Could 64-bit Windows finally be taking off?
If you build it, it appears they will come, eventually.
Such is the case with 64-bit computing. Advanced Micro Devices back in 2003, hoping the fact that it was there and didn't cost extra would convince consumers.
"Our industry, right now, is hungry for another round of innovation," AMD chief Hector Ruiz told the crowd at the San Francisco launch in September 2003. Not that hungry, apparently.
Of course, the hardware wasn't much use without a 64-bit operating system. After several fits and starts, Microsoft finally released a 64-bit version of Windows XP in the fall of 2005.
Still, several factors have of 64-bit computing, long after the operating system was available. First of all, there wasn't a lot of need for it. The primary advantage of 64-bit computing is the ability to use more than 4GB of RAM, and until very recently most PC buyers had little need for that much memory. Also, to connect to a computer running 64-bit Windows, printers, scanners, and other peripherals need to have a .
But it appears the benefits are starting to outweigh the drawbacks.
In a blog post this week, Microsoft's Chris Flores noted that 20 percent of new Windows Vista PCs in the U.S. that connected to Windows Update in June were running a 64-bit version of the OS, compared with 3 percent of new computers in March.
"Put more simply, usage of 64-bit Windows Vista is growing much more rapidly than 32-bit," he said. "Based on current trends, this growth will accelerate as the retail channel shifts to supplying a rapidly increasing assortment of 64-bit desktops and laptops."
The trend is also evident by looking at the kinds of systems being sold at retailers. In its circular this Sunday most of the desktops and half of the dozen notebook models being advertised by Office Depot had the 64-bit version of Windows pre-installed.
The mix was similar in Circuit City's advertisement, with nearly all of the desktops and many of the notebooks running 64-bit Windows
Gateway, for example, is shifting to an entirely 64-bit Windows lineup on its desktops, starting with the back-to-school shopping season.
It's a dramatic shift even from last quarter, in which only about 5 percent of its total desktop and notebook models had a 64-bit OS installed. For the third quarter, 95 percent of desktop models and 30 percent of notebook systems will have a 64-bit OS.
Among the factors leading to the shift are the fact that 64-bit machines, unlike their 32-bit brethren, can directly address more than 4GB of memory. Also, more 64-bit software is finally coming to market, as evidenced by last week's release of a 64-bit optimized version of Adobe Lightroom.
IDC analyst Richard Shim said he expects even more computers will start shipping preloaded with 64-bit Windows toward the end of this year. "64-bit versions of Windows will begin to find their way into high-end gaming notebooks, which increasingly are being used as high-end notebook workstations as opposed to strictly gaming systems," he said.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
I have 3 gig of RAM and it is often going unused (usually at least 1 gig free), so I doubt the need for more than 3gig is going to force people to 64 bit until Windows 7.
Vista has designed to be 64-bit. I can tell you that Vista with 4 GB+ of memory is a dream. At 4 GB, everything is faster than XP.
4GB seems to be the sweet spot, but with each advancing year, memory is a huge factor leading to better pc performance. In this way, you need a 64-bit OS to address all that memory, in effect making it all usable. As normal consumer applications like Office, Sharepoint, Quicken, Quickbooks, Photoshop advance in requirements, the amount of people adopting 64-bit OSs will also continue to rise.
64-bit is the next step obviously, but the question is *when*.
Seriously though. This fall I'm going to be building a new system. The price of RAM has gotten to a point that 8GB isn't that far fetched an option. So Vista 64 will probably be in my near future.
PS- Any word on SP2 for Vista?!? Yah yah I know SP1 only came out a few months ago...still.
I doubt there will be another SP until at least mid 2009. I don't really think there are enough issues with Vista now to justify a service pack.
My Mac beats it any day, hahahaha
BTW: I am about to sell my Win XP workstation, I rarely use it, takes up space.
Thank God you can find more 64 bit drivers for Vista then you could then.
You should be able to switch your 32 bit Vista license for a 64 bit Vista license for free or at a discount. Shouldn't have to pay full price twice to take full advantage of your machines chip and ram use, especially if you want to upgrade your ram. It wasn't that long ago you couldn't find Vista 64 preinstalled on the shelf. You basically had to take 32 bit. Then buy the 64 bit version on your own. When you buy a computer all features should be able to function 100 percent out of the box. Imagine getting a computer only to find out the sound card won't work until you buy another $200 operating system. I know it isn't quite the same thing, but it's just the honest thing to do.
to: Imalittleteapot ,
May I please stay in touch with you. You are more knowlegable than I. I have a 3+ year old laptop( I custom ordered it from xtremenotebooks.com)the I use for DV production. It runs XP home. I am happy with the $1500 software(video production- DV Rack, Ultra 2, and editing programs- Liquid) and do not need to spend $$ for upgrade for new OS. Basicly, I wish to keep what I have for the future.
I got an A+ tech cert in the mid 90's, so I know just enough to be dangerous.
I just replaced the hard drive with probably the last 7200 RPM(necessary for the software I use) IDE notebook drive I could find on the internet, so the laptop hopefully wil be good for another 3 yrs. Please stay in touch, so I may seek your advice in the future, keeping hardware and software expenses to a minimum.
bulldog831@gmail.com
Thanks,
Bob Armstrong
Version 10.x kept telling me it was not a 64bit based hardware.
weird. my bios settings were correct.
Microsoft used to offer for a short time the 64 bit of XP for free and just use your current key for your 32bit OS. WIsh they would offer the 64version of XP again.
"On June 4, 1996 an unmanned Ariane 5 rocket launched by the European Space Agency exploded just forty seconds after its lift-off from Kourou, French Guiana. Ariane explosion The rocket was on its first voyage, after a decade of development costing $7 billion. The destroyed rocket and its cargo were valued at $500 million. A board of inquiry investigated the causes of the explosion and in two weeks issued a report. It turned out that the cause of the failure was a software error in the inertial reference system. Specifically a 64 bit floating point number relating to the horizontal velocity of the rocket with respect to the platform was converted to a 16 bit signed integer. The number was larger than 32,767, the largest integer storeable in a 16 bit signed integer, and thus the conversion failed...."
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/ariane.html
And, "Proprietary Source-Codes" Will Always Be "Proprietary-Source Codes" unless the EU levies hefty fines unless the "64-bit Windows' Source-Codes" are shared with competitors. LOL!
Better Late Than Never. ;-)
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html
yet Redmond appears not to be able to deliver when it is now 2008. How about spending some time and read up on what is happening on the Redmond Campus other than what you think you know. Re: "IBM Lotus: we're beating Microsoft" http://www.itwire.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19775&Itemid=53
Told ya the tables were going to be turned, and, the further we go back into the future the "fainter" will be the "signals" from the Redmond Campus. Wow! It is about what the technology can do for you and not the "time" factor per se (which can be gone in and out of).
http://en.ecomstation.ru/solutions/
As for Cr'Apple - well mac lovers can say what they like. Not many apple users are system builders anyway. Apple are lagging big time when it comes to 64bit operating environment....their latest product Iphone doesn't support 64bit. Quicktime doesn't work on a 64 bit OS very well, not to mention itunes etc. If they don't do something about it soon they will be nothing more than legacy systems or playing catchup with technology which M$ have already been developing for a few years.
Dell's official line on 64-bit Windows seems to be "we can't support it fully, particularly the drivers", but if they're offering 4GB RAM on machines, I think this something that they *should* support!
As for offering 4GB. Show me a way to put 3.25GB in there in pairs (Because of DDR.) that doesn't cost a metric crap ton of money and I'd be willing to cut you some slack. As it stands someone is not going to drop 2 1GB sticks of ram and then go out and install 2 256MB sticks. Hell do they even make DDR3 in 256 sticks? Better yet if they do It would probably cost Dell a metric crap ton because only a handful of neurotic, anal-retentive people would be willing to buy such things. Meanwhile the memory sits on the shelf.
The PCIe devices are mapped to addresses between 3 and 4 GB. 1 GB of RAM is remapped over 4 GB.
32-bit Vista cannot use that 1 GB of RAM above 4GB address, this is why it's left with only 3 GB accessible. 64 bit Vista can use all of it.
Works like a dream.
If you are going to knock someone, at least learn what your talking about.
Actually they have several, XP, Server 2003, Vista, and Server 2008.
Stupid people need to use computers too, so Mac has a place.
Much like running Vista 32bit on 64 bit processors. Except the compat. layer allows you address more RAM, but none of the other benefits
In short, while PC builders were acting confused and working in fits and starts towards 64-bit computing for the consumer market, Apple has been easing into it very nicely.
However, Microsoft is not the first company to embrace 64-bit OS/Apps, Solaris has been utilizing 64-bit apps since 1993-1994 but only on their hardware could you use it. I'm just surprised that we've had 64-bit Processors since 2003 and it takes 5 years for the consumers to take notice. That's a bit too slow if you ask me. It took about the same time for 32-bit apps/OS to catch on as well.
Mac OS X supported 64BIT Unix Applications since Tiger (2005), 64 BIT Cocoa Applications since Leopard(2007). plus the one version of Mac OS X Leopard supports 32BIT/64BIT Intel & 32BIT/64BIT PowerPC Applications side by side on the same system (i.e. MacPro). i think too many people make a big deal of 64bit. i had a 64bit system since first PowerMac G5 came out. and all my systems since are 64BIT. besides running a Database at full tilt, Playing Games, Editing HD Video or ProTools. don't get me wrong Quicktime and iTunes should of been in 64 bit for both Mac OS X / Windows. but i guess apple too busy, we have to wait for Snow Leopard
But what's sad is, even with Leopard, the KERNEL itself remains 32-bit!!! Mac developers would like to fool you into thinking that Mac's "transition" to 64-bit was a non-event. The truth is, there was never a transition. Leopard's kernel remains 32-bit because moving to 64-bit would break all the drivers (like it did for XP64 and Vista.)
Worse though is Apple's decision to abandon support for 64-bit Carbon applications. This means that Carbon apps (e.g., just about any Adobe application, any application built on Qt, etc.) can never run 64-bit natively on MacOS unless completely rewritten or use slow IPC hacks to wrap 64-bit components.
I also see many comments about "my mac has been 64-bit since the G5 days." Wrong!! Again, hype vs. reality. Even today with Leopard, many major systems are 64-bit only when running on an Intel processor!!! Example would be Leopard's Java and any app which depends on it.
Lastly software publishers today must ship Universal Binaries targeting both PPC and Intel, which already bloats Mac binaries by a factor of 2. Because Tiger can't run *ANY* 64-bit GUI application, to support 64-bit publishers would have to develop, test & ship (at least) 32-bit PPC, 32-bit Intel and 64-bit Intel versions... needless to say the vast majority of publishers aren't going to do so, the ROI for that just doesn't make sense.
- by benjaminstraight August 5, 2008 4:12 AM PDT
- Isn't Mac 64 bit?
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (64 Comments)