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

[PhreePhly]

Hi

I am new here but I love testing new operating system before everyone else, I tested vista when that came out and I would like to congradulate how stable this Public BETA is in comparison.

The reason for my post is simply why are they still releasing 32bit operating systems?

The only time I can think of a 32bit processor to be running Windows 7 is a laptop that shouldnt be running such an OS anyway.

Microsoft need to be pushing forward and forgetting about the past, this is what recovered apple from their disasterous times (merely and observation).

Releasing Windows 7 as 64bit only will for everyone to start coding for 64bit and finally we will see performance increases on the system.

I ask who has windows 7 32bit BETA who actually only has a 32bit processor. Its almost impossible not to have a 64bit CPU but I am waiting to be surprised. 64bit FTW!

Wow, so many things to comment on, well let's start from the top:

First of all, why is 64-bit necessary for today's computing? How many general use programs require 4GB RAM? Not many. Now that 64-bit is becoming fashionable, and MS is requiring hardware manufacturers to create 64-bit drivers to be WHQL signed, that is helping, but why do we really need 64-bit? So we can run mp3's faster?

Now your next comment is about Windows 7 on laptops. You do realize that laptops are currently outselling desktops, so they are a rather important market for MS. Granted most laptops today are 64-bit capable and can have 4 GB Ram, but there are plenty of Core 2 Duo laptops that have a 2 GB RAM ceiling. There is actually somewhat of a performance hit running 64-bit with only 2 GB RAM. (My situation. Why would I run and incur a performance hit?)

There are also still quite a few yonah laptops (Core Duo and Core Solo) that are not 64-bit capable.

Also note that in the corporate world (MS's largest customer), there are still plenty of 16-bit Visual Basic applets in use. When operating in 64-bit (i.e. Long Mode in AMD64 speak) 16-bit programs will not run.

So, 32-bit will be on the client side for some time. Note I believe that Server 2008 R2 is only available in 64-bit, but I may need to double check that.

PhreePhly

 

[Gilbertpwns]

Cool so do I

 

[Firestrider]

Has anyone seen a tangible benefit of running 64-bit applications? Really I cannot see the difference in performance.

 

[Gilbertpwns]

Games in particular run faster/smoother, assuming they are optimized for 64 bit

 

[falfaro]

32-bit and more than 4GB of RAM

the hold back of 64bit adaption is of course the relying on 32bit software compatibility. Microsoft just play it safe i think to release two version. Another thing that pushing the need of 64bit OS is the memory requirement of certain games, as well as the increase of frame buffer in GPU that certainly need more than 4GB addressing. I say, bring it on crysis alike games and we'll see more and more people going 64.

Are current games demanding more than 4GB of RAM? It's hard for me to believe that. Even if we are talking about frame buffer, since textures are usually stored in the GPU's RAM and that's usually <= 512MB.

Also, a common misconception is that 32-bit machines can't use more than 4GB of RAM. That's not true. Modern processors do support PAE that enables a system to use more than 4GB of memory. However, even with PAE, a single process address space is limited to 4GB.

 

[Gilbertpwns]

I agree with you that 32 bit machines do take advantage of 4 gigs sometimes. But on the gamers enthusiast mind, the capability to go beyond 4 gigs would be pleasing to gain more FPS on newer games.

 

[Mark]

I think you all need to wake up and move with the times, saying why do we need 64bit when 32bit is so great is the same as saying why do we need 32bit when 16bit is so great or 8bit, I mean come people this is evolution and do we really want to hold it back, I don't even want 64bit anymore I want 128bit, 256bit or even 512bit, after all isn't that where our GPU's are at now. Stop holding back on evolution it's the only way to go.

 

[HikerRemastered]

I want 64-bit too! But at the present 32-bit is the more convenient choice, so I'll stick with it for now.

 

[LuzTeTT]

I find it pitiful that most of you didn't read my post.
A 64-bit OS's only benefit != more RAM capability.
64-bit is a better instruction set. Being able to access more RAM is a benefit of x64, but it is NOT by all means the only thing going for it.

And who ever is fibbing about games not taking advantage of it...
The mere FACT that you have more RAM for your OS, more RAM free and more RAM for your games and what ever else you're doing is just EFFICIENCY in itself. Never mind the fact that you're executing more instructions at a time (or more efficiently I should say, but I've used that word too much).

...If that doesn't do it for you, 64-bit is a better instruction set in terms of processing capability.

I agree with you that 32 bit machines do take advantage of 4 gigs sometimes. But on the gamers enthusiast mind, the capability to go beyond 4 gigs would be pleasing to gain more FPS on newer games.

You don't get a FPS increase. That is entirely based on your GPU and CPU. The only time your FPS is dependent on memory is when you're going into your swap file (which will result in a huge FPS drop). In which case you only need more RAM, and games rarely use more than 4GB of RAM by themselves. It's all whether you have the RAM to have your OS running efficiently in the background while the game/application is running. Or buying faster RAM, but today's hardware is bottlenecked by the CPU and the GPU.

Has anyone seen a tangible benefit of running 64-bit applications? Really I cannot see the difference in performance.

Well then you're not looking for it.

Games in particular run faster/smoother, assuming they are optimized for 64 bit

Upon compiling a 64-bit binary, yes, you are allowing access to 128GB of RAM, but you won't ever require it nor will the RAM requirements be any different from the 32-bit binary AT ALL. Unless we're talking about games in the future, which will probably be more optimized... depending on the developer's laziness. No doubt 4GB of RAM will become mainstream and games will start demanding that much; but that's also a question of developers choosing to load more data into RAM. Applications like console emulators will benefit from the instruction set itself because the CPU on a console is often more complex, or is 64-bit (XBOX 360 for example).
Unless a game was designed on a 64-bit platform specifically, it will not benefit besides the obvious efficiency boost and extra resources capability. In fact, most of the games people play today are poorly designed or optimized for any instruction set at all (Assassin's Creed on XBOX 360 verses PC and PS3 for example; which is the typical PPC port).

EDIT:
Additionally, a wider BUS and wider register ALWAYS wins. I mean, that's just common sense.

 

[ittech]

@mr grim

my personal fun machines are all 32 bit OS. i don't feel i am holding back progress. i dont want to play online shooters and look at games that are heading for ram requirements above two gigs as lousy programming, not exactly progress. the most spec intensive stuff i have handled were either engineering or architectural softwares. i hardly ever do that in my home. if 64 bit is what is in our future, (i would not bet the farm on that personally for some time to come) then i want to see what i can run on it before i go there, i want software titles, and they need to be something of value to me. gaming is a pretty crummy excuse considering the additional expense to client, and the shrinking pc gaming market.

my son has a 700 dollar canadian graphics card. me, i get them for cost, but i cannot justify that. i payed110 for a graphics unit with a gig on the card, if something doesnt run on that and a couple of gigs of system ram, then the problem is on the software side. given the state of programming for some gaming titles, having them optimized as they say for 64 bit leaves me less than mesmorized.

are we heading 64 bit, yeah of course we are, but not anytime soon.

 

[Firestrider]

So what exactly does 64-bit entail as far as processing, supporting larger integers? Can you show me an example of an application running with 64-bit optimized code running faster than a 32-bit application?

I think dual-channel memory runs on a 128-bit bus and triple-channel runs on a 192-bit bus, how does this coincide with the processor's bit support?

 

[echrada]

I think you all need to wake up and move with the times, saying why do we need 64bit when 32bit is so great is the same as saying why do we need 32bit when 16bit is so great or 8bit, I mean come people this is evolution and do we really want to hold it back, I don't even want 64bit anymore I want 128bit, 256bit or even 512bit, after all isn't that where our GPU's are at now. Stop holding back on evolution it's the only way to go.

I agree with you 100%. Every walk of life is experiencing evolution, why should we not take advantage of it.

But unfortunately there will always be those who do not embrace change especially in technology, it is either fear or they are true luddites.

 

[ittech]

@ echrada

i loved the luddites comment. still, consider, how many of us have satellite radio in our cars? wasn't that the next big thing? that got real old on the first long haul drive.

you are right in respect to it is the way of the future, right now, i dont see any reason to go there because it offers me nothing i cannot already do. for 64 bit to seriously get off the ground, your revolution will have to happen, by software companies forcing the change. Microsoft has tried forcing technological change in the past against consumer demand. that didn't go so well. when new titles that are functional for the general computer users come out exclusively in 64 bit, then we will be dragged kicking and screaming into your future. for commercial enterprise, at least of the size i cater to, the additional infrastructure cost on new build from 32 to 64 bit is a no brainer, but put that into context of a home user where ram prices fluctuate to world crisis, shortages and economics all beyond our control, the unit cost can increase dramatically. you would be surprised just how many home users are cost constrained. at one time it was no biggie cutting a cheque for 2500 to 3000 dollars for a new unit. now when you can custom build for a third to one half that, the increase system memory requirement alone makes a substantial difference in street price. not everyone is an enthusiast. most just want to surf, grab their e mail, and get their picture of their dog on their first web page.

economically we had a hard time with vista, but we recouped that on blowing vista away and installing reliable, stable and relatively faster xp. if you question this, check the market stats for the 400 dollar laptops dumped under christmas trees. their function is bottom of the well, but that didn't matter because they were from an economic point of view cheap, consumers decided that was what they wanted. I'm not looking forward to the first of those crossing my threshold looking for repair because at current rates for one of my techs,it isn't going to happen.

 

[hethoofd]

I'm still running 32-bit. I don't feel like going through the hassle of downloading all my software in 64-bit versions. Sure, I can run my 32-bit software on a 64-bit OS, but that will not give me any advantage.

I'd like to see a benchmark that really shows the performance difference between a 32-bit and 64-bit OS.

 

[sevsman]

Well just for every day usage i can notice the difference between x86 and x64 and as far as i'm concerned it's x64 all the way now. And the remark about xp being faster than vista, well that's because people wanted to run a new OS on aged hardware. It's not going to happen is it really.

My specs arn't all that great but i'd never go back to either xp or a 32bit OS ever again...

 

[Barman58]

Just like to add that a lot of the XP is faster than Vista or Seven or whatever is, in my opinion, caused by the familiarity that users have with an operating system they've grown up with. If you have been using one system for a long time and become accustomed to using it in a certain way then any change that makes you think "now how do I ... " , will seem slower. Once a user spends a little time to familiarise themselves with the new way of doing things the new system "seems" just as fast or even faster.

 

[ittech]

@Barman58

That is certainly a valid point. But...and you knew that was coming, shutting down xp as compared to literally begging vista to shut itself down, especially on more than a couple of the best brand name laptops. in a home situation it's annoying, in a commercial environment, five additional minutes lost per employee, some more, some less adds up to lost productivity and that translates to money or other tangible productivity goal. i once worked the education department looking after approximately 2000 computers doing everything from finance to scheduling to student loan records....if we math that out for vista, consultants are fired for less.

nevertheless, i will grant you your point. apprehension of change for end users whom may be lucky to recieve one full day familiarization on an op system is one of our biggest challenges in a business environment. remember, i think the bulk of the people in the forums are at least pc competant, a lot of home end users are not. nor i would put it to you are the majority of business users and the transition from xp to vista was never a happy one for the poor secretary coming in monday morning to a new desktop. reality was, business as a whole and certainly government service with which i am familiar never moved to vista except for specific machines tasked to specific individuals. that was not a judgemental call on the merits of vista per se, but on the ability of IT departments to support users, some times large numbers of users in an unfamiliar desktop environment while still maintaining acceptable productivity levels. from my position, reality is that user training is becoming more difficult to schedule, the expense of it more difficult for business to agree to, and i think you might perhaps agree that vista was less than intuitive despite what MS would have us believe. As a system, i have no argument with vista, but as regards performance, then we have an issue. if windows 7 holds to promise, i see big changes in many of those arguments, and all for the better. large enterprise, those with large numbers of machines (i only did a rollout for xp for a government department three years ago..they are not going to change again without a hard sell, with substantial backup documentation and projections of benefits/costs. i will not disagree with you.

 

[wierdo124]

Pretty sure any processor post-athlon XP / Pentium 3 was 64 bit.

 

[PhreePhly]

Pretty sure any processor post-athlon XP / Pentium 3 was 64 bit.

Actually as late as 2007, the Yonah (Core Duo and Core Solo) was released and was 32-bit only. There are still quite a few Yonah laptops out there that can run Vista quite well. These will run Win 7 just as well.

Honestly, until developers start releasing 64-bit software, what does it matter? If you have 4 or 8 GB RAM great, but so many laptops with 64-bit processors can only have 2 GB RAM, so why bother. Mainstream software, like Office, are still not offered in 64-bits, and from what I've heard, it will be a few more versions from now, due to assembly modules still used in excel and access.

I'm not sure games are coming out in 64-bit versions, yet, as I'm not much of a gamer, but that is a huge market. When they start moving 64-bit, expect to see a large migration.

PhreePhly

 

[LuzTeTT]

Actually as late as 2007, the Yonah (Core Duo and Core Solo) was released and was 32-bit only. There are still quite a few Yonah laptops out there that can run Vista quite well. These will run Win 7 just as well.

Honestly, until developers start releasing 64-bit software, what does it matter? If you have 4 or 8 GB RAM great, but so many laptops with 64-bit processors can only have 2 GB RAM, so why bother. Mainstream software, like Office, are still not offered in 64-bits, and from what I've heard, it will be a few more versions from now, due to assembly modules still used in excel and access.

I'm not sure games are coming out in 64-bit versions, yet, as I'm not much of a gamer, but that is a huge market. When they start moving 64-bit, expect to see a large migration.

PhreePhly

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

Should cover just about everything.
And here's a good read: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=506