32 bit? that's so last millenium...

PhreePhly · 20 Jan 2009

LuzTeTT said:

Complete list of 64-bit apps - PlanetAMD64
64bit and x64 - Home

Should cover just about everything.
And here's a good read: Suddenly, 64-bit Windows is mainstream | Ed Bott’s Microsoft Report | ZDNet.com

Again, that's great, but what performance gain does running those apps in 64-bit bring? They are all also available in 32-bit. How many of those are the main productivity apps used by the mainstream, ie office?

Don't get me wrong, if my laptop could hold 4 or 8 GB RAM, I would move that direction. My point is that there are plenty (i.e. I believe the majority of PC's running XP) of computers that cannot be upgraded to 64-bit. It would be a shame if all those people were left in capable of running new software. There are plenty people that cannot afford a system upgrade. Older motherboards, even 64-bit capable Athlon XP and Opteron motherboards had max RAM limits of 2 GB.

We're not ready, yet. Microsoft has 90% marketshare because they have backwards compatability. Most enthusiasts feel that the backwards compatibility is actually a negative for MS, but IT departments and folks still running older software love it. I know someone who install Office 97 on their Win 7 install. It installed just fine, and I find that amazing. Try that with a Mac. I do think that the next 3 to 5 years will see a steady move to 64-bit only, and I suspect that Windows 8 will be 64-bit only. And when MS annoonces that, you will get a vocal group protesting and demanding that MS also put out a 32-bit version.

PhreePhly

LuzTeTT · 21 Jan 2009

PhreePhly said:

Again, that's great, but what performance gain does running those apps in 64-bit bring? They are all also available in 32-bit. How many of those are the main productivity apps used by the mainstream, ie office?

Don't get me wrong, if my laptop could hold 4 or 8 GB RAM, I would move that direction. My point is that there are plenty (i.e. I believe the majority of PC's running XP) of computers that cannot be upgraded to 64-bit. It would be a shame if all those people were left in capable of running new software. There are plenty people that cannot afford a system upgrade. Older motherboards, even 64-bit capable Athlon XP and Opteron motherboards had max RAM limits of 2 GB.

We're not ready, yet. Microsoft has 90% marketshare because they have backwards compatability. Most enthusiasts feel that the backwards compatibility is actually a negative for MS, but IT departments and folks still running older software love it. I know someone who install Office 97 on their Win 7 install. It installed just fine, and I find that amazing. Try that with a Mac. I do think that the next 3 to 5 years will see a steady move to 64-bit only, and I suspect that Windows 8 will be 64-bit only. And when MS annoonces that, you will get a vocal group protesting and demanding that MS also put out a 32-bit version.

PhreePhly

I won't even comment...
It's fun pulling facts out of nowhere, but here's a good game for you... check every single member's user profiles for what OS they're using.

thegr8anand · 21 Jan 2009

I will get a 64-bit OS for my next PC but right now I don't see any advantage of going 64-bit. Don't want any hassle(though I know there is not much now but still). Also 3GB is sufficient for now. Just my opinion. Though I did download a copy of Windows 7 x64 and kept 3 keys if needed later

Dzomlija · 21 Jan 2009

I've been reading this thread from start to finish, and I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the most obvious reason for moving to x64. At least, they touched on the subject, but never really expanded on it.

Memory!

Lots of the replies here mention that x64 allows for more memory, and replies to that statement has been "but I'm doing fine with only 2GB installed" or "no program will ever need more than 4GB on its own".

Valid arguments all, but the one I've not yet heard is "more memory translates to more running applications".

Even if all your installed software is only 32-Bit, having 8GB memory installed along with an operating system that is 64 bit allows you to run more of those applications at once while minimizing use of the page file.

Take my Vista x64 installation that I was using before I switched to Windows 7 BETA x64. Upon boot, it used around 1300MB of my installed 4096MB (4094MB available).

That left 2794MB available to applications and data.
So I open Paint Shop Pro and open several images. Memory usage at around 500MB, leaving 2294MB.

Then I open Windows Live Photo Gallery, and display the entire library of around 100,000 images. Memory usage is around 1000MB, leaving 1294MB.

Total memory usage at this point is pushing 2800MB, with about 1200MB remaining. This leaves me with plenty of room to open other applications without worrying too much about pagefile usage.

To be brutally honest, I'll be upgrading to 8GB towards the end of the month, because I've already pushed 4GB to the point where even Vista x64 memory management could not cope with the load and was unable to allocate pagefile space quickly enough, and have crashed the system.

My point is moving to x64 does make sense, even if you run predominantly 32 bit applications. The added memory capacity afford by x64 allows you to do so much more....

renthor · 21 Jan 2009

Dzomlija said:

I've been reading this thread from start to finish, and I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the most obvious reason for moving to x64. At least, they touched on the subject, but never really expanded on it.

Memory!

Lots of the replies here mention that x64 allows for more memory, and replies to that statement has been "but I'm doing fine with only 2GB installed" or "no program will ever need more than 4GB on its own".

Valid arguments all, but the one I've not yet heard is "more memory translates to more running applications".

Even if all your installed software is only 32-Bit, having 8GB memory installed along with an operating system that is 64 bit allows you to run more of those applications at once while minimizing use of the page file.

Take my Vista x64 installation that I was using before I switched to Windows 7 BETA x64. Upon boot, it used around 1300MB of my installed 4096MB (4094MB available).

That left 2794MB available to applications and data.
So I open Paint Shop Pro and open several images. Memory usage at around 500MB, leaving 2294MB.

Then I open Windows Live Photo Gallery, and display the entire library of around 100,000 images. Memory usage is around 1000MB, leaving 1294MB.

Total memory usage at this point is pushing 2800MB, with about 1200MB remaining. This leaves me with plenty of room to open other applications without worrying too much about pagefile usage.

To be brutally honest, I'll be upgrading to 8GB towards the end of the month, because I've already pushed 4GB to the point where even Vista x64 memory management could not cope with the load and was unable to allocate pagefile space quickly enough, and have crashed the system.

My point is moving to x64 does make sense, even if you run predominantly 32 bit applications. The added memory capacity afford by x64 allows you to do so much more....

Bingo, the memory advantage alone makes x64 worth it. There's a thread in the news section with an article going more in depth about this. Really interesting stuff.

I am one of the unlucky few who does not have a 64bit processor. Been looking into upgrading my motherboard and processor, but haven't really found what I want and can afford yet.

That said, Microsoft has done a great job at trimming the x86 version to work much better than Vista, and even XP. I would agree that 32 bit is "last millennium" but it will still be around for a while, if for no other reason than a lot of businesses (a major market for Microsoft) are slow to upgrade. I think this release of Windows though will really help to push everyone forward and onto x64.

PhreePhly · 21 Jan 2009

LuzTeTT said:

I won't even comment...
It's fun pulling facts out of nowhere, but here's a good game for you... check every single member's user profiles for what OS they're using.

Do you really think the members of this site represent the vast majority of computer users? How many quad core 8 GB RAM systems are used by fortune 500 companies? The company I work for finally upgraded to XP in 2006, and we still find Win98 setups on occasion because of software requirements. One of our clients, a very large oil company, still runs NT 4 and Office 97 on their laptops.

How much of MS's business is through corporate clients? I would bet over 60%. Trust me, the majority of businesses are not ready to move to 64-bit. Do I wish that the standard box being put on employee desks was a quad-core monster with 8 GB RAM? Sure. But we run IE, Acrobat and Office, why do we need 64-bit?

PhreePhly

LuzTeTT · 21 Jan 2009

PhreePhly said:

Do you really think the members of this site represent the vast majority of computer users? How many quad core 8 GB RAM systems are used by fortune 500 companies? The company I work for finally upgraded to XP in 2006, and we still find Win98 setups on occasion because of software requirements. One of our clients, a very large oil company, still runs NT 4 and Office 97 on their laptops.

How much of MS's business is through corporate clients? I would bet over 60%. Trust me, the majority of businesses are not ready to move to 64-bit. Do I wish that the standard box being put on employee desks was a quad-core monster with 8 GB RAM? Sure. But we run IE, Acrobat and Office, why do we need 64-bit?

PhreePhly

I'd thought a particularly new forum focused on the newest OS from Microsoft so far would be an accurate representation of how close to 64-bit we're at... and the articles I gave you... and the above posts... but I guess not. If you simply don't want to upgrade, it's okay! A lot of people have refused to upgrade from WIN98 to Windows 2000, and Windows ME to XP. Let alone XP to Vista... if all you run is IE, Acrobat and Office, you don't even need Windows 7. By the way, quad core CPUs are very cheap these days... and RAM is also getting extremely cheap. I don't know if 8GB will become standard (if it does I'm moving to 16GB or 32GB if possible), but a quad core CPU would be useful in an office server workspace environment. But I'm sure that's something you'd argue against too.

Case closed to be honest.

ittech · 21 Jan 2009

@LuzTeTT

i'm pro 64 to be honest, even if i don't sound like it. The last MS developers conference i attended pitched the next big thing. Zero touch deployment and cloud computing. The trend in workstations is less system memory not more.

i don't think the forum users at all reflect the bulk of end users out there, particularly home users. I rolled out the xp deployment for ~2000 machines for a government department just three years ago. If the 64 bit operating system is to go big, you will not have to convince us on the forum, we know that's where the future lies, but convince business and large enterprise to play too. To put it mildly it's going to be a hard sell. IT budgets and staffing have been carved away over the past three or four years, business finally went to xp for better or worse, and a few guiding lights went vista. frankly that didn't go all that well. MS knows that fully well, attend a tech net event when one hits near where you live. the natives are not happy. windows 7 will help that a lot i think, but an awful lot of suits that okay expenditures will be looking at us over their glasses.

people want to grab their mail, run messenger, view media files and put their dog on their web page. if that takes 8 gb because 4gb causes system stress we are in for a world of hurt.

PhreePhly · 21 Jan 2009

LuzTeTT said:

I'd thought a particularly new forum focused on the newest OS from Microsoft so far would be an accurate representation of how close to 64-bit we're at... and the articles I gave you... and the above posts... but I guess not. If you simply don't want to upgrade, it's okay! A lot of people have refused to upgrade from WIN98 to Windows 2000, and Windows ME to XP. Let alone XP to Vista... if all you run is IE, Acrobat and Office, you don't even need Windows 7. By the way, quad core CPUs are very cheap these days... and RAM is also getting extremely cheap. I don't know if 8GB will become standard (if it does I'm moving to 16GB or 32GB if possible), but a quad core CPU would be useful in an office server workspace environment. But I'm sure that's something you'd argue against too.

Case closed to be honest.

I guess you missed the OP's question. He/she asked why is MS even making a 32-bit OS. My original post was meant to answer that question. Did you miss earlier when I wrote that if my laptop took 4 or 8 GB RAM I would run 64-bit? Let me say this clearly... I am not opposed to 64-bit. But, there are still plenty of non 64-bit systems in the business world and MS would be foolish not to cater to them. Of course, you might ask why upgrade at all? Well, Windows 7, like Vista, adds quite a bit of group policy management. IT groups like that, but adding $40 in memory to 2500 systems is still a good chunk of money, and budgets are tight.

As far as a server goes, you do realize that Server 2008 R2 is 64-bit only, right?

PhreePhly

dmex · 22 Jan 2009

Windows 7 is the last 32bit consumer desktop release, Windows 8 will be 64bit only