If you are still not using 64-bit operating systems you should read

madtownidiot · 10 Nov 2010

Reasons to use 64bit windows:
32 bit windows doesn't support 64 Bit applications
Maximum usable memory in 32 bit windows is about 3.2 GB (some say more I have never seen it)
Maximum supported memory in 64 bit windows is 192 GB (I have a machine with 96 GB RAM that can batch edit images and convert raw video faster than any 32 bit system will ever be capable of.)
A 32 bit OS can't support the full capabilities of any graphics card with more than 1.5GB memory
A 32 bit OS can't support as many running processes as a 64 bit system without bogging down.
A 64 bit OS can efficiently handle higher levels of encryption.. and thus be more secure
I have yet to see a computer with any version of windows 7 x64 infected with malware.. (No relation to the last point. I have seen more than a few infected 32-bit windows 7 systems, which probably means most of the malicious hackers are still stuck on XP)

Survival of the fittest is not about the strongest or smartest, it's about the most adaptable. 64 bit architecture been around since the 70s. 64 bit operating systems have been around since the mid 80s. It's about time people started using them. Microsoft waited until 2005 to release a 64 bit OS, and because they have dominated the PC operating system market, there has been little or no incentive for hardware manufacturers or software developers build anything but 32 bit products. No competition can be just as lethal in the end as too much competition, and those who don't adapt will be left in the dust.

Fayla · 10 Nov 2010

It's quite unfortunate that there is such disparity between the development stages of the hardware environment and the software environment.

madtownidiot said:

Survival of the fittest is not about the strongest or smartest, it's about the most adaptable. 64 bit architecture been around since the 70s. 64 bit operating systems have been around since the mid 80s. It's about time people started using them. Microsoft waited until 2005 to release a 64 bit OS, and because they have dominated the PC operating system market, there has been little or no incentive for hardware manufacturers or software developers build anything but 32 bit products. No competition can be just as lethal in the end as too much competition, and those who don't adapt will be left in the dust.

tcolguin · 10 Nov 2010

Wow. I'm really surprised! I looked at the thread I posted to and saw that the other posts were so old I was almost embarrassed I had posted. But it came alive!

I thought I would throw out a few things.
On the subject a 64 bit processor running a 32 bit program and having better performance. Make sure you are actually measure what you think. Make sure that you are actually measuring Windows 7 32 bit against Windows 7 64 bit, not running a 32 bit program in comparison to running a 64 bit program in Windows 7 64 bit. In the case of Windows 7 32 bit the OS will run entirely in 32 bit mode. In the case of Windows 7 64 bit it will be switching between the two modes and will be slower. But even your choice of example programs is what I was talking about. You choose an a photo image program and you probably are editing multiple big images is in it. This is the kind of program use that can make good use of memory.

On the subject of the 128 bit processors. Actually we might see a 128 bit processors on the desktop in 10 years, but I think if we do it won't be for the reasons people always jump on. It won't be for the amount of memory they can access. More it will be for how much memory they can move around in one instruction.

On the subject of graphics cards that have more then 1.5 Gig of memory. Why would you think that is even close to what the average person has on their machine?

BTW I think if you have Vista (which I skipped) you have a strong argument for more memory because that OS was so bad in its memory consumption. But Windows 7 is much better. I much rather have 2 Gig on a Windows 7 machine then 4 Gig+ on a Vista machine.

Addressing this quote:
"I disagree totally with the view that the average user doesn't need a 64bit os or more than 4GB RAM. The average user should have a 64 bit operating system and as much ram as possible in order to be able to run all the bloat installed by the factory and all the additional user installed bloat without their system bogging down"

My answer to this is. Why would you leave the bloat on your machine? People want to know how to speed up their computer? Most of the time the answer comes down to removing what you don't need. And I will tell you that adding memory will not fix the problem. The truth is that from what I have seen most people's machines don't have so much of a memory problem where the machine is constantly swapping, but they have a "CPU drag" problem as in they have all these programs constantly wanting to run taking away from the applications that they really want to run. Sure a machine where they put on so much bloat that it is causing the machine to swap out programs their computer is going to be the slowest thing around. But even if you buy a bigger trashcan if you keep throwing trash in it the solution is to empty it not buy an even bigger trashcan every time you fill it.

Addressing this quote:
"there has been little or no incentive for hardware manufacturers or software developers build anything but 32 bit products. No competition can be just as lethal in the end as too much competition, and those who don't adapt will be left in the dust."

I agree in time, but the time scale is a lot slower then you think. And Microsoft's slow support of 64 bit (came out with XP, but no one hardly used it) shows this. So slow, but still what OS are you on? Microsoft Windows. For Unix/Linux 64 has been the dominate "bits" for many years before Microsoft put out a 64 bit OS, and that is one reason Unix/Linux dominated the server world, but in the desktop world the "slow adopting" has never hurt Microsoft, so maybe the customer has spoken? Could be that the average person doesn't want to pay for a car that can do 300 miles an hour? Sometimes the reason something isn't changed for long periods of time isn't because the company isn't competing, but because the company is giving the customer what they need. Instead of making the care run faster maybe the put in a nicer radio or made it safer. The competing is still there, just not in areas that the customer didn't really need. The truth is that the reason that everything is going to 64 bit now is because the IC manufactures say I can build the 64 bit processor for the same price as I sold the 32 bit processor and it is compatible with the 32 bit processing, why make both? So even if you don't ask for it any new machine has a 64 bit processor in it. (And if you got suckered into buy Vista you needed it too

)

The biggest problem I see though with the "Everyone should have 64 bits" is that it ignores the real world and the support problems. Yes as time goes on 64 bits will be the standard and frankly in another OS like Linux wouldn't even be a discussion, but in the world of Windows and old hardware, old programs, the support issues do not justify the somewhat dubious benefits for the average person out there.

jimbo45 · 10 Nov 2010

Hi there
I posted also that a 32 bit application running in a 64 bit machine would have overhead compared with running a 32 bit application in a 32 bit machine ( this also includes a 32 bit application running in a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit enabled CPU).

What will probably drive faster hardware and 64 / 128 OS'es is when people want to have 3-D / Virtual Reality / Holographic displays - this sort of stuff needs SIGNIFICANTLY faster processors and massive amounts of fast memory which currently would be really HIDEOUSLY expensive to provide but these developments will come.

Bog standard Office apps / basic web surfing and basic Multimedia are decently served by current hardware so there isn't really a whole lot of incentive for users to go out and get new machines --at least not in the current economic environment.

Cheers
jimbo

madtownidiot · 10 Nov 2010

Funny that you should mention linux

"I disagree totally with the view that the average user doesn't need a 64bit os or more than 4GB RAM. The average user should have a 64 bit operating system and as much ram as possible in order to be able to run all the bloat installed by the factory and all the additional user installed bloat without their system bogging down"

My answer to this is. Why would you leave the bloat on your machine?

you left out "until they learn how to remove it"
The average user doesn't know what to get rid of. The average manufacturer doesn't seem to care how the system will actually perform as long as the advertised features make it look good on paper.

The other part of the problem is the lengths software vendors in protecting their products from being copied. Most of the cpu and memory load in the average windows process is wasted on encrypting and decrypting proprietary file formats. A machine that would bog down at 80 processes in windows 7 can run 200+ processes simultaneously in 64 bit linux using less memory.

On the subject of graphics cards that have more then 1.5 Gig of memory. Why would you think that is even close to what the average person has on their machine?

I don't. But if you want to run a 3D application at native resolution for the average new monitor and get a decent frame rate, you need a lot more than 1.5GB video memory, although it would be interesting to see what kind of system requirements Autodesk Inventor or Crysis would have if the source code were open.

the time scale is a lot slower then you think.

the time scale is limited by artificially created restrictions on development because the market for software is almost entirely limited to windows/mac compatibility. use a little imagination. How much longer do you think either would last if linux had even a 25% market share, manufacturers started building hardware that could take advantage of its flexibility, and software vendors had a decent market for games and applications that could run in linux?

tcolguin · 10 Nov 2010

Totally agree jimbo!

Your points are valid madtownidiot, especially the one about users not knowing what to do. But on the time frame and the graphics the point I'm making isn't for the people that need those now or even why things move at what speed as far as being adopted.

I'm talking today not tomorrow and about the "average" joe. For instance I certainly can be completely wrong on my prediction on the 128 bit for the next 10 years. If someone comes out with an affordable 3D system or something that the main stream of computer users just has to have.

You know when Windows 3.1 came out I was on Unix as a developer. Every developer that looked at it or programmed in it talked about how bad it was in comparison to EVERY other OS out there. But Microsoft some how convinced programmers to spend huge amounts of time working around the problems and they made applications that the user could use, and the rest is history. The world of the consumer is not about the best tech (Like us geeks would like). It is about giving the customer what they want for the best price.

Will Linux take over and win over Windows in the future? I don't know. Will we really need to access more then 1000s of terabytes of memory in 10 years? I don't really know, but the progression of memory use in the pasts doesn't support that ramp so I doubt it. But I certainly don't know.

My original post is for this question "If you are still not using 64 bit operating systems" (Posted in a Windows forum, not a Linux forum) I'm addressing the "still" which implies NOW, not what will be true even a year from now.

madtownidiot · 10 Nov 2010

The customer doesn't know what he wants until you show it to him.
The range of available products is limited by an acquisitive but short-sighted near monopoly. If someone were to design a liquid immersed 6 socket system that ran off an external or network HDD or flash memory, had 6, 12, or 24GB RAM, weighed no more than 15 pounds and was about half the size of a shoe box, even with currently available mid-range components (except for a main board) it could outperform any air cooled system of a similar price and would never overheat, but you couldn't install windows to it.

tcolguin · 10 Nov 2010

madtownidiot said:

The customer doesn't know what he wants until you show it to him.
The range of available products is limited by an acquisitive but short-sighted near monopoly. If someone were to design a liquid immersed 6 socket system that ran off an external or network HDD or flash memory, had 6, 12, or 24GB RAM, weighed no more than 15 pounds and was about half the size of a shoe box, even with currently available mid-range components (except for a main board) it could outperform any air cooled system of a similar price and would never overheat, but you couldn't install windows to it.

Sounds great! Where can I buy that for $500 and I will want it to run everything I'm using my current computer for. I don't care about Windows just make it work. When can you deliver it?

hello people · 10 Nov 2010

When is 128 bit coming out?

Airbot · 10 Nov 2010

To the mainstream- years from now.