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

[PhreePhly]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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

 

[Firestrider]

So the main reason of running a 64-bit OS is if you are running greater than 3.5 GB of RAM? That does not sound too appealing to me. From what I've heard an application in 32-bit actually takes up more memory resources in a 64-bit environment because of "swollen pointers". If 64-bit applications used less memory and less processing power for the same performance as a 32-bit application the switch to a 64-bit OS would make more sense.

Users who don't use more than 3.5 GB of memory (which is the majority of people) have no use for a 64-bit OS.

 

[Dzomlija]

So the main reason of running a 64-bit OS is if you are running greater than 3.5 GB of RAM? That does not sound too appealing to me. From what I've heard an application in 32-bit actually takes up more memory resources in a 64-bit environment because of "swollen pointers". If 64-bit applications used less memory and less processing power for the same performance as a 32-bit application the switch to a 64-bit OS would make more sense.

Users who don't use more than 3.5 GB of memory (which is the majority of people) have no use for a 64-bit OS.

It more than just being able to use more memory.

For one, accessing that memory is quicker, because the Windows x64 Memory Management works faster.

Windows x64 is more secure, because the System Kernel is protected against being patched by third-party drivers and applications.

Graphics Rendering is better, because the drivers can communicate with the associated hardware much faster using a 64-bit pipeline...

We could go on, but we'll be here all day.

 

[thegr8anand]

Are the most common apps available in 64-bit? Also how does 64-bit affect games?

 

[Dzomlija]

Are the most common apps available in 64-bit? Also how does 64-bit affect games?

Major applications are still majority 32-Bit. Which includes games, which is just another style of application.

In both cases, they run better on an x64 system because of better memory management techniques being used by the OS...

 

[napilopez]

Supporting the whole 64 bit runs 32 bit apps better notion. Graphics for me have improved quite a bit. 7 looked quite smooth in 32 bit, but my 64 bit drivers just seem, overall, better. My computer is snappier overall and awesomeness leaks everywhere .

Your also uber future proof. You can have like what, more than a terabyte of ram?

 

[Dzomlija]

Supporting the whole 64 bit runs 32 bit apps better notion. Graphics for me have improved quite a bit. 7 looked quite smooth in 32 bit, but my 64 bit drivers just seem, overall, better. My computer is snappier overall and awesomeness leaks everywhere .

Your also uber future proof. You can have like what, more than a terabyte of ram?

2^64 = 18446744073709551616 bytes to be precise. Just keep dividing by 1024:

18014398509481984 KB
17592186044416 MB
17179869184 GB
16777216 TB
16384 EB (At least, I think ExaBytes follows TeraBytes )

 

[Firestrider]

I've heard that a single 32-bit application on a 32-bit OS can only see and use 2 GB of RAM. Is this true? And does this change if the OS is 64-bit or the application is 64-bit or both?

Also based on your example a 32-bit OS can use 2^32 or 4294967296:
4194304 kilobytes
4096 megabytes
4 gigabytes

Yet, the operating system can only use 3.5 gigabytes, why is this?

 

[darkassain]

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

yes dmex i can confirm it too....

i know since Windows Server 2008 R2 will only be released in x64 only....
most of the features you guys got from vista were originally from Windows Server 2003 (which includes the kernel)

Same thing with Server 2008 (hyper-V and vhd mounting, dont remember about booting though) you got with 7

With R2 being x64 this is almost for sure thing that Win 8 will be x64...

So the main reason of running a 64-bit OS is if you are running greater than 3.5 GB of RAM? That does not sound too appealing to me. From what I've heard an application in 32-bit actually takes up more memory resources in a 64-bit environment because of "swollen pointers". If 64-bit applications used less memory and less processing power for the same performance as a 32-bit application the switch to a 64-bit OS would make more sense.

Users who don't use more than 3.5 GB of memory (which is the majority of people) have no use for a 64-bit OS.

actually there are other reasons....

• it hardend and includes patchguard to prevent kernel patch (effectively stopping most if not all rootkits)
• DEP so that if a program is tries to start (if wants to or not ) buffer overflows its effectively stopped (i know 32bit has this, but its requirement for a cpu to have this if a user wants to install a x64 os
• improved drivers which means that by default drivers have to signed and tested extensively before they can even be signed and therefore run on a x64 system therefore reducing the number of BSOD's caused by faulty and unchecked drivers...

thats just from the top of head....

It more than just being able to use more memory.

For one, accessing that memory is quicker, because the Windows x64 Memory Management works faster.

Windows x64 is more secure, because the System Kernel is protected against being patched by third-party drivers and applications.

Graphics Rendering is better, because the drivers can communicate with the associated hardware much faster using a 64-bit pipeline...

We could go on, but we'll be here all day.

yes as i have stated above Dzomlija (meaning above my post) yes x64 vista and now 7 is way more secure

Are the most common apps available in 64-bit? Also how does 64-bit affect games?

Major applications are still majority 32-Bit. Which includes games, which is just another style of application.

In both cases, they run better on an x64 system because of better memory management techniques being used by the OS...

it shouldnt affect most games in a bit.....
as for the apps you can still run 32bit apps so no worries there..
Thats what WOW64 (Windows[32] On Windows 64)is about...

WOW64 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there is one game that caught my eye

Crysis does have a 64bit executable

 

[napilopez]

2^64 = 18446744073709551616 bytes to be precise. Just keep dividing by 1024:

18014398509481984 KB
17592186044416 MB
17179869184 GB
16777216 TB
16384 EB (At least, I think ExaBytes follows TeraBytes )

XD I had wikipediafied it before and I knew it was way higher, but didn't wanna make assumptions

You're right up to the TB part, an exabyte is a million TB

16.8 Million Terabytes.

Thats like, alot. Lolz I just realized thats more than we'll likely be able to store in hard drives for a longgg time.

 

[Dzomlija]

XD I had wikipediafied it before and I knew it was way higher, but didn't wanna make assumptions

You're right up to the TB part, an exabyte is a million TB

16.8 Million Terabytes.

Thats like, alot. Lolz I just realized thats more than we'll likely be able to store in hard drives for a longgg time.

Yeah? Perhaps with Magnetic storage and such yes, but I'm thinking when SSD (Solid State Drives) start picking up in popularity, which is sure to be within the next year or two if the rumors of the 160GB SSD are true, then with 64 bit also becoming more popular, then those astronomical capacities will not be far behind...