PC Manufacturers Embrace 64-Bit Vista

Thanks to Neowin member, UAC for this submission.

Cybernet writes: "We knew it would come sooner or later, and from the looks of it widespread 64-bit computing might be on the horizon. Just yesterday we posted the results of our poll asking whether you're running a 64-bit operating system, and only about a quarter of you are. That could be changing as more PC manufacturers start to push 64-bit machines.

TG Daily noticed that Gateway had started to ship consumer PC's that are running a 64-bit version of Windows Vista Home Premium. They dubbed Gateway the "first large PC vendor" to make this move, but after looking around I noticed that others are doing the same thing. HP is offering a 64-bit Vista option on many of their laptops and desktops, and some are as low as $449... nearly half the price of Gateway's cheapest 64-bit computer. A little more digging revealed that some ASUS notebooks are also shipping with a 64-bit version of Vista."

View: The Full Article @ Cybernet News

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows XP Service Pack 3 Network Installation Available

Next Story

Malware outbreak blamed on file-swapped MP3s, MPEGs

57 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

my experience with vista x64 has been a mixed bag. Some x86 software is fine, and some seems to run better than vista x32 or xp sp3. but there are more incompatabilities than with xp sp2/sp3. Although microsoft apparently tried to 'preserve compatibility' with existing binaries by extending the windowss-on-windows approach, this has brought on other problems - system32 is the directory for 64 bit binaries, syswow64 is the directory for 64bit binaries, and 16 bit binaries are disallowed. even loading office 2003 has glitches.
this apprach seems destined for increasing complexity, and is just backward. since all drivers had to be rewritten for x64 anyway, we could have been better poised for the future had the architecture demanded a little more rigor up front. separation of x64, x32, and x16 libraries in straightforward way, and demanding some coding conventions, could have simplfied wow, virtualization, and dll 'hell' without having 10's of versions of the same file in syswow32, its shadow overlays, and the 'winner' in registry.
so - i'm testing the x64 water, but i have my doubts about how far this codebase will go.

It is about time PC users begin migrating over to the world of x64. In regards to Vistax64, the entire kernal as been replaced, and much different than that of its x86 counterpart. If you look at system stability and performance comparisons between Vista x64 and x86, you will see that x64 performs much better, and is more stable. I have been running Vista Business x64 for almost 1 year now, and I have found it extremely stable and perform very well when running applications such as Adobe Creative Suite CS3 Design Premium, SQL Server 2005, ans Symantec Endpoint Protection. ANother thing I noticed is that when I tried installing older games on my Vista x86 machine, it had a hard time playing these games in regards to compatibility. When I installed these same games on my Vista x64 machine, it ran them with no problem. I didnt even have to use compatibility mode to get them to run.

Many people have been bashing Windows Vista, but I think they should try and do their benchmarking on an x64 machine and OS.

(Angel Blue01 said @ #22)
I only build x64 Vista machines for clients.

I only build XP machines for clients. 32 or 64 bit. I don't want to deal with Vista's problems in a business environment, and neither do they. Maybe it's ok for some home users, but I wouldn't want to take the chance of them cursing me for putting Vista on their PCs either, unless they specifically request it.

THE WORLD ISNT READY FOR 64BIT SYSTEMS ... too many software incompatibility issues ... software makers are rarely getting it right for vista let alone a 64bit version .... welcome to the vista BSOD

I just switched back to vista 32bit ...... issues but alot less

I switched to 64-bit Vista in November, so far it's been rock solid, super fast, and runs everything great, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

The only remaining incompatibility issues are with games and user minds. 64-bit made it to Celeron two years ago; Intel hasn't manufactured a non-X64-ready Celeron in over a year. (In fact, the single-core Celeron is Going Away; replaced by the Celeron E1200 and its brethren and sethren.) Other than certain niche applications, I know of exactly zero major productivity applications or suite components (or, in fact, of any of the top twenty-five productivity applications or suite components) that are not X64-ready. In fact, of all the PC games released in the past twelve months (including expansion packs and add-ons), only Kane's Wrath (the add-on for the X64-ready C&C3: Tiberium Wars) isn't X64-ready.

The real issues are three-fold.

Older games.

Older applications and drivers.

Older users.

The only game related issue that I have run into on 64 bit (and I buy and play EVERYTHING) is punkbuster. If they'd get the 64 bit version going, I wouldn't need 32 bit for anything ever again.

i don't see why not to make it primary x64 i have a AMD Turion processor @ 2.00Ghz from 2005 and it supports 64bit and i run vista Ultimate X86 Fine but i want 64.

There is a Celeron-D-based system at my right elbow (the Celeron and AMD Turion are in the same CPU class) that is likely running Vista Home Basic only due to its integrated graphics and low RAM loadout. (Vista Home Basic and Vista Starter Edition are the only Vista flavors that lack an X64 version.)

Satchel Paige said, "Don't look back; someone may be gaining on you." Best Buy has four quad-core desktops (one with 4 GB of RAM) for under $1000US today. (The other three have 3 GB.) Two Dells (one Inspirion and one XPS), one Gateway, and one HP. Dual-core has reached the Celeron price point (specifically, the Celeron E1200).

Let's face facts; it's *not* the price of quad-core CPUs (not even from Intel) that is keeping demand for them low. (Quad-core CPUs are at prices lower than Northwood-C was in its prime.) 64-bit-capable *Celerons* have been available for over a year! (I'm specifically referring to the Cedar Mill-based Celeron-D; the earlier Prescott-based Celeron is also X64-ready, and that CPU is two years old.) The processors are ready, the drivers are ready; heck, even most of the games and applications are ready. Given a solid system core with a 400-watt PSU, ATX case, and DVD-drive, it can be upgraded to a quad-core (and X64-ready) system for $600 entry-level, or $750 for DX10 midrange (and that even includes Vista Ultimate X64). Even Microsoft doesn't charge an X64 *tax* (X86 and X64 Vista versions are priced identically, and non-OEM/non-upgrade Vista Ultimate includes both versions in the same case). The holdup is *us*; the users.

I haven't run into any compatibility problems with either software or hardware while running Windows Vista 64bit.

It's about time! I've been running 64-bit on my desktop for over a year now and won't look back. The only reason I still have 32-bit windows on my laptop is because I need Cisco VPN - and Cisco is too stupid to update their VPN client for 64-bit...

I've found Vista 64 to be the fastest, most powerful, most stable OS I have ever used. I'm using it in a high end production environment on 8 core machines with 16gb of RAM each and it has proved far more bulletproof and reliable than either OS X leopard or Windows XP 64 (this MacPro machine runs all three with the top CGI applications).

if we were not forced from 16bit we would still be on 16bit,sometimes you gotta force something to get to the next level and i agree that the next version should be 64 bit and indeed dell is pure garbage,i'd take acer or toshiba anyday over dell and ick hp.

(soldier1st said @ #15)
if we were not forced from 16bit we would still be on 16bit,sometimes you gotta force something to get to the next level and i agree that the next version should be 64 bit and indeed dell is pure garbage,i'd take acer or toshiba anyday over dell and ick hp.

acer, toshiba, hp, dell, gateway, none of these companies "make" computers. they ALL contract out to foreign semiconductor manufacturers to create the components they dont buy from other established companies (graphics from nvidia/ati, hdd's from WD/seagate). the only difference is the case, who puts it together, who you talk to for support, the additional crapware, and maybe the occasional extra software suite. Lenova has a fairly large software suite, dell has a faily small software suite.

once you get into the enterprise market, with servers and such, THATS where these companies put their R&D because THATS where the money is made. you think dell makes squat off a $400 desktop/printer/monitor combo? no. they dont make squat off of 5,000 $400 combos. they make it all in the enterprise market.

the computer manufactureres have little to do with it. its the hardware manufacturers that are unwilling to make 64 bit drivers, and software manufacturers who are unwilling to make 64 bit versions of their software. who really cares if Dell/HP/Gateway is shipping Vista 64 systems if 90% of the software runs 32 bit and end-user devices dont have driver support?

its all fine and dandy if you want to help move this inevitable transition, but simply making 64 os's available is not really going to do it.

Seems like a way to force upgrade. MS might decide to release next OS as 64-bit. The large OEMs (Dell, HP) might have been told this info so there' only selling 64-bit capable computers.

Its to bad they can't scratch the registry in the move to 64 bit. They should make some kind of emulated registry for old applications. But at the same time start a new method. Like a ini config file in every application directory or anything other than the registry we have now would be a very good first step.

(warwagon said @ #11)
Its to bad they can't scratch the registry in the move to 64 bit. They should make some kind of emulated registry for old applications. But at the same time start a new method. Like a ini config file in every application directory or anything other than the registry we have now would be a very good first step.

config files would be so much better and would also remove the issue of progams being moved...

The other thing that really needs to be done is allowing logical volumes which allows drive spanning...

so

Windows:
apps:
users:

Could then span multi drives and partitions.

Problem would be that all sorts of things in Windows, from file extension behavior to your homepage and your right-click menus is stored in the Registry... Changing that ALL would require an almost complete redo of Windows AND applications...

(warwagon said @ #11)
Its to bad they can't scratch the registry in the move to 64 bit. They should make some kind of emulated registry for old applications. But at the same time start a new method. Like a ini config file in every application directory or anything other than the registry we have now would be a very good first step.

compatibility issues aside, they do need to get rid of it soon

(warwagon said @ #11)
Its to bad they can't scratch the registry in the move to 64 bit. They should make some kind of emulated registry for old applications. But at the same time start a new method. Like a ini config file in every application directory or anything other than the registry we have now would be a very good first step.

The registry is not a bad thing. The reason it has so many problems is because applications are poorly coded and don't remove registry enteries properly.

Removing it would require a complete rewrite of windows, and not exactly feasible.

(/ -Razorfold said @ #11.4)

The registry is not a bad thing. The reason it has so many problems is because applications are poorly coded and don't remove registry enteries properly.

Removing it would require a complete rewrite of windows, and not exactly feasible.

Agreed. And it's not just the lack of proper uninstall, it's also an over-use of the registry by certain application. Another example of developers taking the "mine is the most important application" attitude.

Also, I don't necessarily agree that the registry should be trashed, but I do believe that it needs an overhaul with more efficient structures and indexing.

So what? Apple's had built-in 64-bit support on all of its systems ever since the release of Leopard (not sure about Tiger, though).

Who gives a **** about 5% of the market share? This is a news article about an OS that actually has market share.

Mac is also a closed platform, only Apple develops all the hardware and "driver" support, granted there are 3rd party peripherals and devices for Mac. This is somewhat different from the PC market in that manufacturers have to write drivers for all their devices to ensure comptability for the OS.

(tsupersonic said @ #10.1)
Who gives a **** about 5% of the market share? This is a news article about an OS that actually has market share.

Mac is also a closed platform, only Apple develops all the hardware and "driver" support, granted there are 3rd party peripherals and devices for Mac. This is somewhat different from the PC market in that manufacturers have to write drivers for all their devices to ensure comptability for the OS.

From what I read Mac software isn't true 64-bit anyway, which is why Adobe won't make a 64-bit versino of their software for mac

(X'tyfe said @ #9)
bad idea, markets not ready yet
forcing this on people is not going to help things at all


No it's a good thing, we need to force people to start using 64 bit or we'll be stuck in 32bit hell for too damn long, as a matter of fact Vista should have been a 64bit only OS, and most of the perceived problems with Vista wouldn't be there.

(z0phi3l said @ #9.1)

and most of the perceived problems with Vista wouldn't be there.

i hope your joking there, 64-bit would create MORE problem

(X'tyfe said @ #9.2)

i hope your joking there, 64-bit would create MORE problem


You say things without backing them up.

The main reason why you shouldn't use 64 bit over 32 bit OSs at this very moment is due to lack of support for it. Drivers and applications are still getting there for all OSs - Linux 64 bit still has some quirks. If a majority of software developers were to make use of 64 bit processing, there'd be absolutely no reason to use 32 bit anymore. It's outdated technology and seeing as we are hitting the limit for its potential already it is definitely time to move on.

The same is happening for various other things in technology, such as the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 - Vista started this for the Windows side (with extra legacy support of course) and I believe SP3 for XP also supports IPv6. This change is being made for a variety of issues, one of which is the fact that the world is getting closer to the limit of maximum allowed IP addresses, especially when factoring in mobile devices and huge computer labs at universities and workplaces.

Which goes back to z0phi3l's (and everyone else's) feeling - forcing 64 bit on everyone would probably be in EVERYONE's best interest. Software and hardware manufacturers and consumers would be able to focus entirely on 64 bit and ignore legacy support. We'd be able to move on and progress with technology and even begin developing the basis of 128 bit CPU registers and processing power for the future (I bet 128 bit will be sought after within the next 15 to 20 years, given the current trend of technology). Someone has to make the move, and seeing as Windows is still the most widely used OS, it's only best if Microsoft makes this move.

Many businesses are still operating on Windows 2000 because the benefit-cost ratio is too low to bother upgrading to anything else. But, they are also complaining about performance. Let's give them a reason to upgrade as well as quell their complaints.

(Evolution said @ #8)
Unfortunately Dell has yet to make the move....


Dell is pathetic, just another company that treats their customers with contempt.

(Justin- said @ #8.2)
lol, Dell is the worst PC manufacture there is. Who really cares if they haven't made the move?

Dell has had the X64 Option since January. Dell just doesn't trumpet it. (In fact, the very reason BB *does* trumpet it, and they do sell Dell, is that more and more of their in-stock systems come with 3 or more GB of RAM, including two sub-$1,000US Dells. You may not see X64-based Dells at either Circuit City or Staples, however, as they tend to be less lavishly equipped RAM-wise than the Dells carried by BB.)

However, there is an argument *against* X64 for the home user, but it for once isn't because of productivity applications (most of which are either X64-ready themselves or work just fine in an X64 OS) or drivers. There are still several A-list game titles or expansion packs for existing titles that haven't made the jump (example: C&C3 is X64-ready, but Kane's Wrath is not).

(mls67 said @ #7)
I noticed at bestbuy the other day that all of thier computers had the 64bit vista on them.

Not an accurate statement... Though Best Buy is carrying computers, namely a few HPs, Gateways, and one Toshiba that have 4GB of RAM and Vista x64. They have been for a couple weeks now, didn't know it was news...

(marpstar said @ #7.1)

Not an accurate statement... Though Best Buy is carrying computers, namely a few HPs, Gateways, and one Toshiba that have 4GB of RAM and Vista x64. They have been for a couple weeks now, didn't know it was news...

I guess I meant to say is that all the computers on the floor as demos, were running 64bit vista..all of them, laptops and desktops. My IT manager and I were there to pick up some cables and noticed it. We did look at all of them to confirm this. We had a little time ;-)

You know there's a lot more to 64bit computing than simply being able to have More Memory. If used right, it can bring great performance increases in certain scenarios, performance increases that will affect everything from gaming to word processing.
What's more, Microsoft is using it as an oppertunity to change some of the big legacy issues that windows has. Drivers being the prime example, although there's no real difference between installing 32bit and 64bit drivers, Microsoft is forcing Manufacturers to test their drivers better or they wont be allowed to run.
It's a slight inconvenience for some of us, but for the vast majority of people, it means windows will be MUCH more stable.

I've been running 64bit for ages and apart from the odd lack of drivers, it's identical to 32bit or simply faster in some cases. In other words, it's made of win.

Exactly. A lot of things are compromised because windows HAS to provide "legacy support"... moving on to 64-bit is the perfect opportunity for them to make windows the modern OS it should be. Instead of having to support old-ass tab-based control panel dialogs!

(rpsgc said @ #4)
To Hell with Microsoft if Windows 7 isn't natively/primarily 64-bit.

Why?
What difference does it make to you if there's a 32bit and a 64bit version available? You're not going to see any major difference either way, you just use what's more suitable for you.

(Kushan said @ #4.1)
You're not going to see any major difference either way


Of course that's a myth, the first and foremost major "difference" would be the 4gb limit (it's actually less than 4gb).

(James Riske said @ #4.2)


Of course that's a myth, the first and foremost major "difference" would be the 4gb limit (it's actually less than 4gb).

No, what I said was that HE wont see a difference if there's a 32bit AND 64bit version of Windows 7 available. If he wants more than 4Gb of RAM, he can use the 64bit version, but what he appears to be saying is that if Microsoft doesn't make it 64bit only, it's a problem....somehow....

The only problem it poses is for manufacturer support. Remember that they have to create a version of their drivers for both 32 and 64 bit. In fact, I believe the lack of drivers on XP Professional alone was one of the biggest problems with the OS, despite it being stable and secure.

If Windows 7 is due around 2010, Microsoft may very well drop the x86 version. Why have an OS with a 4GB limit in an era of 6GB machines? Besides if people complain that a P4 3GHZ(with EMT64) system can't run Vista the way they want, will people try to install Windows 7 on something less than that in 2 years time? But then it's Microsoft's call. Maybe the 32 bit version might be the "Low cost/Embedded" version.

Microsoft likes to support just about every known hardware configuration possible. Taking such a drastic move as to phase out the 32-bit version won't happen for a while.

It's about time! I can see a few teething problems, but this means that the next version of Windows may actually be a 64-bit release (primarily), meaning a lot less work for developers!

This is a good thing as it can only mean that companies start supporting 64bit better than they are at the moment. I'd expect 64bit OS's to really take off once the average home system starts to ship with 4gb+
I converted my home system to 64bit a few weeks ago now and everything's been fine so far.