64bit Question

[mirojr]

Hiya,

 

Why do I never seem to see 64bit windows?

 

64bit windows can utilize much more memory can it not?

 

Why is it not widespread?

 

All laptops we buy have 32bit. I dont know if they have 64bit capability, but it just seems weird that it has not taken over and become the standard used.

 

I know software is an issue.

 

Does anyone use 64bit? Is software a nightmare?

 

Thanks.

[Jamo]

I use 64 bit at home, if we used 64 bit here, first off a lot of our PCs do not have 64 bit capable chips so would not work, and also we use XP and XP64 is not good!

 

I find for home use 64 bit is great, more memory , but apart from that you wouldn't notice the difference.

[ICT_GUY]

64 vista works well, photoshop loves more ram.

[3s-gtech]

The transition is taking a long time, but it's coming. Server 2008 R2 is not available in 32bit form, Windows 7 64bit seems to be more the 'standard' installation, and I suspect the next version of Windows will be 64bit only (though they were saying that about Vista).

[Michael]

There was an article I read the other day which interestingly came to the conclusion more users are now using 64bit for Windows 7. Most if not all newer machines are 64bit compatible, but come with a 32bit OS installed.

 

To be honest I'd only use 64bit when absolutely necessary. I can think of few scenarios (at the current time) whereby 64bit would be needed. I suspect Windows 8 and Windows Server 2011 or 2012 will be 64bit only and this is where I can imagine more of an emphasis will be put on 64bit itself. There's still far too many applications out there which are 32bit only. Microsoft really should of made Windows 7 64bit only.

[simpsonj]

I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected, that the reason why 64bit isn't standard (although I believe Server 2008 R2 is now 64bit only) is that older programs rely on 16bit or 8 bit processing, which a 64bit processor cannot do. I'm sure there's a very good technical answer, but i can't provide that!

 

That being said, I've got 64bit Windows Vista at home, and it works perfectly, and I'm starting to roll out 64bit machines onto our school network.

 

However, there isn't a lot of software that utilises 64bit (or dual cores or quad cores...), so there isn't much benefit, other than being able to use over 4gig of RAM. Unless you're using something like the Adobe Suite of software, which makes the most of everything your system can give it.

[AyatollahPies]

Probably because I'd estimate that 99% of computer users do not need 64-bit.

 

How many folk do you know that just browse the internet, update their Facebook profile (every 5 mins) and shop online? A celeron with 1GB ram is more than sufficient for this task.

 

I need it for my 8GB home PC though. :-)

[Jamo]

The transition is taking a long time, but it's coming. Server 2008 R2 is not available in 32bit form, Windows 7 64bit seems to be more the 'standard' installation, and I suspect the next version of Windows will be 64bit only (though they were saying that about Vista).

 

I had heard (Via an RM conference I am shamed to say) that 7 will be the last 32 bit OS from M$ and they will be looking at 128bit for the next OS. Not sure how much truth is in that but it will be interesting.

[Jamo]

I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected, that the reason why 64bit isn't standard (although I believe Server 2008 R2 is now 64bit only) is that older programs rely on 16bit or 8 bit processing, which a 64bit processor cannot do. I'm sure there's a very good technical answer, but i can't provide that!

 

That being said, I've got 64bit Windows Vista at home, and it works perfectly, and I'm starting to roll out 64bit machines onto our school network.

 

However, there isn't a lot of software that utilises 64bit (or dual cores or quad cores...), so there isn't much benefit, other than being able to use over 4gig of RAM. Unless you're using something like the Adobe Suite of software, which makes the most of everything your system can give it.

 

Its not the processor cannot do it, its that they havent written it into the OS. For 32 bit windows its the NTVDM (virtual DOS machine) that does 16 bit processing I believe. Out with the old and in the with new!

 

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_DOS_machine]Virtual DOS machine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[mirojr]

I have computers running mcafee AV! They could do with 128gig of RAM!

[wiwo]

It's not always easy to get drivers for 64bit operating systems. We use W7 64bit on most desktops, but Vista 32bit if it has a scanner attached.

 

Also some old curriculum software doesn't run on 64bit OS's, so we're in a transition phase.

[3s-gtech]

The next Winodws OS is looking to be in 2012, I haven't seen any roadmaps for 128bit processing - considering the memory limit with 64bit is in terms of exabytes, and the OSs can address many hundreds of GB of RAM, that won't be necessary for a while.

[Michael]

they will be looking at 128bit for the next OS

 

I highly doubt this. Windows 8 provisionally will be released as soon as next year or next and there isn't a single 128bit mainstream processor on the market.

[tmcd35]

I had heard (Via an RM conference I am shamed to say) they will be looking at 128bit for the next OS.

 

*cough* b*llsh*t *cough* - sorry - I'd hit the RM rep with a reality hammer sharpish! Does he realise how much addressable memory 64bit gives? Why on earth would we need an 128bit OS? Beside it's taken M$ nigh on 10 years to move from 32bit to 64bit. Can't see them moving from 64bit to 128bit in 3 years!

 

I think the problem with 64bit is their hasn't been any real consumer drive for it. 4Gb is still about average for RAM on a new consumer PC. Outside of specialist (professional) high-end software (photoshop, music, video, etc) there hasn't been any need for software to make the jump either.

 

Of course Moores law is now coming into play. Ram is now cheap enough that high end consumers want 8Gb or more and 4-core 64bit processors are becoming the norm. So based on that, this time next year I'd guess all new machines will be sold 64bit only and you'd have to buy 32bit seperatly if you need it.

 

I'd be confident in saying Windows 8 would be 64bit only

[Jamo]

128bit windows - Google Search

 

Lol yeah I realise it does seem a bit crazy, seems there might have been rumblings of it at M$ headquarters. I think it has more benefits in terms of other things like 4D vectors being able to put 4 32bit ints into a register or somthing has some weird benefits over 64 bit. The RAM thing would be insane though, even Norton 360 would escape being a memory hog!!

[mirojr]

Ok i will steer clear of the 128bit casio calculator watch I saw on ebay then

[tmcd35]

I think it has more benefits in terms of other things like 4D vectors being able to put 4 32bit ints into a register or somthing has some weird benefits over 64 bit.

 

Is this not the case now though? I thought the SSE/SIMD instruction set (or atleast some of them) where already 128bit. Also I thought most modern graphics chips where either 256bit or 512bit. With the oncoming advent og CPGPU's (AMD Bulldog, etc) I'm guessing alot of this highend work will be done by the GPU. My gut instinct is it won't effect the 'bitness' of the core x86 instruction set or a M$ Windows release.

 

Although Windows may have an increasing dependents on GPU technology, maybe that's what the RM rep was getting at?

[3s-gtech]

even Norton 360 would escape being a memory hog!!

 

Don't be silly. You could install that on Cray's newest and reduce it to light browsing capability.

[Jamo]

Yes I have to admit I was a bit skeptical when I heard about this rumour! I think the rumour has been effectively destroyed in this thread haha

[Dos_Box]

I have Windows 7 Ultimate x64 on my desktop with 6GB DDR3 RAM and my ThinkPad has Windows 7 Home Premium x64 with 4GB RAM. As both systems are quite new the x64 drivers we readily available and x64 systems do make better and more efficiant use of modern x64 processors than 32bit operating systems.

[tmcd35]

128 bit OS!!!!! Yikes!

 

Don't forget, 32 > 64 bit isn't twice as bit - it's billions of times bigger. Every bit doubles the addressable range.

 

Two seconds in Excel get us....

 

32bit = 4,294,967,295 addresses

64bit = 18,446,744,073,709,699,999 adresses

128bit = 340,282,366,920,948,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 addresses!

 

I don't even know what you'd call that number! (huge?)

 

edit: (2^(n+1))-1

[SYNACK]

I have heard that 7 will be the last 32bit OS also which is a good thing and will allow for better use of CPUs and a better quality OS. If you think about it Windows Vista (SP1+)was based on the Windows 2008 kernal and modules, Windows 7 was based on the Windows 2008 R2 build but as that build only comes in 64bit they have to be either rewriting it in parallel or messing with the 64bit code to make it cope in the 32bit space.

 

Given that the MS server OSs are usually better tested and optimized this may mean that the 32bit version of 7 is further away from the server core than the 64bit version. I go 64bit on all machines that will support it and have drivers avalible, there is some software that will not accept it (16bit) but that is becomming less common and x64 ditches a chunk of the old stuff that was weighing Windows down. Going x64 also in my specific case has meant more stable drivers as printer manufacturers have had to rewrite them for the more modern OSs.

 

x64 also runs fine on machines with 1GB or more of RAM and because of the closer relations to the server core and the lack of some of the legacy stuff is often more secure. When the Windows line is finally moved over to all 64 bit it will mean only one development platform which has got to be better for bug tracking and optomization. It is also good for large datasets for example an identical system running as an AD global catalogue will handle 13 times more clients running under 64bit instead of 32 - from a MS deployment presentation for Exchange 2007.

 

 

In regard to the 128 bit rumor I had thought that that was started by a job posting from MS for a developer in the Storage area indicating that it is more likely to be 128bit support for mass storage like hard drives so that single volumes can be bigger not a CPU architecture change. I agree with others that as there is no widespread consumer 128 bit processor that it is highly unlikely.

[garrya100]

Win 7 32 bit is a "bug fix" based on the Vista code and as such is not a 'subset' of the S2008R2 code. I imagine it would be the same for Win 7 64bit. S2008R2 is an extention of the S2008 64bit code to suit the new 'features' of Win 7. M$ has always said they only wanted to support 1 server code base, so S2008 32 is the last 32 bit server code. (Vista SP1 shares some code with S2008, and the kernals share similar instructions).

 

If M$ decide to build another 'new' consumer OS, I suspect it will be 64 only. If it's another extension of the existing code base there could be both flavours. There are still a lot of embeded devices out there running XP 32, so a market for a basic 32 OS still exists.

[srochford]

You need to remember that there are 2 things which can be "128 bit" (or any other number of bits) on a CPU - the data bus and the address bus.

 

There's almost certainly no need for an address bus to be bigger than 64 bit at the moment (not going to say "never" - at one time we were "never" going to need more than 640k of memory!) because that's what controls how much RAM you can use - as has been pointed out above, 2^64 is lots and lots of memory.

 

The data bus is a different matter - that's about the calculations that you can do and the bigger the data words you can handle, the faster and more precisely you can do maths which is what you want the CPU to do.

 

64 bit OS have been slow in getting under way because of the classic "no-one uses it so no-one develops for it". That at last is changing - almost all major manufacturers are shipping 64 bit drivers for new kit. We are planning to go to 64 bit Windows 7 on all our teaching machines this year. We've not had any problems with drivers for this and all the packages we use will work fine on 64 bit OS (some will be much better - eg some of the big maths and engineering applications have 64 bit versions which are really beneficial). We've come across a few 16 bit apps which won't be supported - so far, none looks like a show stopper.

 

Finally, it may not be as easy to use but you can do things like plugging a USB scanner into a 64 bit Windows 7 machine and connecting it to a virtual 32 bit Windows XP machine. This works for me at home but I'm not sure I'd want it running in a room full of kids :-) (although this is where the idea of having a dedicated machine attached to the scanner comes in)

[tmcd35]

S2008R2 is an extention of the S2008 64bit code to suit the new 'features' of Win 7..

 

Win7 maybe an update to the Vista code - never been bothered to check it out. But apparantly 2008 R2 is not an extention of the 2008 code. M$ went to some lengths at launch to suggest that the differences between 2008 and 2008R2 were more a kin to the differences between 2003 and 2008 than the differences between 2003 and 2003R2. Basically 2008R2 is major release of the OS not a minor update.

 

The reason for the R2 rather than Server 2010 name is so we don't have to go out and buy loads of new CAL's to use 2008R2, we can just use the standard 2008 CAL's.