MEMORY MAKERS are banking on the 64-bit version of Vista becoming the next big operating system. Initially, people are going to move to 32-bit Vista, but for any gamer or someone that wants to use more than 2GB of memory, 32 bits won't do any good. So the memory industry will move from 2x1GB kits to 2x2GB kits and hope that Vista 64 bit takes off. But it won't be easy, as vendors are still struggling to have the 32 drivers ready and the target is January the 30th.
After that, the focus will go strongly on 64 bit. We tried the RC2 Vista 64 bit and learned that you can install everything, including Raid and Sound Blaster X-Fi but, despite 64 graphic drivers from Nvidia and ATI, many games wont even install or run on Vista 64 bit. The industry expects that the big move will take place after Q2 2007, so when Vista starts standing on its feet.
View: The full strory
News source: The Inq
After that, the focus will go strongly on 64 bit. We tried the RC2 Vista 64 bit and learned that you can install everything, including Raid and Sound Blaster X-Fi but, despite 64 graphic drivers from Nvidia and ATI, many games wont even install or run on Vista 64 bit. The industry expects that the big move will take place after Q2 2007, so when Vista starts standing on its feet.
View: The full strory News source: The Inq
but who is going to do that every time they (re)start their computer?
but who is going to do that every time they (re)start their computer?
what the hell are you talking about you only need to do it to install the drivers once they're there, they're there.
Perhaps what you're referring to is enabling "Test mode" via bcdedit. Once test mode is enabled, you don't need to take any action at boot to get unsigned drivers to load.
That does not work in RTM. I have already tried to do it.
Perhaps this is because (from all the benchmarks i've seen anyway) there is really very little benefit to using 64 bit in the enthusiast market. That and there's still a lot of software compatability issues, more so than drivers. Little programs that people got used to under their 32bit XP may not be in developement anymore etc.
but who is going to do that every time they (re)start their computer?
what the hell are you talking about you only need to do it to install the drivers once they're there, they're there.
tcghost means "who's going to hit F8 every time they want to install a driver".
You can turn the driver signing off with something like VistaBootPro or EasyBCD, by the way.
Are there significant reports of malicious unsigned drivers?
The only real case of evil drivers I know of is the StarForce mess, and I bet those were signed.
As far as I can tell, it's a good way to keep freeware/alternative driver development down, but very little else.
Because even if one person buys it, that person has paid for the operating system so why should he be discriminated because he is the only one?? Imho vendors should be forced to release 64-bit drivers nowadays or have their contracts severed!
If you used good programming practices, then compiling a x64 driver would be as easy as using a 64 bit compiler. I see a lot of "dirty" code used unnecessary in programs only because the developers who wrote them seem to think they are still in the 80's or something. Like bloody #define statements and void pointers and memory move operations and all.
Problem is, that's a big if, most programmers (e.g. not in the big places like Adobe or MS) are quite lazy, and will assume things, like the length of a pointer (which is different on a 64Bit machine)
8GB of RAM would be nice to have though.
Is there a reason why Microsoft kept the two apart? And is Windows Vista 64-bit able to run all 32-bit applications without any problems as if you were running them on the 32-bit version (unlike Windows XP 64-bit)?
I wanted to ask this a while back, but didn't think it was new thread worthy.
Last edited by Neowave on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:41
This I would like to see.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html
There you go.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html
There you go.
Lol, yeah yeah, MS tried to promise the same thing, but quickly backed out when the preliminary testing started. Apple will stfu soon, it's just impossible to accomplish from a technological standpoint.
This I would like to see.
What do you mean? This is a known fact....
The betas and Xcode 3.0 already seem to have the promised 32-bit and 64-bit support. So I doubt it.
sorry but, Leopard is a 32-bit OS with 64-bit application extensions, so it's NOT a true 64-bit OS.
A true 64-bit OS like Vista is better than a 32-bit one
Last edited by franzon on 02 Dec 2006 - 09:58
sorry but, Leopard is a 32-bit OS with 64-bit application extensions, so it's NOT a true 64-bit OS.
A true 64-bit OS like Vista is better than a 32-bit one
1. Stop shouting at people
2. you're wrong
3. did you bother to read the link that someone posted above?
Here, I'll quote it for you:
Enhanced 64-bit Support
Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one, universal OS. Now Cocoa and Carbon application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the rest of the system are all 64-bit. Leopard delivers 64-bit power to both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, so you don’t have to install separate applications for different machines. There’s only one version of Mac OS X, so you don’t need to maintain separate operating systems for different uses.
Bridge the Generation Gap
Now that the entire operating system is 64-bit, you can take full advantage of the Xeon chip in Mac Pro and Xserve. You get more processing power at up to 3.0GHz, without limiting your programs to command-line applications, servers, and computation engines. And in just one great package: Leopard.
I bolded the important parts for you.
from http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html
A true 64-bit OS like Vista is better than a 32-bit one
I suggest you read the link provided by both me and roadwarrior.
The bottom line is that the 64 bit version of Windows will not run ONLY 64 bit apps. 32 bit Windows apps will run as well. Hell, Leopard and Vista 64 will run on the same damn PCs anyway, Apple's self imposed limitations on MacOS notwithstanding.
2. you're wrong
sorry for you, but the Leopard kernel is 32-bit, so Leopard is not a true 32-bit OS. With the 64-bit extensions in Leopard you're able to run 64-bit applications and memory addressing, but the kernel remains 32-bit. This is the reason you can execute both 32-bit and 64-bit applications in leopard, because the kernel is 32-bit and there's an additional support to run 64-bit applications.
Last edited by franzon on 02 Dec 2006 - 14:09
The 64-bit version of Vista and XP alike can both run 32 and 64-bit software side by side. The big exceptions are system tools (such as Norton System Works) and software which requires hardware drivers to be installed (VPN Clients and things like Adobe Acrobat which install a virtual printer).
I currently have a laptop with 2GB of memory running Vista RTM 32-bit and I plan on buying a desktop with 2GB of memory soon which will also run the 32-bit OS. I have no plans to move to 64-bit for a year or two; probably not until Vista’s successor is available.
2. you're wrong
sorry for you, but the Leopard kernel is 32-bit, so Leopard is not a true 32-bit OS. With the 64-bit extensions in Leopard you're able to run 64-bit applications and memory addressing, but the kernel remains 32-bit. This is the reason you can execute both 32-bit and 64-bit applications in leopard, because the kernel is 32-bit and there's an additional support to run 64-bit applications.
And you are getting this information from where? Every thing that I have read has said that the Leopard kernel is 64-bit. Perhaps you are confusing Tiger and Leopard?
Well like I said, Mac OS X Leopard will be able to run both 64-bit and 32-bit applications side-by-side. It runs on all G4-based Macs, which is a 32-bit only CPU. Obviously the 64-bit extensions are disabled on that platform, but it's the same OS version you would install on - let's say - an iMac Core2Duo or PowerMac G5.
That's why I find it interesting to know why Microsoft choose to continue the two different Windows product lines.
Well like I said, Mac OS X Leopard will be able to run both 64-bit and 32-bit applications side-by-side. It runs on all G4-based Macs, which is a 32-bit only CPU. Obviously the 64-bit extensions are disabled on that platform, but it's the same OS version you would install on - let's say - an iMac Core2Duo or PowerMac G5.
That's why I find it interesting to know why Microsoft choose to continue the two different Windows product lines.
thats because all apple cpus will have 64 bit support yet windows still got to support the 32bit cpus
Apple still continues to offer support for their 32-bit only G4 CPU. What about that don't you understand?
Apple still continues to offer support for their 32-bit only G4 CPU. What about that don't you understand?
The point is that Leopard will not run on that system. If it does, it's not running as a 64-bit OS; because that would be impossible. So if MS is releasing a new version of their OS, they want people running 32-bit processors to be able to run it for market share purposes (buying vista is more profit for MS than buying an old copy of XP for a 32-bit machine).
Since the hardware for Apple is pretty much proprietary (i.e. you can't really build your own genuine Apple) Apple doesn't have to worry about market share. Anyone buying a new computer to run Mac will buy an Apple. If they want to run Jaguar, they get a Jaguar system. No other options.
MS will continue to support XP as well, but they also built a 32-bit version of their new OS.
More like 16Eb...
2^32 = 4,294,967,296
2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616
It's not just Vista. XP didn't see more than 2GB.
It's not just Vista. XP didn't see more than 2GB.
Actually, that's not true. 32-bit XP and 32-bit Vista can both see just under 4 GB of RAM. It's just that very few applications would see any benefit from more than 2 GB (and not a lot see much benefit from more than 1 GB).
Vista 64 Home Basic supports up to 8 GB of RAM, while over at the Vista 64 Ultimate side of the spectrum, officially the limit is 128 GB. (It's probably actually higher. How much higher? Dunno, I'll tell you when someone builds a motherboard that lets me slot more than 128 GB of RAM).
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platf...PAE/PAEmem.mspx
I'm waiting for a while before jumping to the x64, give the vendors some time for the drivers and software to come out...I'm content with the x86 for now
You have a video card with Hypermemory? Or an integrated one?
I guess you need 64bits vista to see more than those 3,25
I guess you need 64bits vista to see more than those 3,25
http://www.brianmadden.com/content/content.asp?ID=69
That should be more than enough time for companies to get all their stuff 64-bit
Yes
This is due to the fact that the Inquirer is amongst the worst things to happen to the internet!
Why would I look at 64bit vista if 32bit vista doesn't even have the driver support yet?
if you are only seeing 3.25 crack open notepad and open boot.ini
add /pae
read link 1st
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platf...PAE/PAEmem.mspx
You should be able to see like 3.8 as the pci-e takes up some...
Last edited by Xsabin on 01 Dec 2006 - 21:21
Also, PAE is actually for systems with MORE than 4 gigs of ram.
and i am pretty sure /pae is really only bad with TS and MORE can include page files..
There could be some driver issues but the question from above was why can't I see more then 3.25 gigs I just told the person how and to read the article first
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServe...3.mspx?mfr=true
Last edited by Xsabin on 01 Dec 2006 - 21:31
Now if vista is really necessary or not, thats another subject.
Like, if you have a program written in 32 and 64 bits, and you run them each on its respective 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista, are there any significant speed differences between the two? If so, how much approximately? (provided they are being run using the same hardware platform).
You will see on avg about a 20%-30% increase in performance running 32bit apps in a 64bit vista. Now once everything is loaded if its a basic app you might not see much. But if its a app that requires lots of ram or hd data you should see a big speed boost in general IO functions.
Of course this is only the theory but in reality 32-bit apps run slower when using a 64-bit Windows. 64-bit apps under Windows also do not show any interesting increase in performance like most people try to convince everyone. Combine this with many backwards compatibility problems and lack of driver support makes the switch to 64-bit rather hard to justify.
For now and till atleast H2 2007, there is no need for the 99% of the Windows users to switch to 64-bit.
Thats not entirely true now is it. For example, take the 64-bit version of Newtek LightWave, there is, on average a 200-300% increase in performance compared to it's 32-bit cousin.
Take CakeWalks Sonar x64, it offers significant performance increases over any previous versions to date.
Or how about Maxon's Cinema 4D and Cinebench, on average 20% faster using 64-bit binaries?
No sorry - the simple fact is 64-bit optimised programs run faster than their 32-bit counterparts - and thats a fact.
vista will probably not run well on the older equipment anyway. Those users would be better off running XP.
It'd suck having to but 2 licenses for what is essentially the same product just complied differently.
Incorrect. The minimum required CPU for Windows 95 was a 386 - it ran like a dog, but it worked. The 386 was a 32-bit CPU so I'm not too sure what you mean, really.
Today for corporate use and for home users, 1 gb is enough and hardly you can use a programs that really need more memory.. may be a game.
Also, the more people that use a OS (call it a mass), the more inertia exist.
Today for corporate use and for home users, 1 gb is enough and hardly you can use a programs that really need more memory.. may be a game.
Also, the more people that use a OS (call it a mass), the more inertia exist.
My machine and my wife's machine both have two gigabytes of RAM. World of Warcraft can use a hefty sum of RAM on it's own, it's nice that Windows doesn't have to swap itself out just so WoW can load. This will happen even with 1 gig of RAM. People in game keep talking about some place called "Lagforge". . I don't know where that is, but I've never been there.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.