Windows 7 - 64 bit or 32 bit?

[hdood]

Handwritten.... You're joking aren't you? Even i tiny doityourself programmer like me uses RAD tools. You want us to believe that it's even possible to write such a huge codebase by hand alone. The manhours involved surpass largely the meagre, $4 bil R&D budget yearly.

No, I am not joking. Windows 7 is the culmination of 20 years of work. It was not written overnight. You only have to take a cursory glance at the source code to see that is hand written. It is by no means unique. Most software and operating systems on the market are. Especially code that runs on critical systems.

The spaceshuttle was largely written by codegeberators. Maybe you should react with knowledgeand facts not raw emotion

I have no idea what a "codegeberator" is. The Space Shuttle software was hand-written in HAL/S, which has a compiler like any other language which simply compiles it to machine code for the platform in question (AP-101). No different from anything else. I don't know why you seem to be under the impression that large and complex software has to be written with the aid of automatically generated code.

[kazuyette]

First of all, you should not be telling me to stop (honestly, will I? why wasting words on personal attacks?)

Next, my point was, its cool to have x64 at it's pure state while you're on the side of "emulation" now? add to that, you want to claim emulated x86 apps on x64 W7 are faster then real x86 W7 which looks too good to be true :) Guess that makes MS fools for releasing slow OS. Mr Ballmer, you better halt the x86 because this man says, its slower then emulation :D

So you think its better that MS adds WOW64 in future OS, you're on the side of x86 and you want x86 to remain as emulation in future version of x64 OSes? hmmm, [(x64) + (emulated x86) + (Emulated XP Mode)] All this in the interest to protect previous generation's investments on hardware and you want to continue protecting these in future W8x64 too i guess :p

Wait, now this is nice if you're on the side of polar bears (x86) suddenly but as far as I know you, you want people to use x64 OS (shows a lot in your previous threads). If you say emulation like WOW64 is good, then there should be DOS and 16Bit too right?? wouldn't this be better to you? hehe

Still there ? Go back to your cave Troll ! :D

[JunkMail]

Still there ? Go back to your cave Troll ! :D

If expecting pure x64 OS is called "cave", better check your reading :D

[hdood]

So you think its better that MS adds WOW64 in future OS, you're on the side of x86 and you want x86 to remain as emulation in future version of x64 OSes? hmmm, [(x64) + (emulated x86) + (Emulated XP Mode)] All this in the interest to protect previous generation's investments on hardware and you want to continue protecting these in future W8x64 too i guess :p

What you say makes no sense. The whole reason 64-bit Windows is so sweet is exactly because it includes an emulated 32-bit environment. It gives you all the advantages of 64-bit software, while still allowing you to run 32-bit legacy code.

[JunkMail]

What you say makes no sense. The whole reason 64-bit Windows is so sweet is exactly because it includes an emulated 32-bit environment. It gives you all the advantages of 64-bit software, while still allowing you to run 32-bit legacy code.

But you can't possibly claim that x32 apps runs faster under emulation then under real x86 OS otherwise, like i said earlier, MS will be considered fools to even release x86 based W7...

In my words, I preferred x64 with pure x64 apps because that is suppose to be fastest. I read some text saying W8 will be pure x64, so is it a bad idea then?

Edit: I remember some time back, there was this type of debate where dudes liked DOS and 16Bit compatibility on W9x and were whining when XP didn't have it... still, XP was considered best at that time and remained in that place for long time. Is this not a classic example that says exclusivity is better?

Edited August 13, 2009 by JunkMail

[hdood]

But you can't possibly claim that x32 apps runs faster under emulation then under real x86 OS otherwise, like i said earlier, MS will be considered fools to even release x86 based W7...

In my words, I preferred x64 with pure x64 apps because that is suppose to be fastest. I read some text saying W8 will be pure x64, so is it a bad idea then?

Of course I can't. There is a couple of percent overhead, but it's insignificant. The reason for still releasing the x86 edition is NOT because of this. It is because there are still 32-bit processors on the market, and because there are millions of Windows users out there that depend on 32-bit solutions that just won't run under emulation. It could be some older piece of hardware that lacks 64-bit drivers, or it could be software that has to interface directly with the OS.

Microsoft is a corporation, not an ideological organization. Their first priority is to make as much money as possible, by selling software that can be adopted by as many people as possible.

As for XP, it does have 16-bit support (WOW) and an MS-DOS emulator. It was the first consumer version of NT though, which is what the complaints were about.

[NinjaGinger]

Some part of my car are updated using 32 bit drivers and it seems there will never be 64 bit drivers, so I'm in a similar dilemma.

[JunkMail]

Of course I can't. There is a couple of percent overhead, but it's insignificant. The reason for still releasing the x86 edition is NOT because of this. It is because there are still 32-bit processors on the market, and because there are millions of Windows users out there that depend on 32-bit solutions that just won't run under emulation. It could be some older piece of hardware that lacks 64-bit drivers, or it could be software that has to interface directly with the OS.

Microsoft is a corporation, not an ideological organization. Their first priority is to make as much money as possible, by selling software that can be adopted by as many people as possible.

As for XP, it does have 16-bit support (WOW) and an MS-DOS emulator. It was the first consumer version of NT though, which is what the complaints were about.

Now if I don't like emulation, do I really have to praise it to make you feel better? and possibly others? If I got annoyed by big emulated method, I'm sure overhead insignificance was not the "only" reason. Talking about processors, I see Pentium4 as dinosaur aged (even though it has x64) and if there are those with only 32-Bit processors and components, ewww their systems must be awful and they're expected to be lower in number. In anyhow, I'm not denying these reasons to use 32-bit. All I'm saying is its better to use new methods, hardware, processors, solution AND x64 at its pure instead of continuing with "huge emulation", "depending on old 32-bit solutions" etc points you put up there...

About XP, it had emulation but my point is that such "emulation" was pretty much useless (at least thats what I learned when I tried all my apps) maybe 32-Bit apps are large in number now because in one way XP somewhat made those old apps in general become more "obsolete" then what W9x did. I noticed change was difficult for many (so they whined) but 32-bit did win their trust later...

likewise, I see pure x64 as future not mixture again and again...

[hdood]

Now if I don't like emulation, do I really have to praise it to make you feel better? and possibly others? If I got annoyed by big emulated method, I'm sure overhead insignificance was not the "only" reason. Talking about processors, I see Pentium4 as dinosaur aged (even though it has x64) and if there are those with only 32-Bit processors and components, ewww their systems must be awful and they're expected to be lower in number.

The Intel Atom processors used in mobile devices are 32-bit. These are brand new. We aren't just talking about the weirdo in the corner with a P3.

In anyhow, I'm not denying these reasons to use 32-bit. All I'm saying is its better to use new methods, hardware, processors, solution AND x64 at its pure instead of continuing with "huge emulation", "depending on old 32-bit solutions" etc points you put up there...

Yes, it would be "better," but you seem to be missing the fact that we don't live in a fantasy world. People have to be able to run their old software. It's not easy to switch everything over to 64-bit overnight. The software you use might not even be developed anymore, and switching to something else could end up costing huge sums when you factor in licenses, data conversion (which in the worst case could be manual), retraining, etc.

About XP, it had emulation but my point is that such "emulation" was pretty much useless

No. Companies kept running their critical 16-bit software on XP. I know of several, even very large companies that used DOS-based software.

[JunkMail]

time is running out on my side, but I will edit or post response to this one :D hehe

[Ryster]

somehow, I prefer removing wow64 completely (using vLite or something) and use x64 in it's pure AND use x86 XP :)

Yeah, like that is going to happen. Your own little "niche preferences" are irrelevent in the wider world. The vast majority of software out there is 32-bit, and that is unlikely to change for years to come. Windows 8 may well come in 64-bit only, but they will never remove WOW64 from it. And why should they? Are you short on hard drive space or RAM or something?

[JunkMail]

The Intel Atom processors used in mobile devices are 32-bit. These are brand new. We aren't just talking about the weirdo in the corner with a P3.

I hardly see "Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate with Aero UI x86" on an Atom based system (ever wondered why?), the reasons rule out running latest, powerful, demanding OS (such as 7x86) on a netbook like system. I don't think there is much changed since my last post, if 32-bit is the most Atom can handle, its better with 32-Bit OS purely :) but if you tell me 8 Bit, 16-Bit or something like W9x or emulation of it is better, nope.... i won't like it.

Yes, it would be "better," but you seem to be missing the fact that we don't live in a fantasy world. People have to be able to run their old software. It's not easy to switch everything over to 64-bit overnight. The software you use might not even be developed anymore, and switching to something else could end up costing huge sums when you factor in licenses, data conversion (which in the worst case could be manual), retraining, etc.

Imagine, you saying these after 3 years, again imagine another 3 years later, again another 3 (9 total), and go on.... Now think, is this the same excuse that you will give after such time? change is good or you'll get extinct like dinosaur :) Any idea when XP was launched? 2001~2 and here we are still not ready to grow up or explore new smart updated softwares. There has been so much increase in software development (some of them are free open source). If a person cannot train self according to time, (well, won't happen).

No. Companies kept running their critical 16-bit software on XP. I know of several, even very large companies that used DOS-based software.

Companies are far, what about you and me? Did you prefer using DOS programs under XP or you preferred on pure DOS? because I didn't run DOS programs at all (tried few times but nasty errors) On x86 Windows, I used only 32-Bit apps majority (no 16, and surely no DOS... hehe). This is somewhat close future in x64 (if far, then not too far)

Yeah, like that is going to happen. Your own little "niche preferences" are irrelevent in the wider world. The vast majority of software out there is 32-bit, and that is unlikely to change for years to come. Windows 8 may well come in 64-bit only, but they will never remove WOW64 from it. And why should they? Are you short on hard drive space or RAM or something?

hehe, I would like to add that I'm not against 32-Bit or x86 here. The way you say WOW64 will never be removed, it seems like x86 will live for loooooong time, and guess my signature will too... :D

When MS decides such move to remove, it has to be the time where x64 apps are far too many and used majority :)

[petrossa]

No, I am not joking. Windows 7 is the culmination of 20 years of work. It was not written overnight. You only have to take a cursory glance at the source code to see that is hand written. It is by no means unique. Most software and operating systems on the market are. Especially code that runs on critical systems.

I haven't seen anything that supports your claim except you, but i have seen lots of educated people writing things that support mine.

Let's agree to disagree because else this goes way OT, or continue this discussion on my blog.

[m-p{3}]

I have 8GB of RAM, so 64-bit all the way for me.

[Eric Veteran]

A 32bit program can only use 2 gig of ram right? (I dont mean the OS i mean a regular program)?

4GB. The "missing" memory from 32-bit Windows is memory that's being mapped to hardware resource like video memory. :)

But you can't possibly claim that x32 apps runs faster under emulation then under real x86 OS otherwise, like i said earlier, MS will be considered fools to even release x86 based W7...

In my words, I preferred x64 with pure x64 apps because that is suppose to be fastest. I read some text saying W8 will be pure x64, so is it a bad idea then?

Edit: I remember some time back, there was this type of debate where dudes liked DOS and 16Bit compatibility on W9x and were whining when XP didn't have it... still, XP was considered best at that time and remained in that place for long time. Is this not a classic example that says exclusivity is better?

It's not emulation, it's thunking. No code is emulated in 64-bit Windows. It's only constrained to stay in it's usable environment. Removing WoW64 would cause the OS to not function properly as not every single module is 64-bit.

[briguy992]

A 32bit program can only use 2 gig of ram right? (I dont mean the OS i mean a regular program)?

It can utilize 2 GB by default, but if linked with the large address aware option, it can utilize up to 4 GB.

[hdood]

if 32-bit is the most Atom can handle, its better with 32-Bit OS purely :)

Uh.. Yes... And the 32-bit version of Windows 7 is a pure 32-bit OS.

but if you tell me 8 Bit, 16-Bit or something like W9x or emulation of it is better, nope.... i won't like it.

What on earth are you talking about? No one has said that running software in an emulated environment is better in itself. You have to look at the big picture. What's better is that you can also run 64-bit software. In other words, you can move onto 64-bit where it is available and reap the benefits, while still having the option of running older software.

Imagine, you saying these after 3 years, again imagine another 3 years later, again another 3 (9 total), and go on.... Now think, is this the same excuse that you will give after such time? change is good or you'll get extinct like dinosaur :) Any idea when XP was launched? 2001~2 and here we are still not ready to grow up or explore new smart updated softwares. There has been so much increase in software development (some of them are free open source). If a person cannot train self according to time, (well, won't happen).

These things take time. Switching solutions can potentially cost hundreds of thousands or millions. It is not as simple a matter as you want to believe. In fact, the expenses combined with a loss of productivity in the conversion period could even drive some bankrupt. Let them do it in their own pace. 5 years to switch to new software is not really unreasonable.

Companies are far, what about you and me? Did you prefer using DOS programs under XP or you preferred on pure DOS? because I didn't run DOS programs at all (tried few times but nasty errors) On x86 Windows, I used only 32-Bit apps majority (no 16, and surely no DOS... hehe). This is somewhat close future in x64 (if far, then not too far)

Yes, well, the business world is extremely important to Microsoft. They don't write software just for you, JunkMail.

When MS decides such move to remove, it has to be the time where x64 apps are far too many and used majority :)

Chances are it will remain for as long as is practical. The only reason 16-bit support was dropped is because implementing support for it in 64-bit Windows would be a massive undertaking that wasn't really worth it. They are unlikely to just remove it for some arbitrary reason, although they might eventually make it optional (like it is in Server 2008 R2).

I haven't seen anything that supports your claim except you, but i have seen lots of educated people writing things that support mine.

Let's agree to disagree because else this goes way OT, or continue this discussion on my blog.

I'm not going to agree to anything other than the fact that you are wrong.

No code is emulated in 64-bit Windows. It's only constrained to stay in it's usable environment. Removing WoW64 would cause the OS to not function properly as not every single module is 64-bit.

Plenty of code is emulated. What isn't emulated is the 32-bit instruction set, because AMD64 processors support this natively (after switching modes, something that has slight overhead). There is a lot more to running 32-bit software than simply executing instructions. WOW64 is an emulated 32-bit Windows environment.

WOW64 emulates the 32-bit kernel (internally by providing thunks for the kernel and kernel-mode functions (like most of Win32)).

WOW64 emulates the 32-bit Windows environment (internally by running the 32-bit NT API (ie ntdll) and all 32-bit system libraries on top of the emulated kernel.)

WOW64 emulates the 32-bit registry (internally by redirecting or reflecting the calls to places in the 64-bit registry.)

WOW64 emulates the 32-bit file system (internally by redirecting calls to places in the 64-bit file system.)

All in all it only amounts to a few percent overhead, so it doesn't really matter, but it's not wrong to call it an emulator (and Microsoft does so themselves, see MSDN for instance).

Removing WoW64 would cause the OS to not function properly as not every single module is 64-bit.

Windows runs fine without it.

It can utilize 2 GB by default, but if linked with the large address aware option, it can utilize up to 4 GB.

Technically speaking, a 32-bit program can use as much memory as the machine has available. It's only the virtual address space that is "2GB" (4GB if it's running on 64-bit Windows and is large address aware, 8TB for a 64-bit program).

[Owen W Veteran]

No, I am not joking. Windows 7 is the culmination of 20 years of work. It was not written overnight. You only have to take a cursory glance at the source code to see that is hand written. It is by no means unique. Most software and operating systems on the market are. Especially code that runs on critical systems.

I have no idea what a "codegeberator" is. The Space Shuttle software was hand-written in HAL/S, which has a compiler like any other language which simply compiles it to machine code for the platform in question (AP-101). No different from anything else. I don't know why you seem to be under the impression that large and complex software has to be written with the aid of automatically generated code.

Sorry mate, I'm very sure that @+petrossa is right. Alot of the code is generated..how the heck would they write an OS in 3 years flat by hand? Some is hand coded (i.e New stuff)

[hdood]

Sorry mate, I'm very sure that @+petrossa is right. Alot of the code is generated..how the heck would they write an OS in 3 years flat by hand? Some is hand coded (i.e New stuff)

Windows 7 is based on 25 years worth of code and design, it wasn't written in "3 years flat" (although you could certainly write a basic OS in that time frame). Bill Gates didn't arrive at his office one day and said "hey, time to make Windows 7!" and then fired up Acme OS Generator 7.0 and filled in a few forms and then pasted the resulting code into a compiler. The code is all written by people (and most of it in fairly low-level languages like C and C++). Windows 7 was made by taking the Vista code and modifying it, just like Vista was made by taking the 2003 code, and so on.

What are these "code generators"?

Is the C compiler/linker (the core OS is written in C) a "code generator" because it takes a higher-level language like C and turns it into machine code and generates meta data required to run it? Should we count every byte of that as the Windows source?

Is the C preprocessor a "code generator" because it takes your five-line macro and pastes it into the places you told it to before it's compiled? Is it the output of the preprocessor that is the actual source code, or the input?

What are you people talking about?

[JunkMail]

Check this out, Now why will Adobe decide to go native on 64?

By the time the next version of the Suite ships, the very youngest PPC-based Macs will be roughly four years old. They're still great systems, but if you haven't upgraded your workstation in four years, you're probably not in a rush to upgrade your software, either. Bottom line: Time & resources are finite, and with big transitions underway (going 64-bit-native, switching from Carbon to Cocoa), you want Adobe building for the future, not for the past.

Thats the first news post at the moment :) and, it makes sense too, If they want, they can add x86 but guess they like my notion of changing for the better. (purely) :p

Running pure 32-bit W7 on Atom is like, very awful hehe. The last time i checked atom based system, it was running XP oddly and everything was starting sloooooooowwwww, now if you put fat CAT like W7 on it, i don't know.... you do the math :D

Edited August 14, 2009 by JunkMail

[petrossa]

What are you people talking about?

A RAD is a codegenerator, a html template is a codegenerator etc. etc. I use codegenerator as a generic to not to have to name all forms of programming aides in existence.

One thing is absolutely indisputable, with some 2 million lines of code the control program of the spaceshuttle it was admitted that it was impossible to determine if there were any bugs, the reason why the 5 computer configuration was implemented in the first place.

Given that FACT, it's quite easy to see that at 50+ million lines there's no way anyone can oversee the total picture. Given the other FACT, the interdependence of OS modules, there's no way anyone can foresee the consequences of altering an older part of the OS.

Ergo, MS leaves old code there because it's unknown to them how this affects the overall OS functioning if they remove it.

Final conclusion: MS has no idea how it's code actually flows and therefore lost control. If not IE was unbundled way before the EU made it's voice heard. Why risk vast sums on fines, restrictions and bad press?

Not out of not wishing to give up browser dominance. That fight is lost already and also much less important with the focus on search engines as revenue generators. The browser is now just what it should be, a window on the internet. No longer the controlling factor, but subservient.

[Kralik]

I have 64-bit Vista Ultimate so I wanted to try 64-bit Win 7.. I feel there's no going back to 32-bit OS for me..

[hdood]

A RAD is a codegenerator, a html template is a codegenerator etc. etc. I use codegenerator as a generic to not to have to name all forms of programming aides in existence.

How about you actually explain more specifically how you believe this is used in Windows. Give some examples.

One thing is absolutely indisputable, with some 2 million lines of code the control program of the spaceshuttle it was admitted that it was impossible to determine if there were any bugs, the reason why the 5 computer configuration was implemented in the first place.

No **** sherlock, of course all software has bugs. How is that relevant to anything?

Given that FACT, it's quite easy to see that at 50+ million lines there's no way anyone can oversee the total picture. Given the other FACT, the interdependence of OS modules, there's no way anyone can foresee the consequences of altering an older part of the OS.

No, it's not "quite easy to see" it. The line count in itself is meaningless. Do the millions of lines that make up the .NET framework make any difference to the rest of the OS? No.

Ergo, MS leaves old code there because it's unknown to them how this affects the overall OS functioning if they remove it.

How it affects Windows isn't really the problem. The problem is how changes affect third party products. There are thousands of programs that depend on specific undocumented behavior (and bugs). Changing the implementation of a feature could break them, not Windows.

Not out of not wishing to give up browser dominance.

No, it's because THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of third party products depend on the IE components being present to function! How happy do you think people would be if, say, Steam stopped working in Windows 7?

I guess your argument would be sound though, if...................................................................................................... Microsoft didn't make a customizable version of Windows where you can simply leave out IE if you want to, which they do.

You like pretty numbers, but IE has nothing to do with most of the "50+ million lines" that make up Windows. It's not like random parts of Windows decide to call a HTML engine just for the heck of it.

[petrossa]

You like pretty numbers, but IE has nothing to do with most of the "50+ million lines" that make up Windows. It's not like random parts of Windows decide to call a HTML engine just for the heck of it.

Well nobody knows because nobody can check this out :whistle:

If it's not obvious to you that 50+ million lines, most of which are ancient legacy code, are beyond human comprehension......

Guess you have your vision of reality, i have mine. Seeing as my vision of reality is shared by lot's of other insightful people (google yourself) and yours is only shared by yourself i guess my reality trumps your reality.

[leesmithg]

64-Bit

May as well be up with the times ;)

There have been a number of threads at Neowin forums on this, in your case 64-Bit would work well

That would be great, if Microsoft kept their side of the 64 bit bargain.

I would be suing 64 bit Vista, I can't as a device I purchased for them does not have 64 bit drivers.

Microsoft FingerPrint reader is the culprit.

I will be using 64 bit Windows Professional. I won't be buying anymore Microsoft hardware though.