Nearly 50% of Windows 7 PCs run 64-bit versions

Microsoft said on Thursday that nearly half of all Windows 7 PCs are running 64-bit versions of the operating system.

Early indications that 64-bit adoption rate was much higher than 32 began earlier this year. Statistics, released in January, from Valve's steam gaming software, showed that 64-bit Windows 7 was popular amongst gamers. Microsoft confirmed on Thursday that as of June, 46% of all PCs worldwide running Windows 7 are running a 64-bit edition of Windows 7. "Compared to Windows Vista at 3 and a half years after launch, only 11% of PCs running Windows Vista worldwide are running 64-bit," said Microsoft blogger Brandon LeBlanc.

Microsoft's success with Windows 7 began before the product was even widely available. Released in October 2009, the operating system has received praise from consumers, businesses and the media. In November 2009, Windows 7 managed to surpass Apple's Snow Leopard market share in just two weeks. In early February it was revealed that Windows 7 had reached 10% market share in just three months. To further cement its success, Microsoft announced that Windows 7 is the fastest selling operating system in history, selling over 150 million licenses to date. The company is projected to sell 300 million by the end of 2010, a goal that Microsoft could easily achieve.

Windows 7 has also driven an uptake of 64-bit computing. According to ChangeBASE research, conducted with senior IT decision makers, more than 65% of businesses hoped to migrated to Windows 7 within 12 months of its release. Over 50% of those migrating will be choosing the 64-bit route.

Screenshots of a Windows 7 post RTM build showed up on the web in February, fueling speculation that Microsoft is compiling early Windows 8 builds. The successor to Windows 7 will likely be available in 2011 as an ex-Microsoft worker penned July 2011 as the RTM date for Windows 8.

Microsoft is currently readying its first Service Pack for Windows 7. Technical beta testers recently received build 7601.16562.100603-1800. A public beta version will be available in July with a final release expected in September this year.

Thanks to Neowin member Mephistopheles for the news tip

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Adobe planning to take Flash into the next dimension with 3D support

Next Story

Google is staying in China, for now

118 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Believe it or not, not everyone should have 64-bit Windows. Those with less than 4 GB of RAM should stay with 32 bits. 64-bit Windows uses more RAM and disk space since all memory addresses have to be 8 bytes instead of 4.

That's good news.

It's been a few years since the 64 bit tech kicked in and the industry should move faster in advancing the 64 bit adoption.

Related to this 64 bit thing, I remember a Linux geek telling me that Windows is not true 64 bit OS.He said something along the lines of "bulk of Windows API code base is still 32 bit oriented, while Linux is truly 64 bit OS".

Can anybody confirm this?

Username.ToString(); said,
That's good news.

It's been a few years since the 64 bit tech kicked in and the industry should move faster in advancing the 64 bit adoption.

Related to this 64 bit thing, I remember a Linux geek telling me that Windows is not true 64 bit OS.He said something along the lines of "bulk of Windows API code base is still 32 bit oriented, while Linux is truly 64 bit OS".

Can anybody confirm this?

Anybody with a 64 bit processor and time can make open source software 64 bit. I think I might have one 32 bit program installed on my computer. The rest of it is compiled for 64 bit out of the box since anybody can do it instead of having to wait in the original software author to do so. As far as the Windows API though, I can't say.

Let us just say that 32 bit is older than Methuslah now. 64 bit is now the only way to go. I have 64 bit Office Home & Business also. Only way to go. Yes my software is legal. 32 bit has been around way to long now. Maybe Windows 8 will only be 64 bit with option for 128 bit if possible.

cybertech77 said,
Let us just say that 32 bit is older than Methuslah now. 64 bit is now the only way to go. I have 64 bit Office Home & Business also. Only way to go. Yes my software is legal. 32 bit has been around way to long now. Maybe Windows 8 will only be 64 bit with option for 128 bit if possible.

64bit is not the "only" way to go. use what version you need, thats the "only" way some people can.

I am taking my 64 bit os out and going back to 32 bit. There are way too many compatibility issues going on with it...

Interesting figures; although, what about the 60% of software installed on Win7_64-Bit which is installed as 32-Bit only...?

"Cough"

Once reliable CPUs made their way into the hands of Joe Six-Pack, it was in the interests of software makers to pony up. While my last desktop was 64xable, the CPU was 2nd gen Intel. I went 32. In the next few years, everything will become 64. Running Win 7 64 now and loving it.
Allows me to use all of my hardware resources. While there is still so sware that is 32, going 64 makes sense. Why buy a Porshe if there is an artificial limit on how fast you can drive?

I think I saw some where that Windows 7 is actually the last 32bit OS from MS. Starting with Windows 8 it will be nothing but 64bit ..

Its not the drivers, its the SW. Yes, one can get most to run on 64 bit (or virtual xp), but I guess many would be more convinced if full 64 support were offered. For example, photoshop. It installs both 64 bit and 32 bit. If you want to run some of the related plug-ins, you have to run 32 bit. Others work on 64 bit...so you have to juggle between the 2 versions of photoshop depending on what tools you want to use. You have 64 bit browsers, but these are then not supported by some of the internet security SW, so you have to run 32 bit. All a bit confusing, inconvenient, inconsistent, and quite honestly wasteful from a space perspective. And I guess it kind of defeats the purpose of running a 64 bit OS.

Perhaps this adoption rate will help convince SW companies to fully convert to 64 bit, which in turn may convince the other ones to convert as well.

I try 64 bit periodically to see whether these issues have been resolved. Unfortunately, I am still part of the 54% crowd.

Abdul RaFy Siddiqui said,
so windows 8 will be completely on 64 bit & 128 bit huh....

except it is too soon for 128bit yet

Ci7 said,
except it is too soon for 128bit yet

I second that, it won't be years until 128bit CPU's will be needed - by that time we'll be using something that has a completely different way of functioning.

NEWS FLASH! THIS JUST IN...
In other news, the sky is blue & the grass is green! Film @ 11.
Duh! More computers new are 64 bit, so it would make sense that they would have a 64 bit OS.

I think the growing usage of 64 bit computing is more of a sign that systems are on a 4GB ram time frame , and probably who did not upgrade to windows 7 x64 flavor, has an older PC where it would be useless, keep in mind that not all windows 7 machines support x64 , i used windows 7 on a Pentium 4 not long ago, with decent performance.

Windows 8 should only be 64 Bits. If your PC is too old, then stay with Win7 32bits until you upgrade.

I see low-end PC selling with 4, 6 and even 8Gb of RAM, and all CPU are 64Bits, including the lowly ATOM.

TruckWEB said,
Windows 8 should only be 64 Bits. If your PC is too old, then stay with Win7 32bits until you upgrade.

I see low-end PC selling with 4, 6 and even 8Gb of RAM, and all CPU are 64Bits, including the lowly ATOM.

QFT

grrrrrrrr said,
MS gave out 32bit at their win7 event...this is the only reason why i use 32bit now.. =D

I got vista x32 retail in 2006, but the serial number worked with the x64 version that i got from the net too. Maybe windows 7 does the same.

With a lot of pc coming off the shelves with more than 4 gig of ram, this is going to go higher. I look in the next year two for 32bit to be non existent ..

LukeEDay said,
With a lot of pc coming off the shelves with more than 4 gig of ram, this is going to go higher. I look in the next year two for 32bit to be non existent ..

Yea 32bit is dead and gone in PC's, companies will be forced too make 64 bit drivers and people will start adapt. Its inevitable for the business. More ram will be in PC's but will the OS have the support if it goes over x amount of GBs.

64 bits pro:
-can address more ram (total and per process).
-can process 64bits variables and operation in a single step.
64bits cons:
-it is not widely compatible
-32bits application sometimes are slower in 64bits.
-it uses more memory, a 64bits variable and operation uses 8 bytes, while a 32bits uses 4bytes.

Compatibility is so rarely an issue it'd be hard to list it under cons anymore.
And pointers are 64 bit, but those only really equate to about a 4-5% total increase in memory usage. We still rarely use more than 2 gigs in most usage, so that's hardly noticable.

Compatibility is so rarely an issue it'd be hard to list it under cons anymore.
And pointers are 64 bit, but those only really equate to about a 4-5% total increase in memory usage. We still rarely use more than 2 gigs in most usage, so that's hardly noticable.

Compatibility today is only an issue if you use specialty or legacy hardware. Anyone with a computer built in the past 3 years who uses ordinary components (printer, flash sticks, webcams, etc) will never have any trouble using a 64-bit OS.

64-bit is officially mom-friendly.

99% of the people won't notice a difference if 2 machines were side by side with one running 32 bit and the other 64 bit with 4 gigs of ram.

and of the 1% that say they can notice a difference, 0.5% of the just "think" they can.

Isnt that running 32 bit software on 64 bit version OS slow down or overload system atleast theoretically since 64 bit has to convert 32 bit program to 64 bit first and then run it. By the way if I have only 3 GB RAM then i dont see point in using 64 bit.

Auditor said,
Isnt that running 32 bit software on 64 bit version OS slow down or overload system atleast theoretically since 64 bit has to convert 32 bit program to 64 bit first and then run it. By the way if I have only 3 GB RAM then i dont see point in using 64 bit.

Completely incorrect, 32-bit software runs using WoW64, which "emulates" a 32-bit environment for 32-bit programs. This allows nearly all 32-bit software to run as if it's running natively, with a "so small you don't notice it" speed drop, on a 64-bit machine.

As for RAM, well, unless you are going to downgrade from 3Gb to 2Gb then fine, but most of us would upgrade to 4Gb and, to get full use of ALL 4Gb you need to go 64-bit.

(Yes, I know PAE exists but it isn't enabled on client OS's because of driver compatibility)

Auditor said,
Isnt that running 32 bit software on 64 bit version OS slow down or overload system atleast theoretically since 64 bit has to convert 32 bit program to 64 bit first and then run it. By the way if I have only 3 GB RAM then i dont see point in using 64 bit.

The ideal is to have 4gb of ram (32bits os).
While, Windows can't use more that 3gb of ram but some program can benefit and use the unused 1gb of ram, for example eBoostr and Ram Disk Plus.
The problem to use only 3gb of ram is that the system must use two different memory slot :2gb +1gb, this configuration is not compatible with dual channel.

neo158 said,

Completely incorrect, 32-bit software runs using WoW64, which "emulates" a 32-bit environment for 32-bit programs. This allows nearly all 32-bit software to run as if it's running natively, with a "so small you don't notice it" speed drop, on a 64-bit machine.

As for RAM, well, unless you are going to downgrade from 3Gb to 2Gb then fine, but most of us would upgrade to 4Gb and, to get full use of ALL 4Gb you need to go 64-bit.

(Yes, I know PAE exists but it isn't enabled on client OS's because of driver compatibility)

That last part is only true of Vista or 7; XP32 auto-enables PAE if it detects a CPU that supports it. However, with only a very few exceptions, any CPU that supports PAE also supports x64.

PGHammer said,

That last part is only true of Vista or 7; XP32 auto-enables PAE if it detects a CPU that supports it. However, with only a very few exceptions, any CPU that supports PAE also supports x64.

That's incorrect, XP SP2 has support for DEP which requires PAE to run, hence the reason why it is enabled by default. However, the system cannot use it to utilise more than 4Gb of memory in a client OS due to compatibility and licensing reasons.

This is why it has to be manually enabled with the /PAE switch to use more than 4Gb of memory on a 32-bit system, That's the same for 32-bit versions of XP, Vista and 7.

kaffra said,
so more than 50% are on 32bit.

Yup, but it's a turning point. Nothing jumps to such a significant share of users without domination being inevitable. With even half the users on 64-bit, vendors are putting effort into drivers, and Microsoft can, at this point, officially skip 32-bit in the next iteration of Windows with minimal drama as a result.

To be fair, Vista was mostly shipped on PC's with less than 3GB of RAM - and the vendors don't want to put in any extra cost (if any) for a 64 bit version, including money spent developing 64 bit drivers/software that may not be used. This was compounded early on by software developers not making their wares 64 bit compatible (I'm looking at you, Dragon Naturally Speaking).

But oh well. Vista wasn't a pain for me, but my systems were always overkill. But the dark days are over and Windows 7 is fantastic

I've been using 64-bit since the beta period of Windows Vista. Never had any major problems, except that it was harder to find apps to create a RAMdrive, DVD virtualization, etc. Now it's all good
Developers should take cue from the ever increasing popularity and compile their apps in 64-bit now. It never took off.

I would have expected this to be higher being that I am seeing more and more computers coming out that have 4 or more Gigs of ram.

Windows 8 by 2011? That seems hard to realize, especially since Windows 7 is such a good OS (milk it baby!).
Hell we don't even have an SP1 yet!

What would be still more interesting is what proportion of Windows 7 installs are bootlegged (being so easy to get around registration / activation). I was surprised that Windows 7 Pro is only $60 more than Home Premium. Though I still prefer XP for un-complex GUI.

Osiris said,
just kill 32bit already, if youre not on 64bit by now you never will be you 2bit pleb.

You arrogant person you...!

This is really encouraging news, i was worried when Microsoft said that Windows 7 would still arrive with 32bit that there weren't going to push the 64bit platform forward.

This is encouraging as it's going to make 64bit more relevant to developers. More game companies are going to produce 64bit executables which will allow for more complex games on windows, so that games can take advantage of the 64bit platform such as being able to use more than 2GB per process. This is also going to push hardware developers to produce a solid 64bit driver / software for their devices.

Microsoft's position in the Server market to go 64bit only has been a real boon, making cheap x86 servers a real contender in enterprise big iron systems.

REM2000 said,
This is really encouraging news, i was worried when Microsoft said that Windows 7 would still arrive with 32bit that there weren't going to push the 64bit platform forward.

This is encouraging as it's going to make 64bit more relevant to developers. More game companies are going to produce 64bit executables which will allow for more complex games on windows, so that games can take advantage of the 64bit platform such as being able to use more than 2GB per process. This is also going to push hardware developers to produce a solid 64bit driver / software for their devices.

Microsoft's position in the Server market to go 64bit only has been a real boon, making cheap x86 servers a real contender in enterprise big iron systems.

100% agree. I'd say that Windows 7 x64 will be the half way point with Windows 8 and future products moving to 64bit and gradually new features being 64bit only with 32bit still hanging around but only for backwards compatibility.

Most people wouldn't even notice the difference between the two, or understand the advantages of x64. The reason that more PCs than ever are running Windows 7 x64 is simple, its because the big OEMs like Dell and Sony have decided to start pre-installing it. That is the only reason.

J400uk said,
Most people wouldn't even notice the difference between the two, or understand the advantages of x64. The reason that more PCs than ever are running Windows 7 x64 is simple, its because the big OEMs like Dell and Sony have decided to start pre-installing it. That is the only reason.

and you know this. . . how?

J400uk said,
Most people wouldn't even notice the difference between the two, or understand the advantages of x64. The reason that more PCs than ever are running Windows 7 x64 is simple, its because the big OEMs like Dell and Sony have decided to start pre-installing it. That is the only reason.

Oh, the first bunch of systems Dell was selling was with a 32bit OS on 64bit hardware. This has been untill at least the release of win7.

I know many people with a Dell/HP/Vaio running 32bit OS when they are using 64bit hardware.

J400uk said,
Most people wouldn't even notice the difference between the two, or understand the advantages of x64. The reason that more PCs than ever are running Windows 7 x64 is simple, its because the big OEMs like Dell and Sony have decided to start pre-installing it. That is the only reason.

That's largely because nobody's gotten their marketing departments behind it. When I was a wee geek and less technically inclined, I was still very aware of Windows 95's 32-bit elements and how it was being pushed as a far more significant selling point than 64-bit has been today.

Throw some ad money into it, turn 64-bit into a buzz word, ignore all the nerd fights it'll cause, and watch 64-bit adoption become a major priority very quickly.

kazuyenPH said,
difference of 32 from 64 bit???

First being able to use more than 4GB RAM with more than 2GB per process.
Second and this is not a placebo, i notice that just every day operations are faster, that windows explorer, file copying etc all run a bit quicker even with 2GB RAM.

If you are wondering then give it a go, if anything you are preparing yourself for a 64bit future.

kazuyenPH said,
difference of 32 from 64 bit???

64-bit is faster. It would be better to have your question answered by a developer, though.

kazuyenPH said,
difference of 32 from 64 bit???

The bit represents addressing capability of the os. 32 bit can address upto 4gig ram + other peripherals all together.

64 bit can address to about 190 gig so thats the advantage.

Meph said,

64-bit is faster. It would be better to have your question answered by a developer, though.

no, not really Even though I'm a big pusher of 64-bit and try to convinve everyone to go 64-bit but I also tell them at the same time that 64-bit OSes are really not faster than 32-bit OSes (the same goes for 64-bit programs). They just support more RAM and a ready for bigger tasks.

Meph said,

64-bit is faster. It would be better to have your question answered by a developer, though.

That is not strictly true other than software written from the ground up for 64bit would be optimised for a 64bit environment & modern hardware Vs 32bit code that could include a lot of legacy support for multiple configurations of hardware.
A native 32bit application will run either the same or slightly slower (Due to 32bit compatibility application layer) on a 64bit OS like Windows 7 x64.

Extra RAM doesn't necessarily increase your performance either, it allows you to run more applications or allocate programs to use a larger memory foot print.

Meph said,

64-bit is faster. It would be better to have your question answered by a developer, though.

To add here, it comes down to addressing and word size. To simplify things, with a 64 bit bus, you can send 2 32-bit words for processing at the same time or one 64-bit. In a 32 bit bus, you can send only 1 32-bit word at a time, and need to wait to cycles to process a 64-bit word (you need to send it split in half twice).

PS - this is a very simplified explanation.

vacs said,

no, not really Even though I'm a big pusher of 64-bit and try to convinve everyone to go 64-bit but I also tell them at the same time that 64-bit OSes are really not faster than 32-bit OSes (the same goes for 64-bit programs). They just support more RAM and a ready for bigger tasks.

Performance gains (though in certain cases quite noticeable) aren't why I made the switch. I made the switch for reasons of increased stability and increased security, neither of which is memory-amount dependent.

Dell went darn near x64-only back when Vista was shipping (so did the Acer Group, including Gateway/eMachines, and HP); in their case, it was because they were shipping more PCs with 3 GB or more of RAM. The exception to the x64-only rule is largely anchored in portable computing (notebooks and netbooks). However, even there, it's more due to the netbook in question not being x64-capable (where notebooks are x64-capable, x64 is installed, as in HP's $500USD Pavilion Turion-powered notebooks).

vacs said,

no, not really Even though I'm a big pusher of 64-bit and try to convinve everyone to go 64-bit but I also tell them at the same time that 64-bit OSes are really not faster than 32-bit OSes (the same goes for 64-bit programs). They just support more RAM and a ready for bigger tasks.


Actually, 64bit is/can be faster easily, as it can send bigger requests to the CPU at once then a 32bit string. 64bit OS is way faster then a 32bit OS... but you maybe havent noticed that.

Run for example, Vista 32bit and vista 64bit and you'll already notice quite a difference.

IE32bit and IE64bit for example, IE64bit is faster then its 32bit cousin.

dont know what OS's or programs your using, but they are poorly coded then.

Riggers said,

It`s nearly double.......

A simple way to look at it is:
32bit:4,294,967,295
64bit: 9,223,372,036,854,775,807
It's to the power of 2, its a log scale not linear so it's not "double".

Under 64bit you can calculate big numbers in less CPU cycles. Under 32bit things have to be broken down to "32bit size" where as 64bit can work in "64bit size", which as you can see is clearly MUCH MUCH more then twice as much data. Applications, including Windows, can process more on the CPU in less time when dealing with large numbers hence speed increase any time you are dealing with large numbers.

kInG aLeXo said,
Main difference is support of more than 4 GB of RAM.

More than just that, better ASLR, more registers; in the operating systems itself a lot of the old technology has been deprecated in the case of Mac OS X and Windows which should mean a more reliable experience for the end user.

_DP said,
This is surley linked to the slew of consumer computers including 4GB+ of RAM

And thus often coming with the 64-bit version installed. Hopefully the next Windows will be 64-bit only since that would make it easier for device manufacturers to support with just one set of drivers.

_DP said,
This is surley linked to the slew of consumer computers including 4GB+ of RAM
I was thinking the same myself. With RAM cheap, OEMs are putting 4GB in most machines which as a result requires using a 64-bit OS. It's all good really. I went 64-bit with Win 7 RC and it's been smooth sailing since.

hotdog963al said,
I still don't trust 64-bit completely... I run a lot of old software.

Care to expand on that, why don't you trust 64-bit?

hotdog963al said,
I still don't trust 64-bit completely... I run a lot of old software.

Well, it's a good thing nearly 100% of old software can be ran under 64-bit Windows!

neo158 said,
Care to expand on that, why don't you trust 64-bit?
I've heard about things not working, is all. Isn't everyone *still* after a 64-bit version of Flash?
(Either way I got 32-bit for free, so it's not like I had a choice anyway )

hotdog963al said,
I've heard about things not working, is all. Isn't everyone *still* after a 64-bit version of Flash?
(Either way I got 32-bit for free, so it's not like I had a choice anyway )
While everyone wants a 64bit version of Flash you can run the current version just fine

hotdog963al said,
Isn't everyone *still* after a 64-bit version of Flash?

Yes, but that isn't the same thing as saying that the 32-bit version of Flash doesn't work on 64-bit machines. It does, but only in 32-bit browsers. And your key for 32-bit will also activate a 64-bit version if you want to upgrade.

Rudy said,
While everyone wants a 64bit version of Flash you can run the current version just fine

Yes, but not on a 64bit browser like Minefield (i.e. 64bit version of Firefox) etc which is WHY people want 64bit flash support. i seriously cannot believe they have not made a 64bit flash player when 64bit is becoming fairly common now.

lack of 64bit flash pretty much forces us to keep using 32bit browsers since they got a monopoly on online video (i.e. YouTube). and without Flash support in a browser that basically is a showstopper because basically just about any video you view online needs that.

hotdog963al said,
I still don't trust 64-bit completely... I run a lot of old software.

Been running 64bit since the XP 64bit edition days, simply cause wasted ram is bad
Never had a major issue

ThaCrip said,

Yes, but not on a 64bit browser like Minefield (i.e. 64bit version of Firefox) etc which is WHY people want 64bit flash support. i seriously cannot believe they have not made a 64bit flash player when 64bit is becoming fairly common now.

lack of 64bit flash pretty much forces us to keep using 32bit browsers since they got a monopoly on online video (i.e. YouTube). and without Flash support in a browser that basically is a showstopper because basically just about any video you view online needs that.

They probably see keeping flash 32bit as a way of keeping it from eating up more than 4GB of RAM at a time lol

Neoauld said,

Been running 64bit since the XP 64bit edition days, simply cause wasted ram is bad
Never had a major issue

I am running windows 7 32bits in a 4gb machine:

3gb is used by windows 7.
1gb is used by eboostr. :-)

hotdog963al said,
I've heard about things not working, is all. Isn't everyone *still* after a 64-bit version of Flash?
(Either way I got 32-bit for free, so it's not like I had a choice anyway )

So far, of the offending applications and games, *all* can be run in a VM under 7 (XPMode, anyone?); why is this not an option?

Also, the 32-bit versions of all the popular plugins for browsers (as well as the 32-bit browsers themselves) still work in a 64-bit OS (just as the Linux developers and Solaris, as they went x64 first).

I run Windows 7 x64 on my Celeron DC E12oo-powered desktop (which I assembled myself), and have 3 GB of RAM. Except for games which require more GPU power (notice that the RAM isn't an issue), I don't have any performance issues; the only reason the GPU is as low as it is is due to my avoiding graphics cards that require any auxilliary power (I have an HD5450, which does all that I ask of it, including running Starcraft II beta at 1280x720 (at Ultra, no less).)

Neoauld said,

Been running 64bit since the XP 64bit edition days, simply cause wasted ram is bad
Never had a major issue


XP is originally a 64bit OS.

PGHammer said,

So far, of the offending applications and games, *all* can be run in a VM under 7 (XPMode, anyone?); why is this not an option?

Also, the 32-bit versions of all the popular plugins for browsers (as well as the 32-bit browsers themselves) still work in a 64-bit OS (just as the Linux developers and Solaris, as they went x64 first).

I run Windows 7 x64 on my Celeron DC E12oo-powered desktop (which I assembled myself), and have 3 GB of RAM. Except for games which require more GPU power (notice that the RAM isn't an issue), I don't have any performance issues; the only reason the GPU is as low as it is is due to my avoiding graphics cards that require any auxilliary power (I have an HD5450, which does all that I ask of it, including running Starcraft II beta at 1280x720 (at Ultra, no less).)


NETBSD is the first actual 64bit OS.
WinXP was designed to be 64bit, but switched to 32bit because of the consumers/developers and hardware manufactures slacking behind.
altho Unix was the first one to get a 64bit version.

and dont know about you, but flash isnt working in IE 64bit. It works in 64bit OS's but thats 'emulated'

Impressed with MS's strategy on this. They haven't forced the issue and uptake has silently increased enough to count at almost 50%.

Just as well MS don't force the issue as apart from a few games and system utilities, most software ran on x64 is x86 which in all fairness isn't MS's fault - MS have offered 64 bit browser/media player but plugin vendors still on x86 which renders them "inflexible" (useless too strong a word).

Maybe this will convince certain hardware manufacturers to release 64bit drivers/codecs

*cough* Canon CR2 codec *cough*

Slugsie said,
Maybe this will convince certain hardware manufacturers to release 64bit drivers/codecs

*cough* Canon CR2 codec *cough*

*cough* Nikon NEF codec *cough*

Slugsie said,
Maybe this will convince certain hardware manufacturers to release 64bit drivers/codecs

*cough* Canon CR2 codec *cough*

Would this work?

fastpictureviewer dot com/codecs/


jdmccol said,

Would this work?

fastpictureviewer dot com/codecs/

Yes, it probably would, but I'm very reluctant to pay for something that the manufacturer (Canon, Nikon etc) should be providing. Bear in mind that the main users of RAW will be those who have bought (very) expensive high end cameras, and that image manipulation is something that loves using lots of RAM and so 64bit is ideal.

I am not a professional photog, so there is no justification for me to spend extra money. Given that Canon already have 32bit codecs for free, they really need to put the small amount of work into refactoring for 64bit.

Rudy said,
It could have been 100% if MS had released WIn7 as 64 bit only

And if they did, they would not have been able to sell it to most of the 50% who bought 32-bit. There are still a LOT of 32-bit machines in use (including most netbooks).

roadwarrior said,

And if they did, they would not have been able to sell it to most of the 50% who bought 32-bit. There are still a LOT of 32-bit machines in use (including most netbooks).
Lots of these people just ended up buying new machine that had the 32 bit edition on them or didn't know any better when buying an upgrade (most Win7 capable machine are 64bit).


As for netbooks they could have released a stripped down version for them a la starter edition

roadwarrior said,

And if they did, they would not have been able to sell it to most of the 50% who bought 32-bit. There are still a LOT of 32-bit machines in use (including most netbooks).

people probably bought 32-bit b/c they didnt know what 64-bit is. the vast majority of cpu's released in the last 5yrs are 64-bit capable... save for Atom.

roadwarrior said,

And if they did, they would not have been able to sell it to most of the 50% who bought 32-bit. There are still a LOT of 32-bit machines in use (including most netbooks).

This is not really true because all the non-OEM versions sold are 32/64-bit anyway. Only the OEM discs shipping with PC are 32-bit or 64-bit only.

vacs said,

This is not really true because all the non-OEM versions sold are 32/64-bit anyway. Only the OEM discs shipping with PC are 32-bit or 64-bit only.

Not to mention that not all OEM boards & CPU combinations from the last 5 years support 64bit which is an absolute pain.

Jdawg683 said,

people probably bought 32-bit b/c they didnt know what 64-bit is. the vast majority of cpu's released in the last 5yrs are 64-bit capable... save for Atom.

Well, I don't think that is quite the reason why...In my last job, I was responsible for our company's buying decision and contract with Dell, and when I bought equipment with them, it would only come with Win 7 64 bits if the machine came with 4 GB+, which was our case (we also had to buy some 32-bit licenses due to compatibility issues with some applications we had to use and they were not scheduled to be updated this year- and this is something that may slow down 64-bit adoption).

Rudy said,
Lots of these people just ended up buying new machine that had the 32 bit edition on them or didn't know any better when buying an upgrade (most Win7 capable machine are 64bit).


As for netbooks they could have released a stripped down version for them a la starter edition

Personally I think they're better off shipping a Windows CE 7 based OS for the Netbook given how standardised the hardware actually is - it makes little sense to have a full blown OS on a netbook when the focus should be on providing an OS that does a small number of things but very well.

da00 said,
64bit for the win!

I can't install Rayman 2 on my 64-bit computer, because the installer is 16-bit. I'll never be able to play it again...

Other than that, 64-bit is great!

Meph said,

I can't install Rayman 2 on my 64-bit computer, because the installer is 16-bit. I'll never be able to play it again...

Other than that, 64-bit is great!

Use a virtualization environment?..... DOSbox..... etc....

da00 said,
64bit for the win!

Yeah 64 bit FTW but what wrong with the other 54% who still use 32 bit.
lets move on.... now you cannot use the lame Drivers excuse....

still1 said,

Yeah 64 bit FTW but what wrong with the other 54% who still use 32 bit.
lets move on.... now you cannot use the lame Drivers excuse....

How about "My computer wont' benefit from 64 bit, at least not yet". It only has 1 gig of RAM. When I upgrade to 7 in the near future, it'll moat likely be 32 bit.

Meph said,

I can't install Rayman 2 on my 64-bit computer, because the installer is 16-bit. I'll never be able to play it again...

Other than that, 64-bit is great!

That is what XPMode is for! (And you no longer need AMD-V or VT-x to take advantage, though both have become nearly checkbox items in desktops and portables these days.)

DConnell said,

How about "My computer wont' benefit from 64 bit, at least not yet". It only has 1 gig of RAM. When I upgrade to 7 in the near future, it'll moat likely be 32 bit.

I call shenanigans.

If you have a 64-bit-capable CPU, you can benefit from a 64-bit OS.

Yes, there is overhead involved in running a 64-bit OS compared to a 32-bit version of the same OS; however, that overhead is downright miniscule, even at the 1 GB memory point.

And why is adding RAM not an option, anyway?

Lastly, the biggest benefits of 64-bit have nothing to do with large amounts of RAM; they are stability (fewer issue with rogue 32-bit code), stability (fewer driver issues) and security (even if your 64-bit CPU doesn't support hardware virtualization, it still supports NX).

I went x64 when I built this system (and 7 was in early beta; Vista Ultimate x64 was my OS of choice) and I've stayed with x64 ever since.

PGHammer said,

That is what XPMode is for! (And you no longer need AMD-V or VT-x to take advantage, though both have become nearly checkbox items in desktops and portables these days.)

XPMode is Virtual PC under the hood, and Virtual PC uses Remote desktop technology to connect to the virtual machine. Would you use Remote desktop for gaming?

_peder_ said,

XPMode is Virtual PC under the hood, and Virtual PC uses Remote desktop technology to connect to the virtual machine. Would you use Remote desktop for gaming?

Actually this is being addressed in service pack 1. I couldn't figure out RemoteFX, I was thinking more for thin client type applications but being able to virtualize graphics and sounds would work better. RemoteFX is an upgrade to RDP specifically for sound and graphics performance.