95 was far from being 32bit there. That was still 16bit later seeing OSR2 for 32bit support included in Windows 95 PLUS! NT 3.1 was the first actual 32bit version seen there. A good reference to really see how versions came out and when is the history of Windows page seen at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx
Thanks Night Hawk, that's a very good reference to which I can send people that want to know about Windows, although it did say that Windows 95 was 32-bit from the word go:
But whether or not you believe Windows 95 to have been 32-bit or not, it makes little difference. 32-Bit is an aging technology, and developers should begin adopting 64-bit more often, now that Windows 7 is the third major 64-bit version of Windows.Windows 95 was the successor to the three existing general-purpose desktop operating systems from Microsoft—Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups, and MS-DOS. Windows 95 integrated a 32-bit TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) stack for built-in Internet support, dial-up networking, and new Plug and Play capabilities that made it easy for users to install hardware and software.
The 32-bit operating system also offered enhanced multimedia capabilities, more powerful features for mobile computing, and integrated networking.
If I understand Microsoft's road-map correctly, I think that whatever is to follow after Windows 7 (Windows 8?) will be released in 64-bit only, which is what they originally planned with 7....
I will be trying a 64 bit version of win7 soon.
My pc meets minimum specs for x64.
Although I have had MANY headaches with xp and vista 64 bit editons (drivers,software etc.) I will give win7 a shot because it will probaly be less resource intensive as well.
Win95 saw 32bit support once the OSR2 equal to what we now know as a service pack was introduced. Just like 3.1 before it however it still saw a 16bit kernel and ran on a Fat16 volume. 98 was a step up where you saw it go on Fat32 or Fat16 there.
That was the first home user desktop version to see 32bit integrated into while the server type NT 3.1, 4.0, 2000, and on see the NT core. For 7 the early blogs heard along with some one time articles was that after 7 MS had planned to dump the 32bit kernel entirely.
I had one MS MVP get in my face...when mentioning that the transition is long overdue while the 3rd party sources haven't gotten off of their ...
and got busy writting 64bit drivers and softwares. Vista 32bit hasn't seen much after 2yrs. time in the way of updated softwares just some device drivers.
I have the 32bit side of things running here since the old dsl setup didn't even see XP 64bit drivers made. The last update for that was seen in 2002. I know the feeling about not finding drivers for 64bit quite well.
And the first thing seen on MS pages is make sure you can find what you need before deciding to go 64bit? 3rd major release with 64bit editions seen and still no drivers!"what's going on here!"
I built a new PC about 12mths ago and put Vista 64-bit on it.
I had to replace my clapped out printer too so i just made sure I got one with 64-bit drivers available.
I have had no technical or driver problems with 64-bit at all.
The only thing that sucks is Adobe not releasing a 64-bit flash player and (last time I checked) MS not releasing 64-bit Silverlight. So I have to run 32-bit version of IE.
(It comes with 32 & 64 bit IE).
Hopefully Adobe will release the Windows version of 64-bit Flash real soon.
If you are getting a new PC get 64-bit just to future-proof it.
Even if you only run 32 bit apps a 64 bit OS is worth it if you have >3.5GB memory.
The 32 bit OS can only address up to 4GB RAM max (usually a bit less).
Now I have a machine with 16GB RAM in it -- so even if I ran NOTHING else on the 64 bit OS it would allow me to use 4 full 32 bit 4GB RAM Os'es under VMWARE without needlessly page swapping etc etc.
It's a moot point if your PC has around 4GB -- but even with 4GB RAM I'd still install a 64 bit OS.
Problems with Drivers are grossly overarrated unless you are a serious gamers (which conversely could be one type of application which really could make use of more RAM).
32 bit OS'es are really now going to be history and only good for running legacy apps or for use on small computers like netbooks -- and there isn't really any reason why these shouldn't have 4GB Ram or more provided power consumption and heat problems can be solved.
Cheers
jimbo
There's a bit more then just gaming involved. When you are not seeing the software side as well as drivers for a variety of hardwares and addon devices you are limited to 32bit since the software companies slacked off even for the 32bit editions of Vista. MS already provided the 64bit Windows.
As far as much ram is actually needed for gaming you are better off going with a faster cpu and a larger vpu on the video card with more memory there to see any real performance gain.
Once 7 is out then maybe you start to see Vista/7 compatible softwares released. That would make 64bit editions more inviting for the average novice at that time rather then listening to "I can't get anything to work."
You have to consider that each system sees a different combination of hardwares, softwares, and different purposes at the same time as seeing the eventual transition(long overdue) from 32 to 64bit.
But, allow me a question?
Do you think it is worth using windows 7 64-bit with 2 gig ram?
I mean, my notebook has only one slot for ram , but has a hd 2400 wich renders me more performance, and 4 gig modules are way too expensive for me...
So, 32 bit wouldnt hurt ram, as 32-bit os can handle 2gig quite fine.
But 64-bit would be overkill? Would it be slow or laggy or bad performance?
Thanks in advance!
I can still you straight out that many are running the Vista 64bit editions with 2gb of memory. 7 will see the advantage of a refined kernel being far less of a resource grabber that Vista was tagged with. The first thing however is seeing whether or not 64bit drivers are available before hand however.
If you decide to buy 7 retail rather then OEM you will likely see the second 64bit disk along with the 32bit edition you go with included. That's one of the main reasons that Vista saw the $400 retail for Ultimate while XP Pro ran for about 1/2 of that. XP only saw one disk, one large book in the retail carton like any other previous version.
There's a bit more then just gaming involved. When you are not seeing the software side as well as drivers for a variety of hardwares and addon devices you are limited to 32bit since the software companies slacked off even for the 32bit editions of Vista. MS already provided the 64bit Windows.
As far as much ram is actually needed for gaming you are better off going with a faster cpu and a larger vpu on the video card with more memory there to see any real performance gain.
Once 7 is out then maybe you start to see Vista/7 compatible softwares released. That would make 64bit editions more inviting for the average novice at that time rather then listening to "I can't get anything to work."
You have to consider that each system sees a different combination of hardwares, softwares, and different purposes at the same time as seeing the eventual transition(long overdue) from 32 to 64bit.
Any computer on this planet will benefit from MORE RAM (up to the allowable that the OS can see) since "Swapping" or paging" devices are of millions of times slower (Disk storage) than internal RAM -- games included.
In fact the bottleneck in most "typical" day to day computers is usually in this order
1) SLOW DISKS
2) NOT ENOUGH MEMORY
3) Finally CPU
Games of course will require adequate graphics boards -- but it's no good having your nice fast graphics card having done a lot of its processing and then just sitting there idle waiting for actual DISK I/O waiting to complete because the OS itself is waiting on paging / swapping.
If you ARE a gamer get the FASTEST Disks you can afford and more memory (Graphics cards a re a given of course) . Most decent machines have more than enough power -- you don't need to shell out for a sooper dooper QUAD CPU. You can of course if money is no object but bang for buck do it in the order I've stated.
A big mistake gamers make in choosing their hardware is to think all the processing is done on the graphics board -- yes a lot IS removed away from the main computer but processes still require the main OS services and this is where the bottlenecks occur.
On a desktop machine if you are a serious gamer get SCSI disks, 8 GB RAM (at least) and then a CPU abd Video card of your choice (and run a 64 bit OS).
(If the game won't run on the 64 bit OS run a 32 bit virtual machine -- with a decent rig the 32 bit VM will be running at around 95% of its native (speed as if it was a real physical OS) speed.
All these facts are basically Operating Systems 101.
Cheers
jimbo
Quote