently, and I looks pretty good after disabling the themes service. Besides, I can manage my files myself, thank you.




RE: Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By Ringold on 1/29/2007 7:35:21 PM , Rating: 3
You missed his point. To you, he'd say yes, 32bit XP is great. If your processor can't operate in 64bit environments, it shouldn't use Vista.

But he doesn't like Microsoft caving and making 32bit Vista widely available.. In fact, review sites seem to suggest that it should be the default install. Better, he would seem to argue, to push 64bit, since it works on modern hardware pretty well and could've been working a lot better had it been the primary focus. There's no huge advantage in all applications, but no great loss, and making it the new defacto standard would mean developers would have no excuse not to start tweaking their code to make maximum use of it. If 32bit Vista should be available it all it should be seperate, something only an ethusiast who knows the hardware he's installing on would know to get verus the mass market mindlessly installing 32bit. At least, that's what he implies.

If your qoute though he didn't say you should scrap your 32bit box, so, you took it a bit beyond his intention I think.


RE: Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By TomZ on 1/29/2007 8:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
IMO, it would have been stupid for Microsoft to make Vista 32-bit only. That would have cost them sales of Vista upgrades to anyone who owns one of the hundreds of millions of 32-bit only machines. Also, device driver support for 64-bit is not there yet, especially for older devices, and so you have a lot of other customers that will load 32-bit Vista for that reason also.

On the flip side, what is really the benefit of 64-bit, for applications? Being able to address more than 4GB of RAM? What is the real need for that today on a desktop of laptop? I can understand the need for that on servers, it's not really a need for other computers at this point in time.


By smitty3268 on 1/30/2007 1:20:54 AM , Rating: 2
Double the amount of x86 registers gives performance gains of a few percentage points in most software, about like adding another MB of cache (YMMV). You're right that the benefits are pretty minimal to the end user though. At this time the real benefit would be to developers like him, not the end user.


RE: Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By smitty3268 on 1/30/2007 1:29:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, device driver support for 64-bit is not there yet, especially for older devices, and so you have a lot of other customers that will load 32-bit Vista for that reason also.


That's a circular argument. I think you would be amazed how fast 64 bit drivers came out if that was the only Vista option. Certain older hardware has been abandoned, but I suspect most of the hardware that wouldn't be supported is old enough it is questionable whether it will run well under Vista anyway. At least the hardware makers would be happy :>.

Anyway, I agree it would have been pretty stupid businesswise for MS to abandon 32-bit Vista, but that doesn't mean I don't wish they hadn't done that. Hmm, a triple negative. I think it's time to go to sleep.


RE: Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By saratoga on 1/30/2007 1:42:40 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Vista 64 drivers (and to an extent Vista 32 driver) are slow because theres two versions that divide up developers time. If MS had drawn a line in the sand and forced Vista to be 64 bit only, there would only be 64 bit drivers, and they'd be faster then the drivers we have now (on either version).

I also agree that this is largely Intel's fault. While I love my Core 1 Yonah system, Intel did really screw over the market by dumping a 10s of millions of 32 bit only machines that the rest of the world will have to support for years to come. If they hadn't, the fastest 32 bit machines now would be aging P3 Northwoods and Dothans. MS could quite easily have bared these from Vista, since relatively few of them would have met the DX9 and RAM requirements anyway.


By Spoelie on 1/30/2007 8:34:25 AM , Rating: 2
you seem to forget the large majority of Pentium 4 and Athlon XP systems, that have no 64bit capability whatsoever. Intel in particular was very late in the game: only the second spin of Prescott processors (towards the end of 2004, beginning 2005), the 600 series. And they were sold alongside non-64bit Pentium 4.

As such, there's a much larger non-64bit part of the market than what your statement implies. As I remember, Longhorn was ORIGINALLY targeted for a Q4/2005 or Q1/2006 release (which was a bit optimistic), making a 64bit only version particularly painful for Intel, even without considering Yonah.


By TomZ on 1/30/2007 9:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
Why would Microsoft want to "draw a line in the sand," and in doing so, sacrifice the sale of tens or hundreds of millions of licenses for Vista upgrades for 32-bit processors? What is in it for them that would make up for this lost revenue?

Also, I don't follow how this is Intel's fault. Intel correctly read the market, which was telling them that, for desktop machines, there is no need for 64-bit back then. That is still true today. The only place where 64-bit is a requirement today is on new servers. 64-bit delivers no benefit for the desktop today.

AMD was clearly more progressive in delivering 64-bit, but this was due to the marketing benefit of doing so, rather than being based on any real market need.


RE: Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By misbfa1 on 1/30/2007 1:42:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the flip side, what is really the benefit of 64-bit, for applications? Being able to address more than 4GB of RAM? What is the real need for that today on a desktop of laptop? I can understand the need for that on servers, it's not really a need for other computers at this point in time.


The benefit of 64 bit is the sophistication of the mirco code. 64 bit allows the developers to create better code in general. x86-64 really is a huge leap foward when it comes to the x86 architechture.

All the benefit is behind the scenes stuff that we won't realize.

64 bit is the future of computing. He would just prefer not to wait for the future (I agree that particular point). Microsoft could have mandated that only the 64bit version be on new machines, and that would have been the end of it right there.

You want to anticipate need and be ready for it BEFORE it is needed.


RE: Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By saratoga on 1/30/2007 1:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the flip side, what is really the benefit of 64-bit, for applications? Being able to address more than 4GB of RAM? What is the real need for that today on a desktop of laptop? I can understand the need for that on servers, it's not really a need for other computers at this point in time.


Being able to address more then 4GB of memory . Remember, lots of memory is not mapped to RAM, as lots of people who try to run XP32 with 3GB of RAM find out. 64 bit mode makes a lot of sense as soon as you hit the 2GB mark, which is basically where we are. Any higher then 2Gb and you'll run the risk of hitting various bottlenecks.

But really, the idea is just to get everyone onto the same version of x86 as fast as humanly possible. The transition is going to be expensive and annoying. The faster its over, the sooner people can move on and developers can stop worrying about it (and wasting their time on it).


RE: Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By Shintai on 1/30/2007 7:09:20 AM , Rating: 2
32bit can utilize up to 64GB using PAE.
And with the /3GB flag each process can use 3GB memory. And with AWE more. But AWE brings alot of issues, PAE don´t.


By saratoga on 1/30/2007 9:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
32bit can utilize up to 64GB using PAE.


x86 can, but XP-32 cannot. If you want to address more then 4GB of physical memory in XP or Vista, you MUST install the 64 bit version.



By TomZ on 1/30/2007 9:29:43 AM , Rating: 2
Most people are running WinXP, and use their computers for browsing the Internet, accessing e-mail, and office productivity apps. Based on this, even 4GB of RAM is way more than is needed.

I understand your drive to get everyone on 64-bits, but my point is that there's no practical reason for most folks to get there. They simply have no requirements of their machine that demands a 64-bit OS. Therefore, adoption of 64-bit OSs will be slow.


By TomZ on 1/30/2007 9:24:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The benefit of 64 bit is the sophistication of the mirco code. 64 bit allows the developers to create better code in general. x86-64 really is a huge leap foward when it comes to the x86 architechture.

As a developer, I can tell you that's not the case. Almost all code written for PC's is written in high-level languages (e.g., C++, C#, Java, VB, etc.), and at this level, whether the computer is 32-bit or 64-bit doesn't affect your abilities at all. In fact, most of these languages specifically abstract the underlying hardware so that your software runs correctly on both 32-bit and 64-bit systems without any modification (C++ being an exception). Basically the only benefit is that it is easier to access really large amounts of RAM, e.g., more than 2-4GB. This is of course far more RAM than any desktop app needs today.


By AlexWade on 1/30/2007 9:37:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the flip side, what is really the benefit of 64-bit, for applications? Being able to address more than 4GB of RAM? What is the real need for that today on a desktop of laptop? I can understand the need for that on servers, it's not really a need for other computers at this point in time.


To see a real benefit of 64-bit, play the 64-bit version of Half Life 2. Load times are significantly less. So in games, expect to wait less. Every program that is 64-bit loads a lot faster. There are other benefits too.


RE: Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By SmokeRngs on 1/30/2007 4:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
Making Vista 64 bit only would not hurt Microsoft much from a financial standpoint. I don't remember what article or what site I read it on, but Microsoft makes 80% of its sales from vendors like Dell, HP, etc. The vast majority of the systems they now sell with the exception of Core Solo or Duo laptops would be 64 bit capable. In this case Microsoft would still get the vast majority of their sales no matter what.

I'd bet many if not most of the people that would spend the money to upgrade from XP to Vista would be more of the enthusiast type and would likely have a 64 bit CPU already. The exceptions would probably be the Core Solo an Duo people along with some people with older P4's.

Microsoft did not release a 32 bit and a 16 bit version of Windows 95. Every version was 32 bit with the capability of running 16 bit software.

As already mentioned, 64 bit drivers would be all over the place instead of hit and miss right now. No one would have had to split resources on two different drivers and instead concentrated on 64 bit drivers.


RE: Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By TomZ on 1/30/2007 5:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
The reality is that, regardless of demand, most companies are not going to release 64-bit device drivers for old hardware, e.g., devices that are more than one year out of production. It is just not economically sound. That is a barrier for users to going the 64-bit route.

In my case, for example, I have a 6-year old Thinkpad - there is zero chance of getting 64-bit drivers for any part of that machine. And yet, since I could load 32-bit Vista on it, I can use Vista on that machine. On my main workstation, I have an Adaptec SCSI adapter and HP scanner that I've had for many years, as well as a webcam that's a few years old. Same story there - if I loaded 64-bit Vista, then I couldn't use those devices at all. Since I had the option of loading 32-bit, I did, and so I loaded my WinXP drivers for all my older devices.

And looking at the other side - the benefits of 64-bit, in my case are zero for me. I have no need for >4GB at this point in time, and I'd rather be able to use my existing hardware rather than buying all new hardware.

I think my case is typical of upgraders wanting to use Vista with their existing hardware investments, both at home and at businesses.


RE: Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By saratoga on 1/30/2007 9:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reality is that, regardless of demand, most companies are not going to release 64-bit device drivers for old hardware, e.g., devices that are more than one year out of production. It is just not economically sound. That is a barrier for users to going the 64-bit route.


Which is why 32 bit Vista is such a bad idea. Now companies have to release a Vista 32 and a Vista 64 driver. If they'd done the Vista and 64 bit switch at once, then ALL Vista drivers would be 64 bit, and the problem you're describing would not exist.

quote:
In my case, for example, I have a 6-year old Thinkpad - there is zero chance of getting 64-bit drivers for any part of that machine. And yet, since I could load 32-bit Vista on it, I can use Vista on that machine.


Actually, if your laptop is using the 32 bit Vista drivers, theres probably 64 bit versions, since I think MS ships all their included drivers in both versions, but I could be wrong.

quote:
And looking at the other side - the benefits of 64-bit, in my case are zero for me. I have no need for >4GB at this point in time, and I'd rather be able to use my existing hardware rather than buying all new hardware.


The real limit is more properly >2-3GB of RAM in XP-32. Hitting 4GB would involve Linux and some good luck in 32 bit mode.


By TomZ on 1/31/2007 12:16:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which is why 32 bit Vista is such a bad idea. Now companies have to release a Vista 32 and a Vista 64 driver. If they'd done the Vista and 64 bit switch at once, then ALL Vista drivers would be 64 bit, and the problem you're describing would not exist.

You're forgetting one little thing, which is that Vista can use 32-bit XP drivers, and that 32-bit Vista drivers are basically the same as 32-bit XP drivers (with some exceptions, e.g., video). Also, most drivers are compiled from the same source code to 32-bit and 64-bit driver targets. So, really it is just a question of the particular hardware vendor recognizing demand for 64-bit, setting up test platforms, and certifying for both versions.
quote:
Actually, if your laptop is using the 32 bit Vista drivers, theres probably 64 bit versions, since I think MS ships all their included drivers in both versions, but I could be wrong.

No, I downloaded XP drivers from the Lenovo web site. As I said, there is zero chance that Lenovo is going to release 64-bit drivers (or any Vista drivers at all) for my laptop. And again, that is what's great about 32-bit Vista - I can use ancient WinXP drivers and it works just fine.
quote:
The real limit is more properly >2-3GB of RAM in XP-32. Hitting 4GB would involve Linux and some good luck in 32 bit mode.

Agreed, the limit is 3GB AFAIK. My laptop is limited to 512MB, so that won't be a problem. On my workstation, I currently have 2GB, and once I decide to go to 4GB, I'll just load 64-bit Vista. Hopefully by then I won't have my legacy hardware and 32-bit drivers.


RE: Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By jak3676 on 1/30/2007 9:45:06 AM , Rating: 2
I think you missed his point as well. I don't think he's blaming MS, he's blaming Intel.

Intel delayed making 64-bit chips for quite some time in a failed attempt to hold up 64-bit as something that was exclusive to their top-end server line - Itanium. If Intel have moved to all 64-bit sooner in the P4 line, this wouldn't be an issue. The fact that they released their first core chips with 32-bit only is also pretty unexcuseable. The fact that Intel is still manufacturing and selling 32-bit chips necessitated that MS release a 32-bit Vista. (In all fairness AMD is still making 32-bit only semprons as well. But you get the idea.)

Before all the flames start, I'm not saying this is my opinion, but I believe this was the point he was making in the interview.


RE: Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By TomZ on 1/30/2007 7:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
Intel "held up" (as you say) 64-bit from consumer and business desktop, simply because there is no requirement from these markets for 64-bit. Never was, and still isn't today.

For servers, there is a need for 64-bit, to be able to simply address more memory to support in-memory databases and web servers, as well as to be able to support server consolidation for energy/cost/space savings.

AMD pushed 64-bit hard into the consumer space, quite successfully. But this was based on their marketing needs, rather than any actual need consumers had for 64-bit operating systems. And what OS do you think everyone runs on their 64-bit AMD processors? Yes, you guessed it: 32-bit XP, and not 64-bit XP!

Clearly, the future belongs to 64-bit operating systems, and it is not a question of "if," but "when." But to say that Intel was to blame for slowing down supplying something that the market didn't want or need is simply inaccurate.


RE: Transparent windows can stay in the walls
By saratoga on 1/30/2007 9:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel "held up" (as you say) 64-bit from consumer and business desktop, simply because there is no requirement from these markets for 64-bit. Never was, and still isn't today.


Thats not what anyone has argued. Stop beating down strawmen.

Fact is the 64 bit transition will stretch out for years. The fact that its not a big deal today is irrelevant, since it will be a big deal in a few years. All of this should have been in place by now, so that the transition could be completed BEFORE it became an issue.

quote:
Clearly, the future belongs to 64-bit operating systems, and it is not a question of "if," but "when." But to say that Intel was to blame for slowing down supplying something that the market didn't want or need is simply inaccurate.


For this point to be accurate, you'd have to show that no 32 bit system sold by Intel would ever need more then 2-3GB of RAM. I doubt this is the case. The fact that Intel didn't completely drop the ball doesn't make up for the fact that they still screwed a lot of people over by drawing out the 64 bit migration longer then it should have.


By TomZ on 1/31/2007 9:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
I still don't understand how Intel "screwed over a lot of people." For example, those who wanted 64-bit could have just purchased AMD processors, right?


By ViperROhb34 on 1/30/2007 1:54:36 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with you.. I mean this guy speaks like IF He'd come out with his version of "Windows" 1st and made things 'right' that the entire world would break out in a fiesta of dancing elephants, party favors and girls on trampolines.


64bit support
By imachip on 1/29/2007 7:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
Its got to be troubling for companies to produce drivers/programs optimized for both versions and the end loser is the customer with the extra testing and coding required. I can understand a 32bit business edition of Vista though, but they could've pushed the 64bit more. What if 1 in 10 or less decide to install it in 64bit.. Will it lose 3rd party support?




RE: 64bit support
By TomZ on 1/29/2007 8:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think the problem is that 64-bit will be of no benefit to 9 out of 10 users (or more). And since there are fewer 64-bit device drivers than 32-bit device drivers, if you run 64-bit today, you run a risk that you won't be able to use some of your devices, especially the older ones. This is the situation I faced, when I decided to load 32-bit Vista instead of 64-bit.

Once it is more common to have machines that need >4GB of RAM, this may drive 64-bit, but that is still maybe a year or two in the future, at least.


RE: 64bit support
By Locutus465 on 1/29/2007 9:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah there is, Vista 64b has already proven to be more secure than the 32bit varient. Businesses especially will start switching over once they come to realize there will be fewer IT headaches...


RE: 64bit support
By dagamer34 on 1/29/2007 10:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
More secure or more restrictive? As far as I know, you can't use any unsigned drivers on Vista 64-bit, making it that much more obvious that Vista is slowly taking over your system from the outside in.


RE: 64bit support
By saratoga on 1/30/2007 1:48:41 AM , Rating: 2
You can use unsigned drivers if you really need to, but you have to boot into a special mode. The idea is to prevent Sony from rooting people's PCs again. This is a very good thing.

Anyway people are already running in the 32 bit limit today, since XP32 hits it at 2.5 to 3.4GB of physical memory. In a year, a hell of a lot more people are going to need 64. Drivers and software support needs to be ready BEFORE then.


RE: 64bit support
By Shintai on 1/30/2007 7:13:27 AM , Rating: 3
I think you mistake memory controller limitations with OS limitations. XP can perfectly fine use 4GB. The problem you talk about are PCI/AGP/PCIe resource mappings below the 4GB limit. Specially people with 7950GX2 gets heavily affected. But alot of MBs today got remap fuction to counter it. Else you will have the same limitation in 64bit.

Let me show you an example:
http://shintai.ambition.cz/pics/remap1.jpg
http://shintai.ambition.cz/pics/remap2.jpg


RE: 64bit support
By Spoelie on 1/30/2007 8:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
those screenshots are on a x64 operating system, while he was talking about 32 bit systems.

show us the same on xp 32 bit


RE: 64bit support
By Spivonious on 1/30/2007 10:06:44 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, look at the screenshots. There's 4GB of memory installed, but XP 64-bit only recognizes 2.93GB without the remapping tech.


RE: 64bit support
By saratoga on 1/30/2007 10:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you mistake memory controller limitations with OS limitations.


I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

quote:
XP can perfectly fine use 4GB.


Not in 32 bit mode. Read the MS KB articles explaining why this is the case if you still don't understand why.

quote:
The problem you talk about are PCI/AGP/PCIe resource mappings below the 4GB limit. Specially people with 7950GX2 gets heavily affected.


People with any devices at all are effected. The only way to avoid this problem in x86 is to not have a graphics card, keyboard, NIC, sound, or mouse. Have fun.

quote:
But alot of MBs today got remap fuction to counter it.


But not for XP or Vista users. Hope you like Linux.

quote:
Else you will have the same limitation in 64bit.


"Remap" is automatic in 64 bit mode. You cannot support 64 mode without it, since all addresses are greater then 32 bits anyway. Your mortherboard evidently lets you limit yourself to addresses below the 32 bit limit, however that is not the same thing.

quote:
Let me show you an example:


Now see what happens if you try that in 32 bit mode.


RE: 64bit support
By TomZ on 1/30/2007 9:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can use unsigned drivers if you really need to, but you have to boot into a special mode.

Can you please provide more information on this? My read of the available information was that there was simply no way to load unsigned drivers on 64-bit Windows.


RE: 64bit support
By Spivonious on 1/30/2007 10:08:45 AM , Rating: 2
You have to boot into a kind of "unsafe" mode every time you boot Vista by hitting a key...F8? Something like that. It basically disables the signed driver check. There was a way to automate this in Beta 1, but they took it out in RC1 and up. To use unsigned drivers you'd have to hit this key every time.


Goody :)
By tuteja1986 on 1/29/2007 6:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
At least he is using windows vista and that would mean he would working hard for DX10 support.




I wonder why
By verndewd on 1/31/2007 3:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
he isnt complaining about removing the gaming from the kernel?It has apparently upset quite a few people as well as fouled legacy support for older games.now in order to have decen functionality ,game makers will be forced to rewrite the drivers or dump the support.

I guess its all good either way.Just a pain in the a??




By mercilessming on 1/30/2007 3:58:10 PM , Rating: 1
Rein is a business man but his tone seems to come across as a microsoft hater or someone who will just pull for the underdog which PS3 is the underdog right now. No matter the reason the fact is More Xbox360s and Wii are sold than ps3s right now. If 50% of the particular console owner was guaranteed to buy you software which console are you going to develop for right now, I would say xbox360 and maybe gamble on continually uptake of the Wii.




“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki