Why isn't 64-Bit Standard yet?

Silenced

Silenced

Silenced

Associate
Joined
26 Dec 2008
Posts
1,020
Location
Cornwall
Surely 64-Bit should become standard for machines now, it's not like it costs much more, and it's much much better as you can use more RAM.
 
Why should it be?
Rewriting software so that it compiles correctly under 64 bit is an effort, and a lot of people are still quite happy on 4gb or less of ram

'much better' needs to be justified with something more than 'you can use more ram'
 
cheaper to sell less than 4GB of RAM in pre-built systems.

32bit will be superseded by 64bit but that mostly depends on the market. basically, when PCWorld sells it as standard
 
Outside of enthusiast circles, how many people have more than 4GB of RAM? What benefits does a 64-bit OS bring to customers other than the removal of the RAM limitation? Where are users with older 32-bit CPUs supposed to go? Bear in mind that some CPUs from only 3 or 4 years ago were still 32-bit, so that would rule out a huge part of the market.
 
Lol, but PC World suck, like really bad... And yet I got my PC from there.... All that remains of the stock of it is the mobo (Replacing tomorrow), 266MHz RAM (Replacing tomorrow), HSF (Replacing tomorrow), CPU, DVD Drive and HDD's.
 
its slowly getting that way, im all for a total 64-bit changeover, with all these hardware advances recently there doesnt seem to be much in the way of software taking advantage of it
 
incompatibilities.
and as far as I remember, you can't get custom drivers for that, as you haven't got the option of installing something that ain't "digitally signed" by microsoft.
 
untill 32bit software can be run inside a 64bit OS i won't be making the move, i have far too many pieces of useful software which would become unusable
 
jaxon said:
untill 32bit software can be run inside a 64bit OS i won't be making the move, i have far too many pieces of useful software which would become unusable
Click to expand...

hmm i thought most 32 bit software was ok with x64 its 16 bit software which causes issues. the only problem i had with x64 is zone alarm didnt work but it does now
 
Indeed, not only are the Intel and AMD 64 CPUs not true 64-bit (they are x86-64, not x64), Vista 64 runs 32-bit applications via WOW64, a translation layer.
 
Silenced said:
Surely 64-Bit should become standard for machines now, it's not like it costs much more, and it's much much better as you can use more RAM.
Click to expand...

I would had thought the same reason its pointless having a HD tv on Virgin Media TV package. Cus there is little to no content for it
 
i now that Vista x64 can run any (or most) 32bit software. the most noticeable part of it is having 2 Program Files folders. one named Program Files and the other with x86 chucked on the end
 
reflux said:
Indeed, not only are the Intel and AMD 64 CPUs not true 64-bit (they are x86-64, not x64), Vista 64 runs 32-bit applications via WOW64, a translation layer.
Click to expand...

How exactly are AMD64 based CPUs not true 64-bit processors?
They have all the hallmarks of a 64-bit processor - wider registers, access to the 64-bit address space, can execute 64-bit code on chip, etc. It's not like they need any sort of software emulation to run a 64-bit binary, is it?
Just because they're based on the x86 instruction set doesn't make them 'fake'.

(btw: x86_64 and x64 are the same thing)
 
reflux said:
Indeed, not only are the Intel and AMD 64 CPUs not true 64-bit (they are x86-64, not x64), Vista 64 runs 32-bit applications via WOW64, a translation layer.
Click to expand...

This is true.

I havent encountered any problems with 32 bits apps in Vista 64. I cant think of a single program thats casused a problem.

My first 64bit OS was XP in 2005/early 06 and that was a nightmare for drivers. Your motherboard was ok, and graphics werent a problem but forget about printing!

Most processors are 64 bit capable even if the OS that ship with PC arent. Its far more common now than it was 3 years ago! When Windows 7 comes out I imagine it will probably finish off new 32 bit systems. Vista has half done it but 7 will completly. Thats not to say 32 bit drivers wont be available, its just I doubt many people will be selling it with new hardware.
 
80% of pc users want two things

1. a laptop
2. not to spend over £500

both of which mean having around 3gb of ram [which seems to be the in thing with Dell et al]

there is a place for the 32 bit os

basically because pc users are divided into three catagories

1. people like us who use their pc for more than facebook
2. people who use their pc for work [and chances are their whole works network uses XPpro]
3. and people who want to get on the internet for ten minutes and use msn

the bottom 2 catagories have no need for anything faster than a 2GHz dual core and 2gb of ram

i bet if i asked my mates who dont know/care much about computers
they wouldnt know what the difference is

64bit is there for people like us who WANT to use it

most just dont know what it is or why it exists

thats why i spend a good majority of my day setting up 32bit XP/vista on a lot of 4GB+ systems at work

obviously it would be difficult to call every customer individually and explain the pitfalls of having a 32bit OS crippling their new £5000 system

it is still very much enthusiast orientated

my guess is tat windows 8 may go the 64 bit only route but MS have to try not to alienate consumers - so its a bit of a 'no win' situation on all fronts
 
Last edited:
The thing is, if you want a true, from the ground up 64bit architecture, you can't have really have near full 32bit backwards compatability without a massive performance penalty.

X86-64 works around this by being an extension of the X86 architecture, so it can still natively execute 32bit code with no performance loss if the OS is 32bit only - admittadly, AFAIK. Itanium can also do this with WOW64 I think, but with a bigger performance hit as I don't believe you can run X86 OSs on it. But then have you priced Itaniums lately? There is a reason why Itaniums are the joke of the IT industry.

Now, you try running Win 7/64bit against a 32bit OS with the same x86-64 based CPU, and see if you get any noticable performance drop.

Ok, now try running Windows XP or Vista on SPARC, Power6 or any other "true", from the ground up 64 bit instruction set. Oh, wait, you can't...? That's called supply and demand. Sun, IBM etc have a small enough user base they can get away with running concurrent binaries on different code bases - MS can't, realistically.

Nowt wrong wtih X86-64. Yes, I agree that a total rewrite of Windows with pure 64bit code on Itanium [or a refined version of it] with a long lead time for the major software players to rewrite their apps, and limited backwards compatabilty would have been better overall [look at what happened to hardware platforms when 486 went to Pentium - EISA and VESA buses disappeared in the space of two years to be replaced by PCI...] for hardware development, but the problem is that x86/Windows32 is so saturated in the commercial and domestic market - 75%+ - that it's simply not possible to do that.

Nothing wrong with x86-64. It does what is currently required. Maybe in a decade when GPGPU computing, their architecture being dragged into the OS - look at SnowLeopard and OpenCL for a prime example - might cause a true sea change. I'm not hopeful though.

I can see x86, horrificallly inefficient though it is in comparison to SPARC, PowerX etc in many ways, being the dominant architecture for another ten years.

Christ, I bet Intel never thought someone would be saying that in 2009 when they pumped out the initial x86 microcode...
 
Interesting post Mr Raith - you've filled some of the gaps in my knowledge about 32bit and 64 bit OSs.

To be fair these gaps were volumous - but still i found it an informative post, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom