Windows 7 - 64-bit computing.

By splicer707
in The Fast Ring (Insider Previews)

 Share

  

274 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Windows 7 be the PC Operating System to make 64-bit computing mainstream?

    • Yes
      143
    • Perhaps
      94
    • No
      37

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Doli

Posted
Posted
I don't see the market going 64 bit unless PC manufacturers all do it... and there's nothing to indicate that for as long as Microsoft keeps offering a 32 bit version.

Excluding the cheap budget systems more PC manufacturers are using 64 bit already with 3 GB as the minimum. I been looking at systems and notebooks and most are 64 bit now.

Grand Master

Xerxes

Posted
Posted (edited)
That is exactly my point. 32 bit CPUs are obsolete, no need to make an OS for them...a modern OS.

You'd think that wouldn't you? but the demand for 32-bit OS is still high. While I believe there isn't a modern computer out there that isn't 64-bit ready, there are still plenty of ones still in circulation that aren't. My bet is the 32-bit demand is coming from the business sector, unlike consumers they don't upgrade for the sake of upgrading and many of them still run 32-bit only systems and MS can't afford to alienate them. While I personally believe they should of started with Vista on the 64-bit only push, I can't see MS going 64-bit only anytime soon. I think the only OS to go purely* 64-bit was OSX if I'm not mistaken and Apple just did it and people were forced to adjust to it...perhaps this is what MS should of done? that is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt.

* = By purely I mean only offer one version, i.e. you don't see a 64-bit and a 32-bit version of OSX do you?

Edited by Xerxes
Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted
Excluding the cheap budget systems more PC manufacturers are using 64 bit already with 3 GB as the minimum. I been looking at systems and notebooks and most are 64 bit now.

Most HP systems are still 32 bit, as with Dell... the two leading PC sellers.

Grand Master

ViperAFK

Posted
Posted
You'd think that wouldn't you? but the demand for 32-bit OS is still high. While I believe there isn't a modern computer out there that isn't 64-bit ready, there are still plenty of ones still in circulation that aren't. My bet is the 32-bit demand is coming from the business sector, unlike consumers they don't upgrade for the sake of upgrading and many of them still run 32-bit only systems and MS can't afford to alienate them. While I personally believe they should of started with Vista on the 64-bit only push, I can't see MS going 64-bit only anytime soon. I think the only OS to go purely* 64-bit was OSX if I'm not mistaken and Apple just did it and people were forced to adjust to it...perhaps this is what MS should of done? that is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt.

* = By purely I mean only offer one version, i.e. you don't see a 64-bit and a 32-bit version of OSX do you?

actually osx is 64 bit with a 32 bit kernel so it is sort of a hybrid, although snow leopard is moving to a 64 bit kernel I believe.

Grand Master

RAID 0

Posted
Posted
Not a very good point, then.

I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding.

In the 1990's, the 16 bit CPU's were extremely slow, and could address very little memory. There was a pressing need to migrate quickly to 32 bit software.

Address very little memory... like now... can't be more than 4 gigs. That's very little memory when you look at the P45 chipset being able to address 16 GB of RAM. This is not a server MB. This is for home and office use.

There's not so much of a need right now. 64 bit software isn't twice as fast. Normal people don't ever bump up against the 32 bit memory barrier. 32 bit only processors are plenty fast to run modern OS's.

If "normal people" want the latest and greatest, upgrade! Plane and simple.

There is no dire, pressing need to get everyone on the 64 bit platform as quickly as possible.

The dire need is to advance technology.

You'd think that wouldn't you? but the demand for 32-bit OS is still high. While I believe there isn't a modern computer out there that isn't 64-bit ready, there are still plenty of ones still in circulation that aren't. My bet is the 32-bit demand is coming from the business sector, unlike consumers they don't upgrade for the sake of upgrading and many of them still run 32-bit only systems and MS can't afford to alienate them. While I personally believe they should of started with Vista on the 64-bit only push, I can't see MS going 64-bit only anytime soon. I think the only OS to go purely* 64-bit was OSX if I'm not mistaken and Apple just did it and people were forced to adjust to it...perhaps this is what MS should of done? that is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt.

* = By purely I mean only offer one version, i.e. you don't see a 64-bit and a 32-bit version of OSX do you?

The business sector is usually very slow to upgrade hardware and software alike. There's usually a lot of testing of programs to see if the new OS can work with said software. I still see Windows 2000 all over the place; banks, supermarkets, car dealerships etc.

I just think (remember this is just my opinion) that Windows 7 should be 64 bit only. You want the latest and greatest OS? Time to upgrade. You can't get around it forever.

Community Regular

Mikee99

Posted
Posted
I think the only OS to go purely* 64-bit was OSX if I'm not mistaken and Apple just did it and people were forced to adjust to it...perhaps this is what MS should of done? that is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt.

* = By purely I mean only offer one version, i.e. you don't see a 64-bit and a 32-bit version of OSX do you?

actually osx is 64 bit with a 32 bit kernel so it is sort of a hybrid, although snow leopard is moving to a 64 bit kernel I believe.

Well technically, OS X is not really 64-bit at all. It's a 32-bit OS that uses PAE to get access to more than 4GB of RAM. PAE support is how they are able to run just 1 version of OS X that is "64-bit" even on 32-bit Intel CPU's (The Intel Core Duo is 32-bit. The Core 2 is 64-bit).

True 64-bit support uses the full 64-bit registers, as well as the x64_64 instruction set.

This is a good article about it: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/09...pc_swindle.html

Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted
With the choice of going 64 bit for free.

Having a choice doesn't mean anything if it's not built-in. Most people don't customize their computers -- they just buy the versions sold at retail outlets or get whatever's standard. If you want 64-bit to take over, make it the default.

Until that happens, 32 bit is here to stay as the main version.

Grand Master

RAID 0

Posted
Posted
Well technically, OS X is not really 64-bit at all. It's a 32-bit OS that uses PAE to get access to more than 4GB of RAM. PAE support is how they are able to run just 1 version of OS X that is "64-bit" even on 32-bit Intel CPU's (The Intel Core Duo is 32-bit. The Core 2 is 64-bit).

True 64-bit support uses the full 64-bit registers, as well as the x64_64 instruction set.

This is a good article about it: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/09...pc_swindle.html

NO NO NO. $teve Job$ himself told me OS X was a 64 bit OS. Why would he lie?

Rising Star

Revolution.

Posted
Posted

why do people think that 64 bit OS is such a big concern? i've been running 64 bit Vista ever since it was released, and never had problems with it, drivers work great, and theres no problems to worry about, people are just affraid of change, it works fine, adapt to it people!

Apprentice

ixrousis

Posted
Posted
why do people think that 64 bit OS is such a big concern? i've been running 64 bit Vista ever since it was released, and never had problems with it, drivers work great, and theres no problems to worry about, people are just affraid of change, it works fine, adapt to it people!

So true man. So true!

Proficient

jjrambo

Posted
Posted

Vista 64bit runs great. Btw RAM is so cheap nowdays. I got 2x2GB for $44 on newegg, GSkill DDR2-800. So now i run 6Gb of Ram under Vista x64. Superfetch really shows its muscles it seems to me under 6Gb of RAM. Things lunch almost instantly, games apps...I do believe Raid 0 setup helps there as well. Also i have internal card with internal USB plug so my 2GB Flash Drive for Ready Boost is sitting inside computer.

Can't wait for Windows 7 to clean GUI mess Windows Vista have :D

OS 64bit should be pushed big time. Forget x86, it's for History as well as those old 32bit CPUs.

Grand Master

Eric Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
actually osx is 64 bit with a 32 bit kernel so it is sort of a hybrid, although snow leopard is moving to a 64 bit kernel I believe.

Leopard is 32-bit with PAE.

Well technically, OS X is not really 64-bit at all. It's a 32-bit OS that uses PAE to get access to more than 4GB of RAM. PAE support is how they are able to run just 1 version of OS X that is "64-bit" even on 32-bit Intel CPU's (The Intel Core Duo is 32-bit. The Core 2 is 64-bit).

True 64-bit support uses the full 64-bit registers, as well as the x64_64 instruction set.

This is a good article about it: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/09...pc_swindle.html

What's good about that article? It claims Apple is pioneering 64-bit operating systems even though Windows has had a 64-bit version available for years, and that's just the beginning of the inaccuracies in it.

Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

My understanding is that Leopard can run actually 64-bit code and address more memory without PAE, but that the OS itself including the kernel is 32-bit. It's a lot better than Tiger but I don't consider it a "64-bit OS."

Supposedly Snow Leopard will be 64-bit only and thus require new drivers / kexts and such just like x64 versions of Windows do.

Community Regular

Mikee99

Posted
Posted
why do people think that 64 bit OS is such a big concern? i've been running 64 bit Vista ever since it was released, and never had problems with it, drivers work great, and theres no problems to worry about, people are just affraid of change, it works fine, adapt to it people!

The main problem is that not all hardware drivers are supported on 64-bit. I'll use my scanner (CanoScan LiDE 30) as an example. There are drivers for Vista 32-bit, however, Canon has shown absolutely no interest in making a 64-bit version. In order for me to run this scanner in 64-bit, I would literally have to install XP in VirtualBox, and use USB virtualization. Not exactly a great solution. In addition, I would absolutely recommend everyone to avoid Canon products, since they can clearly care less about their customers.

What's good about that article? It claims Apple is pioneering 64-bit operating systems even though Windows has had a 64-bit version available for years, and that's just the beginning of the inaccuracies in it.

Well, if you disregard the spin, it does a good job explaining OS X's "64-bit" implementation.

Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
OS 64bit should be pushed big time. Forget x86, it's for History as well as those old 32bit CPUs.

For a desktop or most mid-high end laptops, sure. But putting a 64-bit OS on an EeePC or something would be a waste of valuable disk space. And lots of people who run XP or Vista today on Core Duo and other x86-only CPUs will enjoy the option.

  • 2 weeks later...
Mentor

Mr. Dee

Posted
Posted
I hope that 64-bit computing becomes common with Windows Vista but it will probably wait until 7

And I hope the 64 bit consumer applications are there to take advantage of it. People have this big misconception about 64-bit. Having a 64-bit OS does not guarantee a better computing experience for everyone. Its still a specific group of users and types of scenarios.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.