Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: 64 bit rant

  1. #1

    Default 64 bit rant

    are there really any users left with 32 bit processors anymore (let alone single cores, but that seems more plausible)? why is it so difficult for windows and the programmers of such compatible programs, run specifically 64 bit? why couldn't windows 7 be that cutoff point? even the intel atom processors finally made the jump to 64 bit! the linux community have been running 64 bit os's since, i think, 1986!(?)

  2. #2

    Default

    I do agree with everything you've said. I was going to suggest Atom CPUs as being 32-bit only, but I'll take your word for them jumping to 64-bit

    I think that the reason MS didn't make Windows 7 64-bit only is because of the lack of drivers. Generally speaking, Vista drivers will work on Windows 7, so manufacturers haven't had to write many brand new drivers. It would have resulted in a whole pile of devices not working in Windows 7, making people ignore it.

    That is, of course, no excuse for not making Vista 64-bit only, but that would likely have made Vista's launch even worse...

    I'm now running 64-bit Windows 7 on both my desktop & laptop (server's on 64-bit Ubuntu ), and don't have much in the way of drivers problems. In fact, the only one that comes to mind is my scanner (a Canon LiDE 20), but that doesn't even have 32-bit drivers for Vista, so I have to run it inside the Windows XP Mode VM (at least I can actually do that, though! Passing USB devices through to VMs is a fairly new feature...).

  3. #3
    Butterfly Mage

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by kite View Post
    are there really any users left with 32 bit processors anymore (let alone single cores, but that seems more plausible)? why is it so difficult for windows and the programmers of such compatible programs, run specifically 64 bit? why couldn't windows 7 be that cutoff point? even the intel atom processors finally made the jump to 64 bit! the linux community have been running 64 bit os's since, i think, 1986!(?)
    I remember that one of the reasons why Windows 95 had stability problems was that it ran a 16-bit and 32-bit kernal concurrently despite the rack that by 1995 there were no 16-bit computers in production.

    If Intel came up with an Atom/2, the current OS could be streamlined to support only dual-core 64-bit hardware. That would make the code size smaller and more efficient.

  4. #4

    Default

    Well, I did my part: my Laptop runs Windows 7 64 bits and Ubuntu 64 bits.

    Oh, and asking why Microsoft won't do something that makes sense is kind of rhetorical...

  5. #5

    Default

    Tell me one reason I'd want a 64 bit processor instead of a 32 bit processor.
    (note: this is a test)

  6. #6
    dahockeymasta97

    Default

    I run a 2-year old HP laptop with a 32-bit processor on Vista. It's really not slow or anything, and I've never had any compatibility programs, be it software or hardware. I don't see the point in having a 64-bit processor, at least yet. But I guess I'm just so out of date on my computers that I don't pay attention, even though I read PC World.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Jon View Post
    Tell me one reason I'd want a 64 bit processor instead of a 32 bit processor.
    (note: this is a test)
    well given the baseline for store bought, windows 7 based PCs are coming with 4+GB of RAM, that alone should be a good enough reason. not to mention that the 64 bit versions of W7 have hardware supported windows xp emulation and bitlocker/TPM support, whereas W7/32bit is software emulated or not supported at all. finally, with the market nearly only consisting of 64 bit chips now, why is there still issues with 64 bit compatibility in windows, while ubuntu is so much more streamlined and sensible (albiet, that's more in terms of the OSes, but i digress...)
    the reason why i started this rant is because i'm on the ultimate quest to run a completely native windows xp 64 bit computer. so far it's been meh though, with most programs going to a hybrid code format.



    I remember that one of the reasons why Windows 95 had stability problems was that it ran a 16-bit and 32-bit kernal concurrently despite the rack that by 1995 there were no 16-bit computers in production.
    my MOTU 2408 mk1 used a 16 bit installer. such a pain.

    all in all, i just think that there could be so much more done with 64 bit computing if we just made the move to it and not just 'meh' ing around it.

  8. #8

    Default

    What is the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit anyways? Does it only come down to addressing space, or does it mean the ALU is also larger? I really cant imagine needing more that 4GB of memory right now. Using 64-bits for time makes much more sense than the current 32-bit time, which will need to be changed before 2038.

    I do like how Windows 7 allows for both 32 and 64 bit addressing space. I think the only program I have that uses 64-nit is internet explorer, but I am sure many others will follow in time, there is no hurry.

  9. #9

    Default

    64-bit offers you essentially an infinite amount of addressing space for RAM now. It also means anything that uses a "double" on your machine is now a 128-bit number instead of 64-bit for a 32-bit. There's a lot of nice things and if it wasn't 3:30 I would detail them clearer but do you really need this technology now? Not really. If you're the type of person who is willing to shell out top dollar for these things there is technically a gain but for instance, if you don't intend on putting more than 4GB of ram in your machine...you certainly don't need a 64-bit addressing space when a 32-bit works. I never really looked into compatibility with old software and that would be a particular concern I have. I'm also not certain that if you use a 32-bit OS, if you even can, that the OS won't use the full 64-bit and basically the additional bits just are 0s in every proc command.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by yanni2 View Post
    It also means anything that uses a "double" on your machine is now a 128-bit number instead of 64-bit for a 32-bit.
    So the ALU is larger in a 64-bit CPU then a 32-bit. That should make things much faster.

Similar Threads

  1. Rant
    By Suspence in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 26-Aug-2009, 16:33
  2. Rant
    By Fire_lupine06 in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 16-Apr-2009, 22:09
  3. Rant..
    By Fire_lupine06 in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 17-Nov-2008, 02:15
  4. Profanity. (Kind of a rant, kind of.... not a rant)
    By Boogeyman in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-Oct-2008, 15:52
  5. emo rant
    By naughtybrat in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-Apr-2008, 08:22

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.