March 6, 2006 4:00 AM PST

Who wants or needs 64 bits?

Related Stories

Redmond moves along with Vista

January 18, 2006

Microsoft launches 64-bit Windows

April 25, 2005

AMD unveils details of its 64-bit chip

September 23, 2003

AMD fielding 64 bits for PCs

July 25, 2002

(continued from previous page)

start hitting in numbers for consumers until 2007 and 2008.

"You have to make sure you have the market to sell the code," she said.

In all fairness, AMD, the biggest proponent of 64-bit desktop computing, didn't expect an overnight revolution. The performance benefits of Opteron and Athlon initially would come from HyperTransport, an input-output standard, and an integrated memory controller, executives said in the years leading up to Opteron. Those two architectural changes did give Athlon and Opteron a boost in benchmarks.

Besides, the 64-bit discussions served a purpose in forcing Intel to finally come out with similar chips. It also allowed AMD to position itself as a technological leader. Since the release of Opteron and Athlon, it has gained market share.

Still, the changeover seems to be occurring slower than they anticipated. In 2002, AMD executives predicted that people would begin to start taking advantage of the 64-bit capabilities soon after the chips hit and that the market would begin to see some desktops with 4GB of memory in 2004.

In August 2003, before more Microsoft delays, AMD said 64-bit technology, including software, would be somewhat widespread in 12 to 15 months, even in notebooks.

Ironically, the 2007 and 2008 predictions for the emergence of 64-bit applications fit closer to what Intel said, before it jumped into 64-bit desktop chips. Company executives and scientists through 2002 and 2003 said mainstream users wouldn't likely need 64-bit desktops until about 2008 or 2009.

Previous page
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
64-bit, 64-bit computing, 64-bit CPU, workstation, PC company


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Yet again, Linux leads the way...
As usual, it's utterly shameful that a 2-page article on 64-bit PCs fails to mention Linux, which has had 64-bit distros available virtually from the launch of the Athlon 64 and is much more advanced in terms of applications and drivers than the dismal XP 64-bit edition is.

And there's me thinking I was being slow moving to 64-bit (both the chip and OS) in early 2005 - turns out I'm ahead of the game if you're talking about Windows and its feeble 64-bit efforts to date.
Posted by rklrkl (143 comments )
Reply Link Flag
you know why?
Because Linux doesn't matter! 100 000 people care, 3 billion don't. Companies go where the markets and demands are. News follows suit. Therefore, no mention of Linux
Posted by City_Of_LA (118 comments )
Link Flag
the article is about mass consumer adoption
Linux, albeit a fine OS, has not been adopted in mass. This article is about 64-bit and mass consumer adoption. Until Linux mainstreams and looses its "geekness" factor in will not be a contender for the consumer desktop.
Posted by p.shearer (60 comments )
Link Flag
Linux 64-bit before Athlon 64
There were 64-bit processors before the Athlon 64 was released, and Linux could be compiled to run on those processors. This is why it was so easy to convert it to run on Athlon 64s, as most of the hard work had already been done.
Posted by booboo1243 (328 comments )
Link Flag
What do they mean no need for 64-bit apps?
My personal experience has been that all sorts of things benefit from the 64-bit processors -- particularly video editing and real-time video processing. Lots of back-office type applications also scale very well to 64-bit.

I have a large number of scientific applications that really take advantage of it too -- but they aren't "mainstream" applications (unless you are a bioinformatician or cheminformatician), but video is very mainstream these days, even on Windows.

I understand the point that there's few 64-bit apps for Windows -- in the Windows domain, 64-bit support is a novelty and it has a fraction of the hardware support of other operating systems. But if you go outside the Windows platform, 64-bit applications that really exploit those platforms have been out there for years.

It is, perhaps, more approriate to say that most apps written for Windows aren't written for 64-bit Windows and many would see little difference if they were. Applications that do require more power are typically being written for and deployed on other operating systems where 64-bit computing is more established and mainstream.

That the author doesn't explore that aspect at all, which discredits the thrust of the article.
Posted by Zymurgist (397 comments )
Reply Link Flag
This is true
The reason that 64 bit is not supported the way that ist should be is because the developers are WAITING to see what Microsoft is going to do. Granted Microsoft has a ver sion of 64 bit XP but when you look at what it can and cannot do along with its memory and system requirements it is just not feasible for the average user. I am currently running 64 bit Linux with less system require ments than Windows just fine. I believe it is time for Microsoft to catch up with the rest of the world.
Posted by pfdavis (8 comments )
Link Flag
Raytracing + 64bit = Goodness
Not to mention the benefit from having being able to hold and compute floating point values with twice the precision as before, and being able to hold integers as big as 18446744073709551616 where previously 4294967296 had to suffice.

For raytracing applications this is insanely more usefull, it allows one to 16bit per channel ( RGBA ) instead of only 8, ( there is already support for 48 bit colour, at 16bit per channel RGB, but that probably has mathematical efficiency problems on 32 bit ) increasing the number of potential shades to an insanely accurate amount, where there were only previously 256 shades for "red" there are now 65536 shades for red, more closely representing the reality of how many billions of subshades of colour there really are.
Posted by (9 comments )
Link Flag
Databases need 64 bit (actually the ability to use more than 4 GB of RAM without AWE)
Since with more available memory you will reduce your hit-miss ratio and increase your hit-cache ratio, this will speed up your DB big time

<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>
Posted by SqlserverCode (165 comments )
Reply Link Flag
One-sided reporting
Not even a single mention of Linux, which has been 64bit capable for almost two years (maybe longer), and is used almost exclusivly in server roles when a x86 64bit processor is available. And a layman presentation of the roles that 64bit serves hardware/OSs is highly benifical at; timestamps, cryptography, databases, reporting/analysis, and servers in general - all gain very substantially from 64 bit.

But mostly, the fact that several mentions of (a lackluster) windows deployment (future or now) were made, and not a SINGLE mention of (heavily deployed) Linux, exemplifies either one-sided reporting, or else just simple naivety. An experienced reporter would not have made this mistake.
Posted by kensystem (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I have had 64 bits for quite a lot longer and before Linuix
I have had a DEC Alpha 64bit workstation (dual processor) for years. I only use it for and audio app that had come from Sonic Foundry, Sound Forge. Sound Forge was one of the products sold to Sony Media Software. If only HP/Compaq hadn't screwed up things with Alpha this would have been a whole different ball game. The whole time line shifted so that what is being called the future may be the past.
Posted by RobertFHarwood (181 comments )
Reply Link Flag
640K is all we will ever need.
I think it's called progression. Not everybody has a use for 64-bit application and those who do are probably running them on Linux or Unix. I think of Windows XP 64-bit Edition as being kind of like Windows ME. They probably should have just waited until Vista for 64-bit.

I personally don't see a reason not to buy 64-bit. I've bought a couple of 64-bit computers and spent about the same as I would have for a 32-bit computer.
Posted by System Tyrant (1453 comments )
Reply Link Flag
When computers moved from 16-bit to 32-bit, many people said the same thing... that they didn't need it, that there were no applications, that it was only a benefit for certain programs.

The anti-64 bit rhetoric has reached a fairly substantial volume level. Still, everything will eventually be 64-bit on the PC, and just about every application will benefit.
Posted by David Arbogast (1709 comments )
Link Flag
64-bits of what???
My constant comment as a sometime computer searcher(to buy??)in stores,is seeing these names of breakthroughs with no explaination of what it is ,how it works ,how to use it!!!
Just hype and nothing else.
Then to explain the stuff in consumer ENGLISH and in BIG print that is easy to read.I do not have bad eye sight, but a consumer should be able to see where the information actually is displayed.
Computers are displayed with all the hype but no substance as far as information.
CompUSA,Circuit City sales people don't knoiw how to explain things because they were not trained or just don't know.So new breakthroughs are ignored by the average consumer or just stumbled upon because they came with the computer,but then WHAT DO WE DO NOW THAT WE HAVE IT ?????
Bill Hatzell
Posted by 13stones (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
A 64-bit processor, combined with a 64-bit operating system,
makes the computer more effecient. The processor and OS
handle data in 64-bit (8-byte) chunks instead of 32-bit chunks
(4 bytes).

You'll see that effeciency in differing degrees depending on the
application. Photoshop, video editing software and database
searches all benefit greatly. A word processor probably won't see
a noticeable change simply because that sort of application isn't
that processor-intensive.

For most folks, a 64-bit processor/OS combination means they
can get to their work faster and, depending on the task, get
through their work more effeciently.
Posted by nightveil (133 comments )
Link Flag
More games than that
While maybe some games havent been recoded for 64 bits both fear and battlefield 2 will run on 64bit windows. Im sure there maybe more but those are 2 games I run on Windows x64. Though driver support is lacking I have a G15 logitech keyboard but there are no drivers, I had a hard time finding other programs that run on it. Currently I use it for those couple games because they do play better on x64 than 32 bit windows. Its developers fault than more people arent using it becuase OEMS will not switch as long as applications arent there. How many angry customers can they stand saying this software wont run on my new pc?? until there is enough software it wont work... unfortunately that wont come until vista.
Posted by davidrhilling (8 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Linux, yes, and don't forget about that other OS...
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

Uh, oops. Another glaring oversight or an example of willful
platform myopia. Not sure about the currently implemented
Mac/Intel Dual Core's possibilities for 64-bit (there are
discussions to the effect that there may be such unannounced
capabilities on the die, but can't confirm), but the G5s in the
workstations are, and I'd bet that the future Mac/Intel towers will
implement a 64-bit capable Intel chipset...

Obviously, this article should've been titled more specifically,
"Windows--Who wants or needs 64 bits?"
Posted by shanewalker (57 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Good thought
I believe Core Duo processors are 64bit compatable, and Intel is moving their entire line to 64bit compatable processors, as soon as they can.
Posted by jjesusfreak01 (83 comments )
Link Flag
Who needs 32-bit
Most CONSUMERS don't need what they have. The VAST majority of
consumer PC users just use them to play solitaire, check email, and
MAYBE type a document. Power-users can always use more power.
I've been using 64-bit for a few years now, but I gave up Windows
2 years ago. Gamers could use more power, but so much of game
processing is being offloaded onto the graphics processor anyway.
When Vista comes out, most consumers still won't need the
Posted by Douglas Worlund (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Waiting for Photoshop
It's the applications that will generate demand. I need to work with images larger than 300MB in Photoshop. I could certainly use 4-6GB of main memory to speed up this slow situation.

When Photoshop goes 64 bits, I'll certainly buy a new 64 bit machine - either Mac or Vista, whoever gives it to me first.
Posted by hogarth1x (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Now, THAT's refreshing... see someone actually select a job and THEN the platform that runs it!
Posted by (58 comments )
Link Flag
You are looking at the wrong spec.
In these discussions there often is some talk about Photoshop
not using 64 bit native. The fact is that in most cases where
Photoshop would use a 64 bit processor to an advantage it
usually is a much smarter strategy to route those computations
through the vector/signal processors on the graphic card that is
64/128/256 bit.

So that is what Photoshop and most other professional graphic
and video tools do, they use the fastest processor available for
vector-processing in the machine and that is almost never the
main cpu. Sometimes its the graphic card and sometime it can
be a special vector unit on the same chip as the cpu. Like the
altivec vector unit in PowerPC processors.

So what you should look at is only three things when it comes to
Photoshop speed and handling of large files. A very fast graphic
card with lots of onboard vram. Special vector units on the main
cpu chip. And an operating system that can adress more
memory than windows xp can.
Posted by flowerboy2001 (25 comments )
Link Flag
At least some 100 Million users to date...
... if you count the users of the game console Sony Playstation 2
which has sold at least as many units according to Wikipedia.

In fact the Playstation 2 is both 64 bit and 128 bit which is a
great advantage when its about fast 3D-graphics in realtime.

Facts from Wikipedia and other sources:
CPU: 128 bit "Emotion Engine" clocked at 294 MHz (later
versions 299 MHz), 10.5 million transistors

In the CPU there are several "cores", first the Main processor a
MIPS R5900 CPU core, 64 bit and then two Vector Units: VU0 and
VU1, 128 bit. The later are responsible for most calculations of

There is also a data-bus from memory to these "cores" that is
2560-bit wide.

Lack of perspective is the best I could say about this article.

Thanks for an otherwise great news source.
Posted by flowerboy2001 (25 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Games, 64 bit & applications
I agree with you. Like Games, there many applications that demand 64-bit computing but we
do not have perspective. To me, it is very easy
to extend our thinking to everything we see
around - beyond the desktop. More bits more mean
reach and that means more "out of the 4-wall
scenario" brought into the computer.
Posted by akvish (19 comments )
Link Flag
Avg Home/Office users don't care
No one cares on the desktop, will 64-bits make a browers, wordprocessor, spread sheet etc faster or better? No

64 bits only matters to a percentage of the users in the world (things like video editing, servers etc...) but for casual desktop users who cares.
Posted by capfan12 (101 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Avg users don't know
It is easy to say that the average user doesn't care about 64 bit when the only thing they know is 32 bit. The average user will not see the difference when running Windows on a 64 bit system because they will be running it as a 32 bit app. The systems which run 64 bit apps are not Windows based. Microsoft has a 64 bit version of Windows, however the system, memory and cost requirements are prohibitive.
Posted by pfdavis (8 comments )
Link Flag
64 bits
Started designing machines and periperals using vacuum tubes. Perhaps we should still be using them, or perhaps 8-bit Intel parts? Currently, video and audio rendering, amongst other apps, effectively using 64 bits. Soon quality of service will demand a more general move to 64 bit parts.
Posted by Osceola (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Its been good so far
I have been running Windows XP Professional x64 since April of 2005, and I have to say I am very pleased with the operating system and responsiveness of my system. The benefits are not realized from 64-bit computing itself since I am running a system consist of basic desktop applications such Office, Photoshop and Nero which I use everyday, none of these applications are 64-bit native, but they run just fine.

The system was not purchased as a future proof move, thinking that it would run Windows Vista at full speed when its released, it was purchased primarily for enthusiasm and I needed a new home system and I am pleased with it. Its doing what I need and I enjoy using it everyday when I come home from work. Obtaining Windows XP Professional x64 was not difficult at all. I had my OEM copy purchased from <a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

You can purchase the trial from the following online vendors also.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

Hopefully though, the next major release of Windows, Vista will bring 64-bit computing mainstream. I believe it will, since Vista will include technologies that were not available Windows XP Professional x64 such as Media Center and Tablet PC which are beginning to take off. So, I expect to see more innovation from the hardware industry with desktops and mobile PCs that can do it all. All I can say really, there is exciting stuff coming in the 2007 to 2008 period. XP Professional x64 was just a start and does have its benefits for targetted environments.

Windows XP Professional x64 is definitely not an operating system for the average Windows user who is doing basic stuff such as browsing the net or sending e-mails and writing one page documents in Word. But it is likely that by the end of this year, any PC purchased will be 64 bit enabled, which does not necessarily mean you are ready for a 64 bit OS. But it does give the user a sense of comfort knowing the capability is there ready to be taken advantage of by a largely supported 64-bit OS.

The true beneficiaries are the technical ones in the technical environments who require the massive amounts of power this platform provides. Within the next 2 to 3 years 64 bit computing supported hardware and software should be more available than it is today and users will better take advantage of it with the appropriate applications written for the consumer market, so far that is not available.
Posted by Mr. Dee (3025 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What we need is a 64 bit data bus
With bus speeds going over a gigahertz now we are coming up against light speed limitations in data transfer rates from memory to the processor. The only real way to speed up computers now is to increase bus width to move data to the cpu faster so it doesn't spend most of it's time waiting for data to process.
Posted by Michael Grogan (308 comments )
Reply Link Flag
why not a 2560 bit wide databus?
As I mentioned in another thread the Sony Playstation 2 has a
databus 2560 bit wide. Its used to feed a lot of data fast to the
main core which is a 64 bit processor and to the two vector units
which both are 128 bit cores (similar to what is in most graphic
chips these days).
The point with such a machine is that its built from another
paradigm than todays PCs are. It provides enourmous amounts
of processing power at a very low price since the flow of data
between units is its basic architectural concept.

A PC built from that paradigm would be like a high end graphic
card that had the main cpu as an onboard co-processor
handling less intensive tasks and some 2Gb of fast onboard
VRAM memory and some 256 Mb of slower RAM offboard as a
cash for data going to an from the hardrive and networks.
Posted by flowerboy2001 (25 comments )
Link Flag
HT (HyperTransport) and PCIe (PCI Express) are already here.
As the article says, it's up to the software developers to seize the day and move 64-bit development to reality.

The buses available are plenty capable. Bus "bit-ness" is irrelevent when you understand total overall end-performance of HyperTransport and PCI Express. Buses are the issue.

Software development is the key. It's up to the software development community to take advantage of the systems now. Better compilers with 64-bit, multi-core capable designs and OSes and applications using them need to be released.

Regarding the "bus", three things:
1.) AMD no longer has a front side bus as the memory controller is located on the CPU die and no longer resides in the Northbridge (for Athlon64s, Turion64s and Opterons). The memory link is handled by the superfast HyperTransport.
2.) AMD HT, HyperTransport (not the Intel HT, HyperThreading) offers 8-lanes operating at 200MHz each for an effective system bus speed of 1600 MHz. That's plenty fast for the time being.
3.) PCI Express has more bandwidth and responsiveness than any device plugged into it, graphics cards included.

PCI Express is even better than having a "bit-wide" bus. Each lane is a single-bit bus that can be addressed individually. Want more "width"? Add lanes! It's that simple with PCIe. Traditional multi-bit buses require timing windows, additional signalling overhead and other headaches. Single-bit scalable buses are simply superior. You get both speed (2.5GHz per lane in PCIe) and width (add lanes is like increasing bit-width) with bi-directional traffic and individual lane flow control. In addition you get a packet-like bus with advanced error handling.

Trust me, 2.5GHz PCIe buses (version 1.0 now) and future 5.0Ghz PCIe with possible DDR (double data rate) on the horizon mean the buses available are PLENTY FAST.

As the article says, it's up to the software developers to seize the day and move 64-bit development to reality.
Posted by techprogress (15 comments )
Link Flag
win xp 64 bit and oracle communication
Microsoft created a directory called c:\Program Files (x86) that conflicts with any and all communication with a oracle database. Oracle wants to know who is asking for this data, and any program that is located in this directory will bomb the request. Reason is Oracle takes the () as a commands parameters. Therefore any program such as ODBC or viusal studio or Oracle tools like TOAD will blow on a data request. To fix this situation is to install all programs into a subdirectory other then Program Files (x86), but since many 32 programs are not even aware this program exist, Microsoft Win XP is throwing the programs there requardless. So move your programs, edit the register, fix all the ini and bat and htm files that your programs. So a one day create of your machine and software, will take you a week. Just thought i pass on this knowledge. video cameras (we try 5) will work with xp 64. So goodbye cam on your IM's.
Posted by dlsexton (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I ran into the same thing, the Oracle client can't parse the parenthesis properly. You have to do a custom install to place everything into program files, except the inventory which won't affect your client anyway. It is an annoyance none-the-less. Not sure why MS felt they had to segregate the (x86) programs. It has caused issues even in some of their own software.
Posted by J_Satch (571 comments )
Link Flag
windows x64
windows x64 is great.

if you are having oracle help, try installing it to:

c:\progra~2 instead of "c:\program files (x86)", etc

if you can select the place to install the files, select the progra~2

this is the equivilent of typing:
C:\Program Files (X86)"

also, this information is of course modifyable using TWEAKUI

Posted by CircuitBoy (2 comments )
Link Flag
Always Hopeful
I bought an AMD Athalon 64 x2 with XP x64 and 2 XFX 6800 GT video cards running in SLI. I think the 3d rendering is great with video quality that is very close to a Pixar movie, but the system is not as reliable as the 32 bit version. Let's see, 4gb of ram is installed but the mother board can only see 3 gb, Nvidia drivers will crash the computer on occasion, and it will freeze up without warning. I also discovered that 32 bit software such as photo editing programs cannot use beyond 2 gb of memory and will give out of memory errors if I push it too hard. I am frustrated at the fact that I can't find drivers for half of my devices. I think the potential for 64 bit computing is there. I just have to wait until those old 32 bit systems will eventually burn out and die in order to be replaced by the new systems.
Posted by rafael323 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Windows x64 works well, but drivers are scarce
I've had good luck with Windows 2003 Server x64 on my March 2005 vintage Compaq R3000Z notebook. The video and Ethernet drivers worked with no problem, and I was able to download an x64 driver for my Broadcom wireless. This driver works well.

The system is fast and stable.

However, neither audio nor DVD playback works.
I can write that off as something I don't really need, but it would be unacceptable for the general public.
Posted by riordanmr (3 comments )
Link Flag
Moot question
People asked the same kind of question about RAM, about HD capacity, etc.

It is a useless question because needs will always grow to overwhelm capability.

At one time I asked a customer why he needed and additional 16K of RAM. He was paying $1300.00 dollars for 16K on an S-100 board. CP/M couldn't address it without patching. No programs would use or need it, etc.

Now days the question "what the hell do you need more than 64K for" seems quaint and back then made as much sense as "who wants or needs 64 bits".

You can be sure that someday we will all be wondering how we got along with only a 64 bit processor.
Posted by CitizenX (522 comments )
Reply Link Flag
64bit? No, 64 over-managed bits

You people must all spend your time slapping each other on the back to think any of that is true.

Truth is, the 64bit processing is crippled, intentionally by all the 'stakeholders' to protect their turf.

64 bit processing should be able to produce throughput of 10 to 1 over 32 bit processing at the same clock speed.

If not 100 to 1, or 1000 to 1.
Posted by (88 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Apple G5 tower and iMac G5 have 64 bit
Apple has been shipping thier G5s both Power mac G5 and the
Imac G5 with 64 bit proccessor power for a little while now.
Tiger is also 64 bit OS. Seems people are buying those without
hesiation. I wonder are the MacIntels 64 bit as well?
Posted by kubbie (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Sort of....
The G5 towers with the PowerPC processors are 64 bit per
processor (actually two 64 bit floating point units per processor).
The iMac with the Intel dual core processor has only 32 bits per
processor, but running in parallel, that's 64 bit processing too (if
you can do that).
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
No, MacIntels are 32-bit
When Apple announced the shift to Intel Chips, the first thing I said was "Uh-oh, there goes full 64-bit support for the G5."

While Tiger runs on the G5s it is hardly a true 64-bit OS. It runs on 64-bit G5s, but mostly in 32-bit mode. Memory addressing is 64-bit, but only a select number of processes run as 64-bit.

With MacIntels, Apple will never ever have a fully 64-bit OS for the G5. It's just a matter of not wanting to devote precious engineering resources to a product line they've already killed.

A Pity, I had wanted to get a G5.

Before I get slammed by the Mac guys, I want you to know that I'm a Mac User/Lover/Addict since 1993. My business uses all platforms: Macs, Windows, various Unixes, at one time or another.
Posted by Maccess (610 comments )
Link Flag
I want a 64 bit machine
I use a Mac at work as well as at home, wishng they were G5s.
We do a lot of video compression and editing for clients, to use
on web pages, software or CD, even home users to play on DVD
players etc... Let me tell you video and graphics editing is
amazingly fast on a G5. Half the time I take my stuff to a friend
who has a G5 and do it there at a fraction of the time it takes on
my G4 iMac. I think my company will make the switch now they
are MacIntels.

Other than that I don't have a need for 64 bit, 32 just fine better
yet..hahaha I still use a commodore 64 for entertainment.
Posted by kubbie (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Lightwave Does well in 64 bits
I work for NewTek on LightWave. This 3D animation product has been Windows XP 64 bit compatible for several months now. We have seen some impressive performance gains when running in 64 bit over a similar computer running in 32 bits. We are even seeing a significant performance increase for the 64 bit version of LightWave running under Windows XP 64 compared to a 32 bit version of LightWave running on the same system.

Even if you are running 32 bit applications, simply being able to access the full 4GB of address space under Windows XP 64 is worth considering the upgrade. On earlier versions of Windows, applications were limited to just 2GB of address space regardless of how much RAM is installed in your computer. This extra memory equals performance for many applications.
Posted by grangerfx (41 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You work for newtek?? I have a serious question: what does lightwave offer that blender doesn't?? From what i can see, i have used lightwave once or twice, and seems to have everything lightwave has, and even a better user interface. I am just overlooking something?

Posted by advs89 (68 comments )
Link Flag
You work for newtek?? I have a serious question: what does lightwave offer that blender doesn't?? From what i can see, i have used lightwave once or twice, and seems to have everything lightwave has, and even a better user interface. I am just overlooking something?

Posted by advs89 (68 comments )
Link Flag
Real-world adoption of 64-bit OSes?
Operating Systems have been supporting 64 Bit platforms PRIOR to windows 95 even. You seriously dont think all those super computers out there are running windows now do you?

In my understanding, the main drive behind sales for 64 Bit processors has probably been from users who plan on using a 64bit supporting OS like linux, unix, freebsd, etc.

Thats the great thing about having the source code readily available, its a relatively quick transition from 32 to 64 bit support.

My only wonder is how vista plans on making one build of an OS that supports both 32 &#38; 64 bit cpus without being Sub-Optimal and needing to use a byte translation environment to make the same software run on both efficiently without needing to recompile the code.

One of the benefits that the Open Source world has had over the Microsoft team is the ability to build a distribution targeted and optimized at that specific processor, using all the nifty tricks that different processor developers provide like mmx, sse, sse2 and sse3.

If one makes a system that runs on both 32 &#38; 64 bit, its generally going to need to either run 32 bit code emulated to work in 64, or 64 bit emulated to run under 32, the former being the most intelligent of the 2 options for a 64 bit processor, and the latter being the most intelligent if the user happens to have a 32 bit processor ( cos 64 bit code just wont run in 32 bit mode all too nicely, its like driving a train down an alley way )
Posted by (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
64 bits is old school
For those who are 64 bit sceptics or behind the
technology curve using a Windows box...
There are more media-based applications
written natively for Linux than any other
operating system. That's right, Linux. The Linux
architecture lends itself well to highly threaded,
real-time 64 bit applications which require a low
latency kernel. You may have even have a Linux
appliance in your house and not even be aware of
it. Do you have a TiVo or other DVR/PVR? Maybe
a wireless router? These days, whether you are a
regular consumer, professional audio engineer,
high performance computing researcher, or stuck
inside a Windows network, you very likely depend
on Linux. If you take all the Windows servers off
of the Internet the only consequence would be an
improvment in network latency as all the zombies
would be removed, if, on the other hand, you take
all the Linux and Unix servers off of the
Internet, you no longer have an Internet. FYI.
Posted by Johnny Mnemonic (374 comments )
Reply Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.