64 bit = 32bit?

[jonmobrien]

Umm, no, Windows 95 was very definately 32-bit, using Win32 API vs Windows 3's Win16 API, it ran 32-bit applications natively, and each 32-bit application ran in a separate address space.

I think you are mixing up the O/S with the FAT table.
W 3.1 and Windows 95 and 95 OSR1 (SP1) used FAT16 (limiting Hard Drive size to 2GB), with Windows 95 OSR2 introducing support for FAT32 drives (to access larger hard drives, but nothing to do with larger RAM size or the Operating System API).

 

[7077]

Morning!

As far I can tell, I had no major driver issues.
Before installing Winsows 7 I had only 2 so called "problems with compatibility" with ATI Catalyst and Deamon Tools, but that turned out to be a false alarm regarding ATI Catalyst as there were no problems loading or playing videos. However, I couldn't set up Deamon tools to work (?), so I just downloaded free version of PowerISO and it did the job just fine

Since I've already tried The 32-bit, I think I'll try the 64-bit version tomorrow or the day after and if I'm not happy I can still reinstall 32-bit.

Thanks for the answers.

 

[jimbo45]

his wei is high so it might be ok, but i always thought the rule of thumb is 2 gigs= x86 and 4 gigs= x64

Hi there.

WHAT A DUMB RULE.

What "Science" or "Engineering" principle is this based on.

1) the execution set of the CPU is based on HOW IT'S DESIGNED. A 64 bit cpu executes 64 bit instructions -- simple no if's no buts. It's nothing to do with the amount of RAM etc etc (although with RAM especially when it's cheap get as much as you can for the machine you are using).

2) You can "poodlefake" it to execute 32 bit instructions but you will take a performance hit -- if you can find a decently fast 32 bit CPU (not sure if thre are any of those left now) with a similar spec to a modern 64 bit CPU you should find it will probably perform better running x-86 than a 64 bit CPU will (running the same x-86 OS).

3) WEI scores are incredibly flawed -- nobody really knows exactly what these are measuring -- and probably depend far more on the MOBO and Graphics card than the CPU itself.

4) If you search the forums you'll find I've posted quite a lot of stuff on the difference between a 64 bit CPU executing native 64 bit instructions to the same CPU executing 32 bit instructions.

5) As the number of true 64 bit applications increases the difference will become more and more noticeable.

I've got a 1GB machine running the x-64 bit version quite nicely. Even runs 64 bit CS4 photoshop OK but you will get a hit when processing a pic with loads of layers etc etc - as this really does need more RAM for this -- that's nothing to do with running in 32 / 64 bit mode (unless you have >= 4GB RAM ).

Typical non gaming software - with an exception for few apps like Video / Multimedia and Photoshop is hardly a load on ANY decent machine these days -- the new Netbooks run Office 2007 quite nicely.

I'd almost go as far to say that 90% of current DESK and Laptops sold at the moment are MORE than sufficient for typical users once the usual "Crap and Adware" has been removed.

Most dedicated gamers build their own rigs it seems these days.

The next time someone gives you a "rule of thumb" like this --ask them to explain the basis for it.

We've reached a "Hardware plateau" now until the next APP appears that requires a step function jump in computing power.


Ideas are - "Virtual Reality", "Holographic Projection" and "Genuine 3D" displays.

This sort of stuff will probably require 128 bit CPU's.

(You can't simply improve multi processors by adding the number of processors either -- once the number gets too large you waste a huge amount in overhead of controlling all the processors).

Cheers
jimbo

 

[jonmobrien]

I have the 64 bit running on a 1Gig machine too - Beta7077x64. I guess I won't be able to install the RTM on it when Microsoft enforce the 2GB minimum. Oh well, just trying it out. The 7100RC1 isn't hard coded to install on 2GB minimum is it?

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
there's "No Minimum" enforcement other than the fact that the OS must actually Load into the available memory to be able to start.

If you need things like running a Virtual Machine etc you'll need more memory but that's not because you are running 32 / 64 bit OS'es.

For memory >= 4GB no contest --64 bit in any case.

To me now I would expect this to be the last 32 bit OS from Microsoft.

It won't be long now before even the small netbooks have 64 bit cpu's -- main problem here is heat dissipation (due to the very small size of the netbook) and power consuption - but these are engineering problems which will be overcome).

Actully why not go one step further with these machines and actually have the entire OS built in the Bios where you only need to load your drivers / apps at run time from an SSD. (another topic however).

Cheers
jimbo

 

[jonmobrien]

I believe Microsoft announced officially this is to be the last 32-bit OS.
Already SBS 2008 is 64bit only (because)
Exchange Server 2007 is 64 bit only, and
2008 Server RC2 is 64 bit only.

 

[Night Hawk]

Umm, no, Windows 95 was very definately 32-bit, using Win32 API vs Windows 3's Win16 API, it ran 32-bit applications natively, and each 32-bit application ran in a separate address space.

I think you are mixing up the O/S with the FAT table.
W 3.1 and Windows 95 and 95 OSR1 (SP1) used FAT16 (limiting Hard Drive size to 2GB), with Windows 95 OSR2 introducing support for FAT32 drives (to access larger hard drives, but nothing to do with larger RAM size or the Operating System API).

98SE is the desktop version that saw more native 32bit support there being the go between from the 16bit 95 to 32bit driven ME. 98 also introduced MSDos 7.0 known as Fat32 while 95 saw 6.0 16bit. OSR2 didn't allow 95 to go on Fat32 volumes but allowed a degree of newer 32bit appications to run on the 16bit version. It was still native to 16bit. 98 saw the old 2gb limitation raised to 32gb while in theory could support upto 2tb. The update version of fdisk expanded that to about 64gb there as a separate item from the update site.

For understanding how 64bit memory addressing works there's a good blog at Technet on just that. Here's some of that here.

"64-bit processes use 64-bit pointers, so their theoretical maximum address space is 16 exabytes (2^64). However, Windows doesn’t divide the address space evenly between the active process and the system, but instead defines a region in the address space for the process and others for various system memory resources, like system page table entries (PTEs), the file cache, and paged and non-paged pools.
The size of the process address space is different on IA64 and x64 versions of Windows where the sizes were chosen by balancing what applications need against the memory costs of the overhead (page table pages and translation lookaside buffer - TLB - entries) needed to support the address space. On x64, that’s 8192GB (8TB) and on IA64 it’s 7168GB (7TB - the 1TB difference from x64 comes from the fact that the top level page directory on IA64 reserves slots for Wow64 mappings). On both IA64 and x64 versions of Windows, the size of the various resource address space regions is 128GB (e.g. non-paged pool is assigned 128GB of the address space), with the exception of the file cache, which is assigned 1TB. The address space of a 64-bit process therefore looks something like this:" Mark's Blog : Pushing the Limits of Windows: Virtual Memory

For pushing the limits on physical memory for server application in particular. http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
also interesting -- but of course you also need to take account of the limitations with the current file systems when mapping to such basic things like "Disk directories" etc.

The days won't be too far off before some 1TB RAM machines appear (doing what I wonder - but there's always applications that get created that nobody even thought of a few years previously).

The relatively outmoded file systems (even the commonly used Linux ext3 system) will need to be replaced soon -- I'd suspect the new Windows file system will make it's long awaited appearance in one form or another before too long.

Please open it up == we don't need yet more proprieatary file systems -- altough they eventually do get "cracked". Linux kernels even have read-write capability for ntfs these days.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Night Hawk]

The Linux kernels have been wider platformed for years already. This is one reason why a live cd for certain distros is an excellent means of data recovery when a partition table, system volume information gets trashed and available in Windows or another OS.

When the news about 7 was seen being blogged about one made a reference to a new file indexing process without definition making you wonder if NTFS 6.0 or something else new was going to be introduced. That later turned out to be the file management process based on file content.

I suspect when the next file system is introduced Windows will also be able to access Linux and other partition types presently only seen with a few 3rd party tools available for seeing drive letters assigned to Linux volumes at this point. With the recent introduction of 2tb internal drives as well as already seeing 2tb usb models something has to give!