Solved Why is Windows 7 64-bit not 64-bit?

[vaidas3]

cytherian, that is my "underlying" concern. Yes, I want it to be "perfect". Unfortunately Windows is far from being "perfect". Never mind "backwards compatibility". I do not intend to use any 32-bit programs. I also surely don't need 'Paint' or 'Wordpad', neither do I need 'Notepad' or MS 'Mail'. The least MS could do is give the consumer a choice to install what he wants. - I remember having had an Atari Falcon in 1993. The operating system (TOS 4) came on a 1.44 MB floppy, gave me multitasking, virtual memory management, 3d desktop, and the essential file operations. And then I could add whatever I wanted! Now I get more than a gigabyte of stuff and what I only want is a 64-bit operating system to run 64-bit applications, and only those!

so? you can use your TOS4 and add whatever you want. why use windows 7 64bit that are not pure and still have 32bit code.. there is always choice. MS made windows 7 not "pure" 64bit because there is lot of 32bit software out there or some 64bit software still is not pure 64bit.
what prblems does 32bit have? why all the worry.. on some systems I still use 32bit windows 7 os and i dont feel inferior or dont have any issue. I use 64bit windows and its working too its not pure 64bit but at this time there will be very hard time for pure 64bit os.
if your needs are very specific or you think there is problem where there is none.. that doesnt mean that MS should rewrite 64bit windows 7

 

[cheezz]

He's a dumb ass or a troll!

 

[Indianatone]

I downloaded XP64 on a trial the day it came out. It was hard to figure out at first but it was faster than regular 32 bit XP. Some stuff would not install as some of the old setup programs called 16 bit or even 8 bit processes. I liked XP 64 and I still have a virtual machine of it to this day. 32 bit is for compatibility, I use Winamp, Goldwave and other tools that are 32 bit but function perfectly in the 64 bit world. Good luck finding a media player as good as Winamp on 64bit at the moment. Goldwave is an awesome program and is 32 bit but like many things takes advantages of the 64 bit operating system being able to address more memory. MS sells a 64 bit version of Office but warns you not to install it unless it is really needed due to computability issues with add ins and third party tools and macros.
I think 64 bit is great. I can address huge amounts of memory and CPU processes and yet I have an Windows on Windows emulator that enables me to play Jezzball from Windows 311 days. 64 bit programs will also call 32 bit DLL's on occasion and if they are not there as you somehow managed to delete the files it will crash.
I don't see what your problem is, either you are just winding us all up or maybe you should do as others have suggested and read up and learn.

 

[Spock3]

"He's a dumb ass or a troll!"
This seems to be the best answer so far.
I didn't know you have such people on this forum.

 

[Spock3]

Indianatone, you don't understand what I use the PC for. It is a machine solely used for audioprocessing! As you probably know 16 or 24 channels of audio require a lot of memory to run smoothly simultaneously. Composing a song with lots of virtual instruments (VST) requires lots of RAM to run smoothly. I know, you can do all this with a 32-bit system and a 4 GB memory limit. But you have to encounter frequent interruptions in your work.
Now, let me put it this way: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit maybe an OS supporting 64-bit applications, but for professional use it is a pain in the - you know what.

 

[ganjiry]

You must be Really bored to argue about something so rediculous. Its not like that part of the os is using all your systems resources. nothing about it will hinder your audio processing. if your worried about the memory its aparantly wasting. Buy some more.
go troll the xbox comunity they love trolls

what a waste of life. you could be doing something worthwhile instead of this

 

[Indianatone]

Indianatone, you don't understand what I use the PC for. It is a machine solely used for audioprocessing! As you probably know 16 or 24 channels of audio require a lot of memory to run smoothly simultaneously. Composing a song with lots of virtual instruments (VST) requires lots of RAM to run smoothly. I know, you can do all this with a 32-bit system and a 4 GB memory limit. But you have to encounter frequent interruptions in your work.
Now, let me put it this way: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit maybe an OS supporting 64-bit applications, but for professional use it is a pain in the - you know what.

Well I have an answer for you. Use real musicians that play real music. It would probably sound better and you can record it and mix it on your PC, I know I could do it on mine!

 

[Howdr]

Layback Bear, I always make "clean" installations of Operating Systems! But the installation itself is "unclean", as it doesn't let me choose what I want to install.

Sounds like you want Linux
Don't put OSX on it takes all Control :devil:

 

[DeaconFrost]

Now, let me put it this way: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit maybe an OS supporting 64-bit applications, but for professional use it is a pain in the - you know what.

See, now you are insulting all of us professionals who do use it.

I'm going to try and keep this polite, but here goes. You really have no idea what you are talking about, and anyone's attempt to educate you falls on deaf ears. There is nothing "unclean" about your install, and if you think that, then you have no understanding of how any Operating System works. Linux and OSX ALL use "hybrid" code as you put it. It's just how computers work.

You have this mindset of only needing 64-bit applications, but yet you have no idea why. In many cases, the 64-bit app isn't any different or any better, nor does it work any more efficiently than it's 32 bit version.

As mentioned above by others, unless you are willing to write your own OS and make it support your own hardware, this is how you will be using your computer..."unclean" as you put it.

Surely you have much more important things to worry about in your "professional" career than this topic. If your sole function of that computer is to create music, then I will absolutely, 100% guarantee that your "unclean" system isn't negatively affected by that folder being present on your system, and I'd even go so far as to tell you it is necessary for your system's stability.

Spend your time using the computer for its purpose, rather than trying to invent issues where there isn't one.

 

[whs]

I think you are being ridiculous. As a German countryman, let me tell you this.

Most programs are still x32 today and it would be hard to operate a PC without them. And in some instances they are better than the x64 versions - e.g. IE. The x86 program files are not going to hurt you, don't be afraid.

 

[cytherian]

Sounds to me like you'd be happier in the Linux world, Spock3. The shells have gotten much better over the years, providing a GUI almost as user-friendly as Windows. But the best thing is being able to tailor it exactly as you wish.

No operating system is perfect. I wouldn't say Windows is "far" from it. Considering what else is out there, they do a lot right while helping you avoid resorting to coding (there's plenty of 3rd party apps to help you do almost anything).

In my mind, we'll probably need a computer to create it's own version of an operating system before it's nearly perfect. Why? Because it'll be super efficient and won't try to protect itself from customization. The "core" and "shell" approach works. Windows is still too intertwined within itself. Ideally, Windows 9 would be a rock solid lean operating system where you could overlay any shell you wish upon it's open API. You could end up with shells that look like iOS, Windows 7, or any popular flavor of Linux. But that will never happen in Windows. Microsoft has profit making interests as top priority.

It's already been very well defined as to what operating systems need to provide in a given hardware environment. They need to provide functionality efficiently and reliably, as well as cope with process co-existence, security and priority. Then all you need is a user interface shell attached to monitor and manipulate it. Device compatibility? All you need is a driver for it and a comprehensive SDK would make it relatively easy to allow almost any device to work seamlessly.

But then quantum computing will come around and shake everything up again.

 

[FuturDreamz]

I'd recommend either buying better hardware so you're not grasping straws to improve performance, or learn Linux and build your own "prefect" system. Since you have such a clear idea of what makes a perfect system it shouldn't be hard.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...Well I have an answer for you. Use real musicians that play real music. It would probably sound better and you can record it and mix it on your PC, I know I could do it on mine![/QUOTE]

That's not an answer. There is nothing wrong with virtual instrumentation. As for what sounds better, that's a matter of individual taste. And virtual instrumentation uses up no more Ram than real instrumentation (which also costs one heck of a lot more and is far more cumbersome to use). While I will agree the OP is overly concerned with whether his system is pure 64 bit or not, your "answer" is not an answer.

 

[Indianatone]

...Well I have an answer for you. Use real musicians that play real music. It would probably sound better and you can record it and mix it on your PC, I know I could do it on mine!

That's not an answer. There is nothing wrong with virtual instrumentation. As for what sounds better, that's a matter of individual taste. And virtual instrumentation uses up no more Ram than real instrumentation (which also costs one heck of a lot more and is far more cumbersome to use). While I will agree the OP is overly concerned with whether his system is pure 64 bit or not, your "answer" is not an answer.[/QUOTE]

I know that, he has been winding everyone up so and dismissing everything everyone suggested so I came up with that as a joke

 

[cheezz]

"He's a dumb ass or a troll!"
This seems to be the best answer so far.
I didn't know you have such people on this forum.

Yup! Those who don't understand logic are dumbasses. And since I said you're a dumbass or a troll, I have come to the conclusion that you're not a troll.

 

[whs]

Guys, do me a favor, please keep it civilized. Criticism is OK, but watch the language.

 

[Spock3]

32-bit processes can't load 64-bit DLLs and 64-bit processes can't load 32-bit DLLs. By default, 64-bit applications can use 8 TB of user mode address space. There is the option to specify that all memory below 2 GB be allocated to the application. Because 32-bit DLL can't address memory space above 2GB, the thunk layer would have to copy all data into the low 2GB of the 64-bit application. Obviously, this won't work if the 64-bit application tries to pass a pointer to data that is larger than 2GB.
Also 32-bit DLLs use x86 style exception handling and 4K pages. On an IA-64 processor, the native page size is 8K and the WOW64 emulator is responsible for simulating 4K pages. Because on an x86 machine exceptions do not "unwind" from user mode to kernel mode and back, WOW64 implements x86-style exception without switching from x86 code to IA-64 and back.
Finally, another reason why 64-bit and 32-bit processes can't load each other's DLLs is that system DLLs (kernel32.dll, user32.dll, and gdi32.dll) expect only one instance per process, 32-bit or 64-bit. If a process contained more than one instance of, say user32.dll, Win32k.sys will not be able to distinguish between them and wouldn't know which one to call.
So a 64-bit application must have all the Dll that are 64-bit.
And therefore I ask again why does Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit still have 32-bit dlls??

 

[Golden]

32-bit processes can't load 64-bit DLLs and 64-bit processes can't load 32-bit DLLs. By default, 64-bit applications can use 8 TB of user mode address space. There is the option to specify that all memory below 2 GB be allocated to the application. Because 32-bit DLL can't address memory space above 2GB, the thunk layer would have to copy all data into the low 2GB of the 64-bit application. Obviously, this won't work if the 64-bit application tries to pass a pointer to data that is larger than 2GB.
Also 32-bit DLLs use x86 style exception handling and 4K pages. On an IA-64 processor, the native page size is 8K and the WOW64 emulator is responsible for simulating 4K pages. Because on an x86 machine exceptions do not "unwind" from user mode to kernel mode and back, WOW64 implements x86-style exception without switching from x86 code to IA-64 and back.
Finally, another reason why 64-bit and 32-bit processes can't load each other's DLLs is that system DLLs (kernel32.dll, user32.dll, and gdi32.dll) expect only one instance per process, 32-bit or 64-bit. If a process contained more than one instance of, say user32.dll, Win32k.sys will not be able to distinguish between them and wouldn't know which one to call.
So a 64-bit application must have all the Dll that are 64-bit.

You really should include the source of the above paragraph:
The 64 bit OS Architecture - CodeProject

 

[Spock3]

And your comment on the text is what?

 

[vaidas3]

And your comment on the text is what?

you can copy and paste text about workings of 64bit windows.. is there anything with the 32bit code in 64bit os that stops you from doing your work?
what practical problems do you have with your os.. not something you think or read or imagine.. are your work hindered in anyway?
and is those problems really because of 32bit code in 64bit windows?
if you just want 64bit pure windows 7.. no one can help you windows 7 is the way it is.