backtop


Print 117 comment(s) - last by turrican2097.. on Aug 9 at 4:42 PM

Sales are perking up for 64-bit after years of dominance by 32-bit OS's

The hottest buzz in the tech industry in 2003 was 64-bit hardware and operating systems. That year the industry seemed on the verge of a computer revolution.  Then AMD CEO Hector Ruiz stated, "Our industry, right now, is hungry for another round of innovation."

AMD released its first 64-bit processors that year.  While sales were decent, there was no consumer 64-bit operating system to take advantage of the hardware.  Then finally in 2005, Microsoft released Windows XP in 64-bit form.  Yet again the 64-bit industry seemed set to explode.

The release was met with much criticism, though.  Part of the problem was necessity -- even in 2005 the average user did not need more than 2 GB, in most circumstances.  Another major hitch was driver support.  All drivers had to be rewritten to work with the new width.

Despite these difficulties, three years later, for the first time, the 64-bit industry is at last healthy and growing.  With virtually all new processors from Intel and AMD supporting 64-bit, 64-bit OS's are flourishing as well. 

In a recent blog, Microsoft's Chris Flores reported that 20 percent of new Windows systems connecting to Windows Update were 64-bit.  This is up from a mere 3 percent in March.  He stated, "Put more simply, usage of 64-bit Windows Vista is growing much more rapidly than 32-bit.  Based on current trends, this growth will accelerate as the retail channel shifts to supplying a rapidly increasing assortment of 64-bit desktops and laptops."

Retailers such as Best Buy and Circuit City are also catching on to the trend, offering largely 64-bit OS-equipped machines for their most heavily advertised models.  Many manufacturers are also throwing in their support; Gateway will be transitioning its entire desktop line to 64-bit in time for the back-to-school shopping season.  To put this in perspective, in its first quarter, only 5 percent of Gateway's notebooks and desktops were 64-bit.  In its third quarter, a whopping 95 percent of desktops will be 64-bit and 30 percent of notebooks will be.

Aside from the increased memory, one other possible cause for adoption is the increased availability of software that takes advantage of the increased capacity.  Adobe's various graphical design product lines have been revamped for 64-bit.  Another drive may be gaming, which is typically memory hungry. "64-bit versions of Windows will begin to find their way into high-end gaming notebooks, which increasingly are being used as high-end notebook workstations as opposed to strictly gaming systems," said IDC analyst Richard Shim.

Finally, it may just be inevitability that is helping 64-bit.  While the upgrade will only provide subtle benefits to the majority of users, even power users, it is an iterative advance.  And like most advances, after a period of reticence, people are finally warming up to it.



Comments     Threshold


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

What?
By neothe0ne on 8/4/2008 10:03:38 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Adobe's various graphical design product line has been revamped for 64-bit.

What versions are we talking about again? Adobe's 64-bit support fails hard. We still don't have Flash for 64-bit Internet Explorer.




RE: What?
By Hellfire27 on 8/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By TheSpaniard on 8/4/2008 10:12:08 AM , Rating: 5
its not 64-bit XP thats expanding its Vista


RE: What?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/4/2008 10:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think this is why 64 bit Vista is flourishing.

There, fixed that for ya.


RE: What?
By TheJian on 8/5/2008 8:18:57 AM , Rating: 2
Near as I can tell he was NOT commenting on XP64. He was comparing sales of Vista 64 vs. 32bit.

Got any proof XP64 isn't flourishing? I have it on both mine and my dads system and it runs games with on problems. No driver issues with anything, including Edimax N wireless card, 8800GT's in both, Audigy/Audigy2 in them, 4GB on one, 8GB on the other etc. I haven't found a part that doesn't have an XP64 driver yet (though in some cases you just use 2003's driver, which is the same anyway in my experience...whenever you see XP64 specifically missing, get 2003 drivers and it runs fine). Also when I benchmarked Vista64 vs XP64 it was a no brainer as to which I wanted to run. Vista takes a big hit. For that matter, you're better off with XP32 (about 15-25% faster on avg than Vista of either version). These guys came up with even worse:
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1404/gigabyte_gef...
I'm not sure if they used 64bit or 32bit vista in that, but at my res I showed the same as them in both 64's (1920x1200 for my Dell 24, unless some game forces me down of course). Also note they wouldn't respond when I asked them to test XP64 vs. Vista64...LOL. Via email or on their forums. Much like Anand. MS paying to hide 64xp vs 64vista benchmarks?

Also how many of those are downgraded from Vista the day they get it home to XP64 (or even XP32? MS forgets to tell you this)? MS doesn't usually tell the truth regarding Vista ya know. Heck they count XP downgrades as Vista sales...ROFL. HP just coughed that up last week. Stating vista sales suck, and XP is dominant.

http://apcmag.com/xp_still_killing_vista_in_sales_...
The same thing happens with home pc's.

Steampowered.com's hardware survey only shows Vista64 at 2.8%. Pity they don't break down the XP numbers for 32 vs. 64. But 80+% pretty much speaks for itself doesn't it? Vista total's only 15%. It's updated daily I think. One stat that blew me away on there was the LCD monitors having almost everyone above 19in...WOW. Tons of 22in+. Vista needs to do better in gaming before I'll dump XP64 (though I have Vista installed on another drive, it just isn't used much except to troubleshoot Vista people). Note XP64 will be supported until 2014, while vista ultimate (as a home OS) will NOT. :) You can search that up on microsoft's site if you wish. I'm guessing most on here don't own a copy of Vista Business which is the only Vista lic that will be supported for a while. I don't know why you guys push Vista here. There is NO PROOF XP or XP64 is dying. No proof drivers don't exist for XP64. All current cards (last 3-5yrs) from NV/ATI, all chipsets, every nic I can find, sound cards etc have XP64 drivers. Find me a common piece of hardware that doesn't. Can you? I can't. Even dad's ATI650 TV tuner has one.

Vista 64 is only "flourishing" compared to Vista 32...ROFL. Note you can't find XP64 coming out of MS's mouth since Vista arrived. They don't want to remind people you don't need Vista for 4GB+ to show up :) Every single DX10 vs DX9 benchmark at extremetech shows it sucks so what do I get with Vista if I have XP64? They challenge you to tell the difference in their pics, and the perf hit is 25% or so across the board. Alex St. John (maker of DirectX) says DX10 sucks (pull that up at extremetech also). So you're not missing much except DRM :) XP FTW...LOL.


RE: What?
By jonmcc33 on 8/5/2008 8:52:24 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Got any proof XP64 isn't flourishing?


Unavailable as an option on new OEM computers (Dell, HP)? I mean really. The statistic comes from Windows Update. Has Windows XP x64 gotten any major updates compared to Windows Vista x64 (think of SP1)? Not really.


RE: What?
By Myrandex on 8/5/2008 11:14:06 AM , Rating: 1
Ummm XP x64 SP2 has been available for a little while now...

Its been working great on my PC as well...esp since I can't afford Vista x64.


RE: What?
By jonmcc33 on 8/6/2008 10:33:54 AM , Rating: 1
Windows XP x64 SP2 came out in March 2007. Considering that no new Windows XP licenses are available how would that account for the jump from 3% to 20% between March and June of 2008 for systems connecting to Windows Update?

Use some common sense. Besides, the Microsoft blog even states "Windows Vista 64-bit Today" in the event you even want to read it!

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc...

quote:
The installed base of 64-bit Windows Vista PCs, as a percentage of all Windows Vista systems, has more than tripled in the U.S. in the last three months, while worldwide adoption has more than doubled during the same period. Another view shows that 20% of new Windows Vista PCs in the U.S. connecting to Windows Update in June were 64-bit PCs, up from just 3% in March. Put more simply, usage of 64-bit Windows Vista is growing much more rapidly than 32-bit.


So please! Pay attention next time you read and post a reply to me. At what point do they mention Windows XP x64 in there at all?


RE: What?
By Sulphademus on 8/5/2008 1:50:50 PM , Rating: 3
I count 13 .NET x64 patches and 41 Windows XP x64 patches in addition to SP2. I'd say it is being adequately supported despite not being very well adopted by the masses.

XP 64 introduced the Program Files (x86) structure which Vista 64 uses and it works perfectly in a 32bit ADS structure. Really though, I think XP 64 (released in 2005) was the testbed for Vista 64 and more important as a learning experience for Microsoft than its market importance.


RE: What?
By 16nm on 8/5/2008 10:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was Windows Server 2003 x64 that introduced the Program Files (x86) folder.


RE: What?
By jonmcc33 on 8/6/2008 10:36:46 AM , Rating: 2
And how many of those patches (along with the Service Pack) came out between March and June of 2008?

Besides, read my reply to Myrandex above. The article from Microsoft about the boost of 64-bit systems updating from Windows Update had nothing to do with Windows XP in any way!


RE: What?
By TheJian on 8/5/2008 10:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
Is that because MS won't let them sell it or because they don't want to? hmmm? Currently HP is selling Vista Business lics just to get away with putting on XP.

Also, as if the updates mentioned by the others weren't enough, all current vidcard drivers/chipset drivers are dated the same as their 32bit xp counterparts/vista ones. So clearly Nvidia/ATI/Intel still FULLY support XP64. They even mention specific game fixes AND directx enhancements in their driver info file SPECIFICALLY for XP64. So they even want your games to still work in it... :)

Also, note how Dailytech/Anandtech get all silent when you talk about XP64? The same happens everywhere when you point out all drivers etc exist and are fully up to date. How much does MICROSOFT pay all of them to shut up? Tweaktown responded to me before I mentioned benchmarking XP64 vs Vista64. Then completely ignored my posts/emails politely asking for them to do some tests. Not even a response from their editor or the article mentioned previously. MS have everybody this scared or what? The very mention of XP64 scares everyone into silence on hardware sites. WTF?

I at least got dailytech/anandtech editors to say "it's not supported at all...blah blah". But then when pointing to countless drivers previously (that were up to date as I just stated) they got silent...ROFL. They know the truth, or they'd benchmark it and prove me wrong. Problem is, they can't. I'm NOT WRONG. What really pisses me off is they are allowing MS to get away with this. Windows 7 is just another copy of Vista with a new name. Originally I had read it was a puny kernel, and brand spanking new, built for speed. I'm now resigned to the fact that I'll be using XP until 2014. Longer if MS can't actually pull the plug on it then as their EOL says...I'm thinking companies everywhere will freak on them since a good number will pass on Windows7 as well now that the cat is out of the bag that it's Vista SP2...LOL.

Worse yet, this will take resources away from PC software. Look at mac sales since Vista hit the shelf. Apple has went from 2% marketshare to 10% in a year or so (the mac didn't get that much better, rather windows got that much worse). If they get much bigger software makers will start paying more attention to the platform taking resources from my PC! I kind of like a dominant OS platform, but not a crappy one that sends people running in all directions but windows when they can. It must cost MS a lot to hide the fact that XP64 runs fine and FASTER than FISTA :)

FYI, I'm running SP2 and all the updates the others mentioned (yeah, a TON of them...so it's being updated). Only SP3 is not out, and partly because the 64bit version doesn't has some of the problems of the 32bit one. You're forgetting MS has to support XP64 until 2014 as a business OS it MUST BE FIXED and supported as needed. So regarding your statement about "major updates compared to Vista 64". Are we done now? :) I'm thinking of SP2 for XP64 and a ton of updates after it...LOL. Not to mention all my UPDATED drivers that coincide with dates from 32bit versions (heck the info file for xp32 is the same for xp64 because they are co-developed together). Chipset, sound, vid, lan, tv tuner etc. All up to date, no older than 32bit versions. Get it yet?

Now can we get some benchmarks from DT/AT? Anyone with balls big enough to do it? :) Chickens...heh.


RE: What?
By tallcool1 on 8/4/2008 10:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
I have been thinking about building a new pc and was wondering if I should go with 32bit or 64bit Vista Home Premium?

Main uses would be for PC Gaming.
Are there any issues with running 64bit Vista Home Premium I should be aware of? (video drivers, game support, punkbuster combatibility, etc.?)


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 8/4/2008 10:21:13 AM , Rating: 3
I'm running Vista Business x64 for my gaming system. I'd recommend it over Home Premium if you don't need Media Center. You get the built-in backup tool with it that works very well.

Not having any issues so far.


RE: What?
By Locutus465 on 8/4/2008 10:41:32 AM , Rating: 3
Just go Ultimate if you can swing it.... I use that on both my laptop and desktop and frankly couldn't imagin going with a less feature rich version of the OS :)


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 8/4/2008 12:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
I just don't need a lot of the features. I don't use Media Center.


RE: What?
By AnnihilatorX on 8/4/2008 1:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
I am running business Vista x64 too and I am a home user. The shadow copy and backup tool are certainly great features. I couldn't care less about Media Centre, and the ripped off ultimate extras.

However you do lose native DVD decode in Vista business and you'd need to install 3rd party DVD codec.


RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 8/4/2008 1:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
I don't watch DVDs on my computer so its not an issue for me.


RE: What?
By kmmatney on 8/5/2008 1:19:39 AM , Rating: 3
VLC player - problem solved (assuming it works in 64-bit...)


RE: What?
By George Powell on 8/5/2008 1:31:47 AM , Rating: 2
Works fine.


RE: What?
By Polynikes on 8/4/2008 2:24:43 PM , Rating: 1
I'd rather save a lot of money on the OS and manually install a codec. :)


RE: What?
By Locutus465 on 8/5/2008 12:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
lol well I guess it's a bit easy for me to say since I got it all from my MSDN anyway... However the OEM option for Vista Ult does exist and Windows 7 should be out soon enough that you don't need to worry about x-fer issues.

There are some Ult. features I enjoy, for instance personally I appriciate the blending of home prem and business since I need the business tools for work and personally love playing around with MC... I also like the extra content though I wish there was move of it... Bit locker is cool and yeah, I do like holdem poker lol.

Personal preference, I can see why someone might make the chocies you made... But there are other options, like I said if it's not an economic burden then Vista Ult really is the best experience over all.


RE: What?
By Penti on 8/6/2008 12:58:10 AM , Rating: 3
If you buy your computer in parts (and play systembuilder) you probably get PowerDVD bundled with your retail graphics card box anyways. If you buy OEM-hardware you can always buy a dvd decoder for Vista that works with WMP for 15 bucks.


RE: What?
By schnazzer on 8/4/2008 1:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
Having built my system, I purchased and OEM copy of Vista Ultimate and I'm currently running it 64bit. The OEM copy was pretty cheap in comparison to the retail version. Only downside is its locked to one computer but that isn't really that big an issue for me.

So far, I'm pretty impressed with the 64bit version.


RE: What?
By tallcool1 on 8/4/2008 2:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, so your saying if you buy the retail version of vista versus the oem version, you can legally install it on more than one PC?


RE: What?
By rcc on 8/4/2008 3:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
No. But the OEM version is locked to one computer. Meaning that in theory if you build a new comp, you can't transfer the OS to it.


RE: What?
By DragonMaster0 on 8/4/2008 3:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike the retail version. With Windows 7 coming it shouldn't be a problem if you're getting Vista OEM for a new machine.


RE: What?
By bigboxes on 8/4/2008 3:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
No. He's saying that with the Ultimate you can move it to another pc and make upgrades to your pc easier. Once you install an OEM to a pc you cannot easily change your CPU or mobo due to the wording of the contract. With the retail version it's still just one pc at a time, just not the original pc that you are tied to with OEM.


RE: What?
By kmmatney on 8/5/2008 1:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
I've transfered my OEM copy of windows XP to several new motherboards as I've upgraded over time. When the motherboard changes, you need to re-activate windows. This worked fine on the first 3 upgrades - no issues. However my last motherboard upgrade, I had to call up Microsoft and argue that my old motherboard died - they eventually gave me a code to activate. So, you can upgrade with an OEM operating system, at least 3 times.


RE: What?
By tallcool1 on 8/5/2008 9:43:44 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps this is different with Vista?


RE: What?
By just4U on 8/5/2008 2:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe it is different. One of my computers has been reactivated a half dozen times now (I change out alot of hardware!) and I've not run into any problems with Microsoft on my OEM Premium copy.

It's a hassle mind you calling in but mostly they just want to know if it's the only computer the key will be used on. Usually takes 5-8minutes to do.


RE: What?
By Locutus465 on 8/4/2008 10:34:00 AM , Rating: 3
64bit all the way, you're setting your self to run up against a brick wall pretty quickly with the 32bit OS... There's no excuse not to really, since you're going to be building a new machine, presumibly with quality parts 64b v. 32b drivers won't be an issue, and the 64bit OS is better in every way for a gaming machine...

I could only recommend 32bit Vista in certain cases such as budget laptops like the one I use for software development... 2GB memory, has to run several VS.net instances plus potentially a VPC instance with XP running and god knows what else.... Ok yeah in this case 32bit vista is better since my laptop's memory ceiling is 2GB and I'm already there...

But again, for a gaming machine that should have no less that 4GB of memory to begin with...? Go 64bit all the way.


RE: What?
By GotDiesel on 8/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By jonmcc33 on 8/7/2008 8:39:23 AM , Rating: 1
Windows users. That's what we are. Being that Linux is a small, select community they are the ones known as fanatics.


RE: What?
By Garreye on 8/6/2008 11:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
Ya what he said... plus just think 64 is TWICE as many bits as 32, which results in your computer running TWICE as fast, and makes you TWICE as cool! At least that's what the guy at best buy tells me...


RE: What?
By Diosjenin on 8/4/2008 10:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
64-bit, no question. Video drivers have been fine for a good while now, and any games (or other programs) that have issues you can always run in 32-bit compatibility mode. Even if you're not going with 4GB of RAM, 64-bit will make upgrading or transferring to a new system in two or three years SO much less of a pain. It's just smart long-term planning at this point.


RE: What?
By UNCjigga on 8/4/2008 12:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well, other than the aforementioned incompatibilities with IE x64 edition (Vista defaults to 32-bit edition anyway) I have a Minolta-QMS laser printer that just doesn't work under Vista. It's not really MS' fault, though--the f**ktards at Minolta claimed Vista compatibility but never wrote signed drivers for that device--they ask you to use XP drivers instead.


RE: What?
By kamel5547 on 8/4/2008 12:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
Some minor driver availibility issues for older hardware, mostly where you'd expect it (i.e. vendors with poor driver support in the first place). I haven't had any major issues with any of the games I play that couldn't be fixed (i.e. older games needing a patch to the DRM software).


RE: What?
By Chadder007 on 8/4/2008 1:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
64 bit works a lot better for me. It seems more snappy and has been more stable.
Not sure about punkbuster....


RE: What?
By Quiescent on 8/4/2008 11:00:40 PM , Rating: 1
I totally agree. I was just noticing this when I installed XP on my desktop when I brought it to my workplace and used it. I noticed that XP 32bit seemed to load a lot slower than XP 64bit. I wouldn't know why it would, but it just does. And my desktop is pretty outdated with an AMD 3000+ 1.8Ghz proc with 1GB of RAM.

I frankly don't do much gaming, so I have no problems with XP 64bit like people so claim. I still fight for it, because it has been so good to me. I use my desktop mostly for Fruity Loops Studio, Photoshop, and other stuff, while using my EeePC for basic usage. I have "experimented for experience" with many programs and I have things like CYGWIN, VMWare, Cain & Abel, Ethereal (The old version, before they changed their name), RealVNC, etc that I have used before or use now.

It has been good to me even in my continuous frustration with "slow" and now I have found the reason I have "slow", and it's because this house is a PSU killer - Being that because it is underpowering, it is doing something to make capacitors mess up in PSUs. Now that I know that I have a problem, I have RMAd my last purchase of PSUs, and wait to use my desktop until I move, because obviously it doesn't affect my Eee.

One thing I noticed, and am not sure if it's because of something different, but when comparing my XP 64bit install on my desktop to my nLited XP install on my Eee, I notice that no SVCHOST takes up as much RAM on XP 64bit as they do on my Eee. At one point one SVCHOST was taking up more RAM than Firefox at a whopping 384MB. This SVCHOST (I discovered by *cough* being dumb and killing it off) is for sound AND internet usage. While on XP 64bit, none of them will take up more than 60mb of RAM or VM at a time. And my Eee and desktop pretty much have the same amount of RAM.

Either way, I am still confident about XP. I have had no problems with either versions. And while it's not practical, you don't have to recode all the drivers to support 64bit. You just have to change one line. It's kind of like how AutoCAD 32bit will check for wow64.exe and then refuse to install if it detects it. It's still a 32bit driver, but it will run in XP 64bit.

I think the worse support for 64bit is still in Linux. There are way more problems with 64bit linux and I can safely suggest XP 64bit over Linux 64bit.


RE: What?
By Quiescent on 8/5/2008 9:26:54 AM , Rating: 1
It's really odd to have my post downrated when I only speak from experience and truth. I'm sorry that you either jump on the same bandwagon that we call the "Vista SUCKS" bandwagon that you feel for XP 64bit. I'm sure you've never used it as long as I have. And if you feel the need to downrate my post, I expect a response. Because otherwise, it is just you on your little bandwagon with no experience using XP 64bit, ranking up against my experience with it for almost 3 years, on the same box, without reinstalling it, even while experiencing the slowness created by dying PSUs.

Now I did forget to mention, so as to balance my post from being biased, is that nLited XP on my Eee is great. It's smooth, fast, and still as responsive as it was when I first installed it 7 months ago. However, I didn't use nLited XP as my example of explaining the difference in performance. I used the same hardware (my desktop) for both experiences, and XP Pro and XP 64bit (Pro). Comparing my experience with XP 64bit in the almost 3 years of usage to about 3 weeks of usage with XP Pro. And it's kind off teetered taughtered because I have had so much software installed on XP 64bit compared to the XP install. For my XP install, all I had was Pidgin, Firefox, Everest, and Microsoft Office 07 suite, while on my XP 64bit install I have Fruity Loops Studio, some games installed, VMWare, CYGWIN, Ethereal, Cain & Abel, Tressize, Nero suite, Audacity, Firefox, Microsoft Office 03, at one point Maya and 3DSM, way way more on XP 64bit.

So in otherwards, you can KMA if you feel the need to downrate my post. Because you can not and will not change the fact that XP 64bit has been really good to me, and you can not and will not change the fact that my experience is of truth. To downrate a post on experience is like to downrate a post because you're a fanboy of something and someone who thought that product would be nice, but had problems with it, commented on their experience, and you downrated their post. I truly feel sorry for you.


RE: What?
By jabber on 8/4/2008 2:19:35 PM , Rating: 3
If its mainly gaming then save some cash and get Home Basic.

I've been running the 64bit version of it for 8 months now on my gaming rig and it works a treat.

Its a lot more sprightly/leaner than my mates Ultimate setups.

For a supposedly 'stripped down and feature less' version is seems pretty well stocked with all the core stuff you need. Ultimate just seems bloated to me.

You can spend the saving over Ultimate on some new hardware.


RE: What?
By Sulphademus on 8/5/2008 1:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if I should go with 32bit or 64bit Vista Home Premium?


64bit for sure. Games are one of the few common things (with video editing and graphic arts) that could currently or in the near future surpass 2GB of RAM. Driver support is fine, both with my former GTS8800 and my current HD4780.

The Windows Backup function works great (with Business and Enterprise editions). I have Premium on my home machine but really havent used its 'premium' features because they have nothing to do with TF2, WoW, the Simpsons, or pr0n.


RE: What?
By bugzrrad on 8/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/4/2008 1:34:09 PM , Rating: 4
It's C:\Program Files\
The other is C:\Program Files(x86)\ this is for the older 32-bit apps. If your going to complain do it right :P


RE: What?
By rcc on 8/4/2008 2:18:36 PM , Rating: 5
Your system doesn't use any more memory than it did before. It just reports what is installed as opposed to what it can use.

See the various SP1 writeups for confirmation


RE: What?
By SlyNine on 8/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By webdawg77 on 8/6/2008 9:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
32 bit addressing (theoretical)
2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bits ~ 4 GB

64 bit addressing (theoretical)
2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 ~ 18 EB (exabytes)

Now, most motherboards don't even come close to offering the 64 bit limit yet. I believe that you are correct with the current, upper limit being 128 GB addressable for MBs.


RE: What?
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/4/2008 10:24:51 AM , Rating: 5
That's kinda unfair to adobe. They just released their photoshop lightroom 64 bit version:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Adobe_Photoshop_Li...

Their full creative suite -- illustrator, photoshop, etc. is going 64-bit w/ CS4:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/04/07/adobe_64-b...

Though Apple OS users won't get 64-bit versions of creative suite for much longer as Apple has refused to rewrite a 64-bit version of its Carbon API, on which many applications, including Adobe's suite are based.

Source: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_...


RE: What?
By neothe0ne on 8/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/4/2008 11:06:33 AM , Rating: 3
??

CS3 is not a 64-bit product. Wait for CS4 for that.

But in the meantime Lightroom is 64-bit and should show much better performance. Played with CS3, but haven't had a chance to use Lightroom yet, so I can't personally report a performance increase, but it seems likely.

Again a major holdup has been Apple switching its APIs. Although Apple has a small userbase, it commands much business in the graphics industry, thus this is a major concern for Adobe.

Blaming Adobe for the slowness in releasing its products is kinda like blaming Microsoft for poor Vista driver support. Obviously in both cases the blame largely lies outside the company.

And CS3 should load faster in 64-bit than 32-bit, according to Adobe, despite the fact that the product itself is not fully 32-bit. There is a relative lack of comparative benchmarks, but I've ran it in Vista v. XP, 64 bit xp v. 32 bit xp and haven't noticed poor performance. Do you have network printers installed?

http://cha2e.com/2007/07/19/adobe-cs3-responding-s...

Vista in some benchmarks is shown to be slower (sans load times) than XP with CS3. Have you tried CS3 with 64-bit XP???


RE: What?
By wordsworm on 8/4/2008 11:14:00 AM , Rating: 2
I was pretty sure I was up-to-date on the Photoshop/Apple drama, and was surprised by your post. I then read the link you provided, and it basically said the same stuff as I had read earlier this year.

They're of course not rewriting 64 bit in Carbon because they're switching over to cocoa, which is what Apple changed its tune to. They would have to be insane not to rewrite Adobe to fit with Apple. Apple is also working hard with Adobe to make it work.

quote:
Adobe gets castigated for "dragging its feet" on Cocoa/x64. This charge will be inevitable, I suppose, but I want you to know that we started work on the problem immediately after WWDC '07.


There is no question that they're working as hard as possible to create a 64 bit version of Photoshop for Apple. Most Apple users will wait for the Apple upgrade before making the move. Photoshop and other design and/or publishing suites for corporations is where Apple is king. I've never seen a lab that's dominated by PC in these fields. However, it's going to take time for the software to get rewritten in Cocoa, which is essentially what that link has said.

Photoshop, even the 32 bit version, has always worked better in a 64 bit environment. I can open several documents at 2GB a piece (for as much hardware I've got to back it up) on Vista 64 without breaking a sweat. You simply couldn't do that on Vista 32 or XP 32 (although theoretically you could've gotten away with it on 2000 with its extensions - PAE I believe it's referred to, nor did I ever run Photoshop on 2000, so I'm just guessing. However, PAE sucks since it's so slow).

I haven't gotten around to shelling $1,000 to replace Photoshop CS2, nor do I plan on doing it in the near future, so I can't really comment on CS3. However, I wish that wasn't the case. The pro version has some pretty awesome features for applying filters on frames. I have this image of playing around with the type of trippy stuff they did with the Lord of the Rings back in the 70s. Of course, I don't have the budget to run a fully fledged film - but a short or two might be a lot of fun.

A later poster mentioned that CS3 quadruples requirements - but that's what software is meant to do - push the requirements of a given machine to drastically improve what it can actually do. I don't see people going around complaining about how Crysis requires so much hardware to get a smooth frame-rate. How would a professional piece of software be any different? Why wouldn't it push current hardware to its limit?


RE: What?
By neothe0ne on 8/4/2008 3:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
"Quadruple requirements" refers to Premiere Pro CS3's RAM usage in Vista 64 as compared to XP 86, all while taking a huge lag hit. That's not "pushing hardware", that's bad performance and bad code.

Unless someone wants to prove that AMD processors natively perform worse than Intel processors in Vista 64, I'm going to believe the blame lies with Adobe here.


RE: What?
By Totally on 8/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By Silver2k7 on 8/5/2008 5:22:56 AM , Rating: 2
Is CS4 out yet, I believe adobe wouldn't make a 64-bit version of CS3 as far as im aware of..


New systems 64-bit
By TheSpaniard on 8/4/2008 10:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if this has something to do with the fact that if you own a copy of Windows Vista you can change over to 64-bit for the cost of the CD? I know that's why my box is 64-bit! but there really is no reason for it other than instead of 3.2 gb ram I have 4. other than that I have to use 32-bit browser (Firefox dosen't have 64 I think) and none of my games have 64 bit versions.




RE: New systems 64-bit
By FITCamaro on 8/4/2008 10:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
I thought Age of Conan was supposed to have a 64-bit executable. But apparently I was wrong. Maybe its coming with the DX10 update. I don't think the need for a 64-bit web browser is that critical though.


RE: New systems 64-bit
By Spivonious on 8/4/2008 10:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
Halflife 2 has a 64-bit version. Steam automatically loads it if you're on a 64-bit OS.


RE: New systems 64-bit
By rninneman on 8/4/2008 10:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
Crysis has a 64bit executable. The biggest difference I noticed between the 32bit and 64bit version were load times. The 64bit version loaded levels much faster. I didn't play the 32bit version enough to notice much else.


RE: New systems 64-bit
By Aeros on 8/4/2008 10:52:32 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
and none of my games have 64 bit versions.


From: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,1857478...

"The key to running 32-bit applications is something Microsoft dubs WOW64; WOW stands for Windows on Windows. Running 32-bit apps in x64 essentially gives each application its own 4GB of virtual memory space, which isolates it from other applications."

Nearly all modern games will run in a 64 bit OS, with the added cavaet of a larger memory addressing scheme for games that use more than 2GB of memeory. So in addition to "seeing" all 4GB of RAM, applications that need to can address larger amounts of memory in a 64 bit enviorement - even 32 bit apps.

Here is a great article in reference to gaming 32 bit vs 64 bit:
Part 1 - http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=30...

Part 2 - http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

Part 3 - http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=30...

For a very nice list of Vista supported games etc... http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/232602-44-list-v...


RE: New systems 64-bit
By TheSpaniard on 8/4/2008 10:55:21 AM , Rating: 2
I know that the games RUN in a 64bit enviroment! I play them.

PS: was not aware of Halflife 2 being 64bit thanks for the heads up!


RE: New systems 64-bit
By jvillaro on 8/4/2008 12:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Firefox dosen't have 64 I think


Hey man I was looking around and found this page.
http://www.start64.com/

I found a very early alpha of Firefox 64:
http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_conten...

It's by no means a final or even a pre-release but it's coming. The project codename is Minefield. The bad thing is that we're still without 64bit flash pluggins (Not that I like it but you need it now for so much content).

The page is kinda cool and I loved some things I found like the Vista Codec Pack and the 64bit components for it. It's a compilation of all the important codecs (at least for me) and makes everything work perfect on Windows Media Player or other players and Media Center, even the subtitles.

There is also a good amount of great games on 64bit and more are coming so thats good in my book.


RE: New systems 64-bit
By diabloazul126 on 8/4/2008 12:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think Firefox x64 (Minefield) has been in alpha for a long time, I have no objections to using a alpha/beta x64 program for experimentation, but internet browsing with an x64 browser sans flash x64 make half of the internet un-renderable. Adobe needs to step it up, or Microsoft with their silverlight.

Seriously.


RE: New systems 64-bit
By AnnihilatorX on 8/4/2008 1:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if extensions will work for FF 64bit.
I can't live without FF extensions :)


RE: New systems 64-bit
By diabloazul126 on 8/4/2008 1:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
Some do, I think. I'll have to experiment again, later.


Backwards?
By mindless1 on 8/4/2008 1:03:57 PM , Rating: 3
I suspect the article has it backwards, it is not that there is some trend that the retail stores and OEMs are catching onto, it is that they are the trend, they are mostly responsible for increasing use of 64bit systems.

Remember the average buyer buys a ready-built system with OS preinstalled. To many of them XP vs Vista is a more significant choice than 32 vs 64 bit. The lower cost of memory today certainly didn't hurt, with 4GB memory so cheap it does make sense to go 64bit if your software/drivers accomdate it, but at the same time there are inevitably some people finding they need 32bit OS more than the half gig or so memory they'd lose if buying a 32bit machine with 4GB installed.

Regardless, it is a needed change in the industry to keep moving forward.




RE: Backwards?
By anotherdude on 8/4/2008 2:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
As a hardware/gaming board regular for many years I can tell you that without doubt the move to Vista 64 is a very hot item for hobbyists/enthusiasts and has been for over a year - this is a big time homebuilt trend and that much of it at least has nothing to do with OEMs. Of course the OEMs making it available has a lot to do with it getting mainstream but I think they are more responding to a trend/need than creating one.


RE: Backwards?
By mindless1 on 8/5/2008 4:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
We enthusiasts are a small minority of the market. No matter how desirable it is for us, let's face the fact that the average person isn't putting over 4GB of memory to use, doesn't know how 64 vs 32 bit will impact them. They may not even know if their prior system was 32 or 64 bit, BUT OEMs like the option of being able to offer systems with more than 4GB installed (making a healthy profit on the memory upgrade of course). The OEMs can do this because they have volume buying power to get a good price on select supportive hardware.

The OEMs don't need to respond to what someone who builds their own and picks their own OS wants, because those are generally the people who aren't buying the OEM systems.


RE: Backwards?
By Flunk on 8/4/2008 3:41:22 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think that people who buy systems off the shelf even have a Vista vs XP choice anymore. In retail XP is essentialy dead. But you have a point I don't think that those people care about 32/64 bit and I would be willing to wager than most of them have no idea what the different is. 64 is bigger than 32 right? Must be better then!


RE: Backwards?
By mindless1 on 8/5/2008 4:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on how you define the "shelf". OEMs are still offering it, for example:
http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx...

I do agree, people will think bigger number = better if they have no other info, and will most likely be weighing all the other variables in system selection far more heavily, like how much memory vs. system bundle they want to pay for, with the expectation that whether it be XP or Vista, that it would support that amount of memory. IOW, I doubt most would realize when they purchased a system that if they were allowed to pick 8GB memory on 32bit OS, that it could be a problem. Some of them might not ever realize the problem if they were allowed such a choice and bought a system configured like that.


6gb
By 13Gigatons on 8/4/2008 10:21:38 AM , Rating: 3
The 64bit versions are coming with 6gb of memory. That should make Vista run better.

The only downside is when some piece of hardware doesn't have a driver yet and some never will.




RE: 6gb
By Spivonious on 8/4/2008 10:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
I've been running 64-bit for almost a year now and haven't come across any devices that don't have drivers. Even the much maligned X-Fi had basic playback drivers at launch. With each release they are re-enabling features that were lost due to the abandonment of DirectSound.

Now, if you plug in a 10 year-old scanner, then yeah, it probably doesn't have drivers.


RE: 6gb
By TheSpaniard on 8/4/2008 10:52:44 AM , Rating: 2
but Vista will find a generic driver for it! or at least that's what happened when I grab my legacy hardware


RE: 6gb
By DanoruX on 8/4/2008 11:31:40 AM , Rating: 2
Incidentally I upgraded to 6gb (from 2gb) last week! Everything runs a lot smoother and Vista gets to eat a full 2GB of its own...


RE: 6gb
By Totally on 8/4/2008 4:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
you're fortunate, I had to kiss my tv tuner, and a network interface card goodbye. Gonna do w/o the nic and still andwaiting for <s>ati</s> AMD to release the new all-in-wonders for the tuner card replacement


Can't imagine going back
By BPB on 8/4/2008 11:04:27 AM , Rating: 3
I have multi-boot setups that include XP Pro 32bit, XP Media Center 2005, Vista Ultimate 32bit, and Vista Ultimate 64bit. The Ultimate 64 is far and away the best of the bunch. I am very impressed with its stability, and its ability to run everything I throw at it. I only rarely use the other OSes now, and that's basically only to test software (I'm a developer). I highly recommend Vista Ultimate 64 to anybody who will listen.




RE: Can't imagine going back
By blafrisch on 8/4/2008 12:33:05 PM , Rating: 4
Why have a multi-boot system if all OSes are Microsoft ones? I discovered that to be a waste of valuable time when developing code and simply running virtual machines was much quicker.

Microsoft even provides the means to do it for free:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=78095

Hope this can help you out a little.


RE: Can't imagine going back
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/4/2008 1:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, I moved to virtual machines even for non-MS operating systems (Granted for the non-MS ones I have to use VMWare Workstation). It's easier and with the non-savestate setups you can screw around and roll it back painlessly.


RE: Can't imagine going back
By BPB on 8/4/2008 6:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
I use VM's for non-MS stuff (mainly for personal use), but not MS stuff as there are issues for me regarding video drivers. As you know, you don't install ATI or nVidia drivers in VMWare.


Why is the picture of XP64?
By anotherdude on 8/4/2008 1:48:58 PM , Rating: 3
I thought all the buzz was about VISTA 64. Is Jason just reluctant to acknowledge that or am I missing something here?




RE: Why is the picture of XP64?
By chizow on 8/4/2008 6:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
You must not read this site often. The author rarely has anything nice to say about MS and is quick to bash anything-Vista. He's currently testing and thoroughly enjoying Mojave 64 though from what I hear. ;)


RE: Why is the picture of XP64?
By just4U on 8/5/2008 2:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
You know, I kinda disagree with you on that. Jason's had a few negative articles towards Microsoft here and there but it doesn't seem to be slanted towards a personal bias. It's just that every now and again MS gets alot of negative press all at once and since he's the one posting about it you get the appearance that he's looking to stir the pot.

Does not appear to be the case tho, atleast not from where I am standing.


RE: Why is the picture of XP64?
By mindless1 on 8/5/2008 4:49:33 PM , Rating: 3
It seems as though if you have the right to be pro-Vista, he would then have the right to have an opposing view.

Does MS really need us to say nice things about them? What do you usually see on the news, on TV or the paper? Is it usually about sunny days, puppies and flowers, or about problems? Duh?


Biggest advantage to 64 bit
By pauldovi on 8/4/2008 10:24:28 AM , Rating: 3
Vista offers additional security benefits like ALSR and PatchGuard to 64 bit users.




RE: Biggest advantage to 64 bit
By chick0n on 8/4/2008 11:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
patchguard is worthless.

It was a nice try tho.

I have been using 64-bit OS since 2005. back then it was XP 64-bit. As soon as Vista 64 came out I jump to Vista. no problems whatsoever.


RE: Biggest advantage to 64 bit
By Nihility on 8/4/2008 7:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
I thought MS had to seriously cripple patchgaurd because it locked out Antivirus manufacturers from the kernel.


The significance of 64 bit?
By TheHarvester on 8/4/2008 10:29:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not a hardware guy and was wondering if somebody could explain the significance in terms of speed of processing on a hardware level compared to the 32 bit version?




RE: The significance of 64 bit?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: The significance of 64 bit?
By Flunk on 8/4/2008 3:31:04 PM , Rating: 5
x86 instructions are variable length and not aligned to the number of bits each register can store. This means that 64bit instructions for x86-64 (AMD64) are not actually much longer than ones for x86 (i386). The part of the instruction that is increased in size is the memory address or literal.

The reason that the 64bit version of Windows takes up so more space on disc than the 32bit is all of the legacy 32bit libraries that are needed for compatibility, not that the instructions themselves are double the size.

Also, 64bit applications do no need any more memory space to operate than 32bit applications. The miniumum allocated memory size is still 8bits so if you have 32bits of data they still take up only 32bits of space.

So to sum it up:

64bit addressing lets us use more RAM.
64bit processing improves perfomance in some rare circumstances (with high precision floats and 64bit ints)
64bit instructions take up slightly more space on disk but you probably will not notice.
64bit addressing will NOT use more RAM.


Don't Liike 64-Bit with Media Center
By biggsjm on 8/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Don't Liike 64-Bit with Media Center
By Flunk on 8/4/2008 3:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have integrated Intel Graphics because if you do... that's the issue right there. Intel's massively incompetent Windows drivers are to blame for a lot of people's misconceptions about Vista.


By mindless1 on 8/5/2008 4:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't MS certify or qualify some of these? If so it seems like there's more than one party to blame, like the certification process isn't effecting the result as intended.


Dell
By DigitalFreak on 8/4/2008 12:51:22 PM , Rating: 4
Dell needs to get their act together and start offering Vista x64 on their systems. They don't even offer x64 drivers on their support page.




Funny that this came out today
By JBird7986 on 8/4/2008 1:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
I find it amusing that this article came out today...I just upgraded from 2GB to 6GB of RAM over the weekend and went from 32-bit Windows Vista Home Premium to 64-bit Vista Ultimate. The only driver that I had any problem getting a hold of was for my Linksys wireless card. They didn't have any drivers for it themselves, but there were drivers for the Ralink chipset, though even they took some digging to find. Once I got them, everything else was a snap. The computer is order of magnitudes faster (though it wasn't slow before), and I've yet to hit any compatibility problems.

The only negative that I see though is that what used to take about 600-700MB of RAM now takes 1.1-1.4GB. However, with 6GB, it's kind of irrelevant.




By FITCamaro on 8/4/2008 3:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
That's because its paging less.


Here's what I'd like to see tested
By BPB on 8/4/2008 6:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'd love to see a site test running Vista 64 with only games loaded and see how fast the games run. Test that against Vista 64 with Office 2007 and lots of other stuff and test the same games with all the bloat. Seems to me that in theory the 64bit version of Vista should handle that better than the 32bit. If this test has been done please post where so I can read about it.




By mindless1 on 8/5/2008 5:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
Most games and Office 2007 are not written to take up over 4GB (ok, a little less to leave space for OS) memory because developers can't assume the buyer will have that much at time of software release. Or I should say, when the majority of the market is still running 32bit OS, they design for the 2GB app ceiling or less.

If you're saying "let's simultaneously run things we can't possibly use while we're gaming, sure you could reduce paging by having more memory, allowed by having the 64bit OS. You can also find benchmarks to support just about anything these days. Typically games are made to work acceptibly on 32bit systems but there isn't enough difference on 64bit to matter, it's still things like video, CPU, memory bandwidth that make the largest difference.


Cisco VPN client STILL Incompatible with Vista 64
By Lord 666 on 8/4/2008 8:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
Dear Cisco,

It has been 1.5 years since Vista has been available to the public, yet the Cisco VPN client will still not work with Vista 64. Please play nicely with Microsoft and just get this done.

Dear Microsoft,

The only copy I have of Vista is the lame 32-bit version of Ultimate you gave me for free at the "Hero's Happen Here" launch event of Server 2008. It does not include the ability to receive a 64-bit disk. Please make the 64-bit disk for FREE for us attendees as it was a large disappointment receiving a neutered copy. While you are at it, please play nicely with Cisco and help them out with coding their VPN client. I know of many other people that have not installed Vista 64-bit because of the Cisco VPN client.

Thank you,

Lord 666, CCVP and MCSE




By gaztronome on 8/5/2008 5:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
Does the lack of a Cisco VPN client for Vista 64 say anything about corporate adoption of this OS?
The lack of the VPN client is a major issue for me.


64bit = lots of RAM = zippy!
By bobsmith1492 on 8/4/2008 1:16:18 PM , Rating: 3
I just added 4GB to my Vista Business x64 install for a total of 6GB. It's amazing... every program I use (even Oblivion, the game) is instantly loaded - no hard drive thrashing except when the computer boots up. Since I leave it on full-time, it's perfect.




You're welcome, Jason Mick...
By jonmcc33 on 8/4/2008 12:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
...I posted this in another one of your DT blogs during the weekend. You are welcome for the heads up.

Gotta enjoy seeing Microsoft gaining ground in a certain area. How's Mac OS X in the 64-bit world, eh?




True
By Rev1 on 8/4/2008 12:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
I had a gateway that broke a few months ago from bestbuy i bought over a year ago with vista home pre. 32 with 2gig ram. They replaced it with a hp with vista home pre. 64 and 5 gig ram. makes me wanna upgrade my main comp to vitsa 64.




This just in
By Suntan on 8/4/2008 12:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
This just in, the majority of computer purchasers don't even know what a bit is. Most say they buy the comptuer that is on display at the store....

-Suntan




Kinda hard not to embrace it....
By Fnoob on 8/4/2008 6:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
when it comes on the box you buy.




Won't account for 20%...
By loony on 8/4/2008 7:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
... but the last bulk buy we did was for hardware with Vista 64 licenses. The reason is simple. We don't plan on using Vista and stick with XP 32bit instead. The downgrade license allows for that (we have it in writing from your friendly neighborhood two letter hardware manufacturer) and when windows 7 comes out, we can upgrade to win7 64bit...

Peter.




Means nothing
By Soulkeeper on 8/4/2008 7:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
doesn't microsoft own 20% of the IPs in the world ?
so basically they havn't even gotten their whole network up to 64-bit

or am i mistaken here ...




No difference...
By Donkey2008 on 8/4/2008 8:02:56 PM , Rating: 2

I use both Vista 32 and Vista 64 on a Core2 2.4, 3GB, 8800GTX system and I see absolutely no difference whatsoever between the two. Vista 64 does not run any faster nor does it play games any better. I have played a dozen different games, from AOC to 2142 to COD4 to Crysis and never once did my system ever come close to using the entire 3GB. In fact, when I had 2GB of memory it only came mildy close. And that was with xfire, teamspeak, several IE windows open and WMP running.

I guess if you do design work and need the additonal memory addressing of 64-bit to cache all of your work in RAM, then it makes sense, but for 99.9% of users (and most gamers) 64-bit is completely irrelevant. Anyone who is convinced that more than 3GB of RAM will make games run better is in fantasyland. That is true now and will be for many years to come (uh, developers aren't exactly eager to start making games to use 4GB+ of RAM in case you didn't notice).

But then again...better to have 64-bit and not need it, then need 64-bit and not have it.




By zpdixon on 8/5/2008 12:40:19 AM , Rating: 2
[artiles talking about 64-bit driver problems, about how it took MS 2 years to release a 64-bit OS after the CPUs were available, and other WTFs, etc]

My OS was available for 64-bit systems and I encountered exactly 0 driver problem when I switched to such a system in March 2004... with Gentoo/amd64. At the time, most of the open source Linux/Unix software already enjoyed 64-bit compatibility, mostly because Unix OSes had been running on 64-bit CPUs for a while with the release of the Alpha processor in 1992. So most of the 64-bit bugs got smashed in the 1990s. Of course some persisted afterwards (I helped fix some open source apps in 2004), but they were rare.

Ahh, just one example about why open source kicks ass :)




By turrican2097 on 8/9/2008 4:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
I have multiple-boot:
- Windows Media Center 2005
- Vista 32
- Windows Server 2008 64bit

I have stuttering only on WS2008 64bit. Even with Defender, Indexing, Aero and Superfetch disabled. For me, NT6 64bit is unusable for time critical applications.




By turrican2097 on 8/9/2008 4:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
I have multiple-boot:
- Windows Media Center 2005
- Vista 32
- Windows Server 2008 64bit

I have stuttering only on WS2008 64bit. Even with Defender, Indexing, Aero and Superfetch disabled. For me, NT6 64bit is unusable for time critical applications.




Your mileage may vary...
By amanojaku on 8/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Your mileage may vary...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: Your mileage may vary...
By mikefarinha on 8/4/2008 11:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
I think he meant that due to the fact that you can add more memory to a 64-bit OS you'd page less from installing more memory than is allowed in a 32-bit OS.


By mindless1 on 8/5/2008 5:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
Why bother with 32 bit is because the industry is moving towards smaller, less expensive systems that have smaller flash based storage and won't necessarily have over 4GB memory in them, if even that. A modular 32bit Windows 7 could be more suitable for that than either 32/64 version of Vista or 64bit Windows 7.

If we make the advanced plans to just keep piling more memory into systems, what does this allow? It allows developers to keep being sloppy, keep bloating code, keep preventing the cost of systems for our most common uses from decreasing, as well as the size of our ultraportable systems.

I have mixed feelings about this kind of artificial cap, but if we look to history as evidence, something needs to be done to turn this ship around before the increasing complexity causes more and more unresolved bugs, the bandwidth causes more and more slowdowns in networking (esp. wireless), and we reach a point where we can't just keep improving upon existing electronics tech to counter this, or at least not without large cost increases. This may be a few years away still, but in that time if we don't reverse or at least slow the data/code/etc growth, it will limit us more than if we took steps today to manage it.


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

Related Articles













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