l77Il7H Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 is window longhorn going to be 64bit? would be nice by the time of its release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shafi Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 longhorn 64 for amd, yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l77Il7H Posted June 4, 2003 Author Share Posted June 4, 2003 omg, that sounds like it's going to be delay like until 2006, they should just amke 64it standard by 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceminess Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 what do you mean by 64 bit, yeah kinda newbish i admit but you got to learn sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premgenius Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Not 100% percent sure but somthing to do wit addressing or how they communitcate currently most are 32-bit apart from some servers which have 64-bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NXPdev Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 They will have a 64-bit version, but I can't see it going only 64-bit - the current generation of PCs would be rendered useless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Core Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Time will tell, but MS core business is still very much 32bit Operating Systems, that's what more business and home users use still. But no doubt there will be a 64bit version as well, after all there's a Windows XP 64 Bit version so why not LH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobbe Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 The difference between the 32-bit and the 64-bit x86 CPU's is the wide of the address bus, the registers size and also, this time, twice as many registers; but still too few in my opinion. Registers are tiny SRAM modules that's only a few bits wide (32 or 64 in this case), the registers has no latency and is extremly fast(core frequency). They are used in different operations and hold values temporarily. The 64-bit x86 can run 32-bit x86 code with any problems at all. On the other hand, the Itanium is based on a totaly different architecture type called EPIC, while x86 is CISC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NXPdev Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 Regarding the 32-bit/64-bit thing: Would there be any preformance benefit by using integers the size of the register (eg Int32 over Int16 and Int64 over Int32)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macman87 Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 by the time longhorn is released 64 bit machines would be more common... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NXPdev Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 I doubt it... 64-bit machines are still very high end, starting at around US$3000, that isn't a mainstream price. Plus, applications don't automatically work when you port them to the Itanium, there are some things which need modifications - modifications which companies may not want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmoove Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 The difference between the 32-bit and the 64-bit x86 CPU's is the wide of the address bus, the registers size and also, this time, twice as many registers; but still too few in my opinion.Registers are tiny SRAM modules that's only a few bits wide (32 or 64 in this case), the registers has no latency and is extremly fast(core frequency). They are used in different operations and hold values temporarily. The 64-bit x86 can run 32-bit x86 code with any problems at all. On the other hand, the Itanium is based on a totaly different architecture type called EPIC, while x86 is CISC. While this is true (well I believe it, not sure about everything, but still....), there is another reason why 1 CPU is 32-bit and the other is 64-bit. A CPU has a set of instructions, the so called 'Instruction Set' (duh :happy:). A 32-bit CPU uses 32-bit instructions, so 1 instruction consists of 32 1's and 0's. This would give the CPU the 2^32 different instructions. A 64-bit CPU has instructions that have a size of 64 bits. This will give a 64-bit CPU 2^64 different instructions. The advantage of more instructions is that you can optimize more. Where 1 action took 4 instructions on a 32-bit CPU you can now add a new instruction that does it the action in 1 instruction. Plus calculating with Int64 is faster on a 64-bit CPU, because it would take more cycles on a 32-bit CPU, since it can't process numbers bigger then 32-bit in one cycle. For short, it is the size of the instructionset that defines the type (bit wise) of the CPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobbe Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 While this is true (well I believe it, not sure about everything, but still....), there is another reason why 1 CPU is 32-bit and the other is 64-bit.A CPU has a set of instructions, the so called 'Instruction Set' (duh :happy:). A 32-bit CPU uses 32-bit instructions, so 1 instruction consists of 32 1's and 0's. This would give the CPU the 2^32 different instructions. A 64-bit CPU has instructions that have a size of 64 bits. This will give a 64-bit CPU 2^64 different instructions. The advantage of more instructions is that you can optimize more. Where 1 action took 4 instructions on a 32-bit CPU you can now add a new instruction that does it the action in 1 instruction. Plus calculating with Int64 is faster on a 64-bit CPU, because it would take more cycles on a 32-bit CPU, since it can't process numbers bigger then 32-bit in one cycle. For short, it is the size of the instructionset that defines the type (bit wise) of the CPU. False... x86 is a CISC architecture and the width of the instructions are variable. RISC CPU's have fixed length, but doesn't have to be the size of the GP-registers... I.E., Itanium is based on a EPIC architecture, but it's RISC from the start, meaning that it works like a RISC CPU but it's improved(executes instructions in parallel). Anyway, the IA-64 (improved version of HP's PA-RISC) has 128-bit instructions, but the GP-registers and the address bus is only 64-bit (it has, just like new x86 CPU's, 128-bit wide SIMD registers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 As long as we're on the topic of registers and 64-bit architecture can anyone tell me if the registers added to x86-64 are accesible to the programmer or if they are just rename-registers. The way I remember is that the standard compliment of GP/FP/etc registers remain (though now 64-bit) but they've added 8 rename registers for each "real" register. Is my knowledge flawed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeons Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 Until there is a standard across the board, I doubt we will see to many 64bit processors on the normal consumers desktop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted June 6, 2003 Veteran Share Posted June 6, 2003 longhorn will be primarily 32bit, like xp. but there will be a 64bit version of it, if not a few (x86-64, itanium 7 :laugh: ). anyone who thinks longhorn is exclusively 64bit doesn't know what a 64bit os is :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobbe Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 longhorn will be primarily 32bit, like xp. but there will be a 64bit version of it, if not a few (x86-64, itanium 7 :laugh: ). anyone who thinks longhorn is exclusively 64bit doesn't know what a 64bit os is :yes: Itanium 7? What's so funny? It seems that you don't know what it is. :huh: Anyway, This is how the register's looks like in the 64-bit x86: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted June 7, 2003 Veteran Share Posted June 7, 2003 Itanium 7? What's so funny?It seems that you don't know what it is. :huh: it was a joke... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NXPdev Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 As if they are going to progress 5 major versions of the Itanium processor family... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted June 7, 2003 Veteran Share Posted June 7, 2003 As if they are going to progress 5 major versions of the Itanium processor family... i was just saying that the itanium isn't that good of a CPU. the itanium 2 isn't much of a "major" update from the itanium IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazog Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 there will be only 1 flavour of longhorn fully supporting 64 bit, which it will detect upon install so there are no specific versions of lh, just one which detects what diff to install. ends the arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobbe Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 i was just saying that the itanium isn't that good of a CPU. the itanium 2 isn't much of a "major" update from the itanium IMO. It isn't good? Compared to what? I would rather have a Itanium 2 than a 64-bit x86 CPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alext5 Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 If server 2003 is 64bit i guess Longhorn will be too!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobbe Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 If server 2003 is 64bit i guess Longhorn will be too!? 32-bit hardware won't be dead by then... Figure out the rest for yourself. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Gates Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 If server 2003 is 64bit i guess Longhorn will be too!? haha, it's a friggin server OS and most people don't have a 64bit workstation, and thats why the low end versions of 2003 were 32bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts