Are we ready to go fully 64-bit yet?

By | February 16, 2010, 12:29pm PST

Summary: Even a year and a half on, students still are not embracing 64-bit technology as much as they ’should’ be. Thoughts

Students don’t seem to be taking on 64-bit technology as much as I had expected, after doing a little off the cuff research. I said a year and a half ago that 32-bit technology was perfectly fine for the time being, but it’s just that.

It was over a year ago and we’re in a new decade with new technologies, new outlooks and new aspirations.

After asking a good number of my friends, ranging from computing experts through their degree course or general geeks, to ordinary lay people who study psychology and film studies, only two out of around twenty have a 64-bit operating system on their compatible machine.

I suspect there is one big reason. Blame the industry.

The notebook and netbook industry is huge among the student population with the vast majority owning one for the portability and almost disposability of the devices at the price they come in nowadays.

Students want something cheap and cheerful to keep them going through at least the academic year. The vast majority of the time they spend their time on Word, iTunes, some kind of web browser, maybe Spotify if they’re a music junkie, and an instant messenger - more often than not Windows Live Messenger because it’s only a few clicks away to install.

Most of these notebooks or netbooks are supplied with relatively basic kit - an average processor, an all-right hard drive and 2GB of RAM more often than not. The only major advantage to 64-bit computers is that the operating system can support more than 4GB of RAM.

The benefits of 64-bit technology is that you can still run most 32-bit applications but many applications offer 64-bit versions which allow more memory to be consumed and general better-running of the program. But 16-bit applications are not supported and simply don’t run. Granted, the chances are of running a 16-bit application nowadays are slim, but as an advanced BlackBerry user, there are some out there still which I need.

I needed a fresh, student perspective. I asked my old friend Bryant Zadegan who runs the reincarnated AeroXP site, winJade.net:

“x64 operating systems are relatively standard on any new laptop with 4GB RAM or more. To the average student, whether the laptop is running an x86 or an x64 operating system doesn’t matter. It’s generally a transparent process for most end users, which is likely why there aren’t too many students specifically asking to have an x64 operating system on their laptops.”

I then took the chance to speak to my good friend Elliot Harrison, former Neowin writer and stand-in for me here on this blog. He converted from Mac to Windows only a few months ago after being a die-hard Apple user, and recently switched from 32-bit Windows to 64-bit Windows to take advantage of the 4GB RAM “trick”:

“Upgrading to an x64 bit operating system was an absolute must for me. I have a computer with 4GB RAM and a 1GB graphics card, but the extra gigabyte which before remained dormant can now be used to better process applications upon the operating system. It might not seem like much of a gain, but it is a gain nonetheless and I have noticed the difference. The speed of processes has increased and provides me with a better computing experience.

The upgrading process was not particularly easy with hundreds of gigabytes of data to back up and keep safe; granted Windows Restore did the job nicely with a separate backup on an external drive. However, the stress is very much worthwhile if you’ve got a PC with amazing hardware lying dormant. Third-party applications are still fairly few and far between, however if it is just everyday computing users of a x64 bit operating system should be fine.”

I suspect the lack of drivers still, after a year and a half after writing my first 64-bit themed post, according to one of my friends who has an up to date 64-bit system, is still a major draw back in restricting students from going to the “other side”.

I do however believe that once Microsoft takes the step in going fully 64-bit in their offerings of operating systems, others will follow suit and 64-bit drivers will be more available than 32-bit drivers. That is my hope, anyway.

Would you go to 64-bit now? Are today’s students ready to switch over to the “other side” or will it take a good couple of years yet? Have you say.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
136
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Are we ready to go fully 64-bit yet?
RhymesWithGeek 16th Mar 2010
This is like a discussion on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

It is irrelevant for a number of reasons:

1. Students are not the only audience or demographic. Hobbyist computer users still exist.
2. Gamers.
3. Installed User Base

I am trying to get a handle on why these points were not raised, #2 especially. For nearly a decade and a half, games drove hardware purchases. I can't count how many times some pundit has forecast the demise of the PC only to end up eating crow having not taken into consideration PC gaming. Gamers have unusually deep pockets and will shell out for hardware when compelling. What makes for compelling is of course software. But no software "needs" 64 bit, just really fast 32 bit.

I also don't really understand your stance on #3. It seems you think people are made out of money (in the worst recession in 60 years no less), whereby people simply junk their existing hardware so they fulfill some prediction of yours and hit some some sort of critical mass of technological advancement. The fact of the matter is that the existing hardware even hardware from 10 years ago was never exploited to anywhere near its potential (Thank You O/S makers!) and most people have far more hardware than they know what to do with.

Given that it hardware is already under-utilized, is there any point in even more advanced hardware?
0 Votes
+ -
More isn't better, or necessary
croberts 16th Feb 2010
Yes, if you need more than 3 gig of RAM, 64 bit is for you.

But seriously, most people have only 512 mb video ram, and with BIOS memory, they get somehere between 3 and 3.5 gig. Plenty.

It is true that 64 bit windows has additional security, but that that is a weak reason to go 64-bit when most hacks are against Flash, Browser, and PDF.

So unless you are doing something that needs a ton of RAM, you most certainly don't need to go 64-bit or even worry about it.
I have many friend that run intensive games on 2GB or less. 3.5 BG ram and .5BG video is fine for 95+% of the users out there.
0 Votes
+ -
Better or necessary? So we stay dormant?
wds21921@... 18th Feb 2010
Without the advances we don't know whether or not it's better or necessary because we rooted in a dated technology. Without trying, it's a question that can't honestly be answered even by you. Do we need microwave cooking? No but it makes things a lot faster, simpler and more convenient.
0 Votes
+ -
Given that...
wright_is 18th Feb 2010
Adobe CS3 was killing my 3GB equipped XP machine, I would say that more memory is a good thing!

When the machine had 1GB, Fireworks would blue screen if I tried to open 2 files at the same time. At 3GB, it would regularly run out of virtual memory trying to load 2 or more files (each .png was about 50MB).

I buy machines with 4GB as standard now, so it makes sense to go with 64-bit. It doesn't have any drawbacks over 32-bit - all the drivers are in place - and it has room for future expansion.
0 Votes
+ -
Not most people.
IT_Guy_z 16th Feb 2010
The "average" computer user does not need 64-bit. And I'm NOT talking about gamers, graphic artists, video editors, or most folks who post here.

People who use word processing programs, surf the Internet, and send e-mails, have no need whatsoever for 64-bit computing.
0 Votes
+ -
It's more secure
Cylon Centurion Updated - 16th Feb 2010
However.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_Patch_Protection


Malware lost a huge battle here.
0 Votes
+ -
No reason not to run 64-bit
D.T.Schmitz 16th Feb 2010
As for myself, it's Ubuntu 9.10 x86_64 and there's an app for every need compiled to execute 64-bit instructions.
0 Votes
+ -
Same here
codefisher 17th Feb 2010
Same boat here. Ubuntu 9.10 x86_64 and everything comes compiled as 64bit fine. The only problem is potentially with 3rd party closed source apps like flash, Adobe reader and Skype not being 64bit.
0 Votes
+ -
Agreed, although...
wright_is 18th Feb 2010
I run Windows 7 64-bit, as well as SUSE.

Apart from no 64-bit Flash for Internet Exploiter, I haven't found any problems with the 64-bit version.

That said, as I surf with Firefox and I have Flash disabled on most sites anyway, it isn't really that much of a problem.
0 Votes
+ -
YES YES YES
bobiroc 16th Feb 2010
With Today's hardware already supporting it and has been supporting it for years along with modern OSes running 64bit and 32bit software without a problem the answer is yes. I do not agree with the first poster as it is not all about Ram. There are many other benefits to 64bit computing besides the amount of ram it will address. Besides today's computers are coming with 3- 4GB minimum in most cases and I see that many OEMs are installing 64bit OSes standard which is good IMO.
0 Votes
+ -
There aren't MANY benefits in moving to 64-bit for most users
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 16th Feb 2010
Most users, remember, use a word processor, email client, spreadsheet, presentation tool, browser and may run a number of in-house LOB apps.

Most PC users don't run enough apps consuming enough RAM to exhaust 4GB ... yet.

Other than that, there aren't THAT many reasons to move to 64-bit for MOST users. There are only a few processor benefits to moving to 64-bit, most of which are countered by the increased size of integer and pointer types which consume more memory cache processor bandwidth and reduce caching efficiency.

However, as more and more apps start becoming increasingly sophisticated and start requiring more RAM, users will start to see a need to have more than 4GB on tap. THEN 64-bit will become a necessity.
0 Votes
+ -
What downside is there?
bobiroc 16th Feb 2010
Not much that I can think of. All Desktop and most mobile processors made today are 64bit except a few netbook ones like that Atom. I think even AMD's NEO processor supports 64bit already. 64bit OSes run their 32bit software just fine and lack of 64bit drivers have become a thing of the past for the most part except maybe for some older hardware. If you are currently on a system running a 32bit OS then fine but if you plan to upgrade your OS or get a new computer then go 64bit my friend even if you only have 4GB of Ram. Maybe some users will not benefit from going 64bit but going 64bit sure is not hurting them.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes they do
Cylon Centurion 17th Feb 2010
My new laptop sports an x64 Neo.

But security is a huge reason to move users to x64.
0 Votes
+ -
There is a downside.
DevGuy_z 17th Feb 2010
And that is you don't use memory as efficiently.
In some cases this can result in a performance hit.

For me I run Virtual Machines and so I need more memory to support that.
0 Votes
+ -
Specifically ...
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 17th Feb 2010
... in a 64-bit process, all integer and pointer types are now 64-bit by default. This causes most apps to inflate by 20-30%, or more.

This means 64-bit code and data consumes more disk space, requires more disk IO to read and/or write from/to disk.

Once read into memory, this inflated code and data now takes more room in RAM.

When executed, 64-bit data takes twice the memory bandwidth to read and write and because the data is far larger, consumes more of the data cache and causes caching to be less efficient (fewer values in cache at any time).

Combined, this can cause considerable performance hindrances. So, for apps that don't need to consume > 2GB RAM, there is little reason to compile them as 64-bit.

HOWEVER, the OS absolutely should move to 64-bit because it can then load more apps into memory simultaneously and can set it's kernel free by practically eliminating the memory constraints that most modern 32-bit OS' currently live under.

The net-net is that whilst 64-bit processes can utilize some new instructions to deliver faster performance and can access > 2GB of memory, they *can*, in certain circumstances, be engineered to perform faster than their 32-bit equivalent. However, this generally requires careful engineering and doesn't come for free.

Most apps, however, will NOT run faster if they're simply compiled to 64-bit and may run noticeably slower.

Now a few more complications:

The fact that you can't load 32-bit code into 64-bit processes and vice-versa is a problem. Particularly for apps that allow add-ins like browsers, MS Office, Visual Studio, Adobe's software, etc. Every 64-bit version of Windows ships with a 64-bit copy of IE, but because Adobe doesn't ship a 64-bit Flash add-in, no Flash apps will work in IE. Depending on your viewpoint, this isn't necessarily a bad thing wink

So, to summarize: Moving to a 64-bit OS on a machine with 4GB RAM has few benefits since you now still have a smaller amount of memory you're loading larger code and data into.

The only real benefit to using a 64-bit OS with 4GB RAM, the only real way to benefit from all the extra room you now have is to run a 64-bit OS which can now load more apps (whether 32-bit or 64-bit) into memory at the same time with plenty of room.
0 Votes
+ -
32 and 64 side by side
pgit 17th Feb 2010
I'm running a 64 bit Linux OS and have numerous 32 bit apps, plugins, libraries etc that work in the 64 bit environment seamlessly.

Granted things like flash have to match the coding of the browser, but I have 64 bit firefox with a 64 bit flash plugin provided by adobe themselves. (not open source but free as in beer)

I don't know how it goes in windows but from the sounds of the article it's the same; if the app is only available in 32 bit, no problem. Install, run, enjoy.

The memory mapping issue mentioned in an earlier thread is a problem, a manufacturer's problem at the moment.
0 Votes
+ -
It's the same in Windows
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 17th Feb 2010
On the box upon which I type this, I am running Win7 x64.

I am running several 32-bit apps: Visual Studio 2008 & 2010 (both 32-bit dev environments), several IE panes are open each in their own 32-bit process.

I am also running several 64-bit processes (other than the several hundred 64-bit OS processes, services etc): Explorer, Task Manager, WinRAR, SQL Server, IIS, etc.

As I pointed out in my prior post and which you alluded to on your own box: we cannot load 32-bit code into a 64-bit process. Until Adobe shipped their beta 64-bit Flash add-in, you couldn't run FF 64-bit and see Flash content.

Sometimes, this is a benefit. Othertimes it's a hinderance.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, there are downsides
ziffdavis@... 1st Mar 2010
Strange though it may seem, there are still a lot of manufacturers out there who have not made 64-bit drivers available. I first encountered this when I went to Vista 64 and found that my Palm TX PDA could no longer sync because there was no driver for the USB sync cord. More lately, I have to run my HP 4070 ScanJet (my only scanner with a transparency adapter) in a Virtual XP environment.

And there are still some really good applications around that were released in a 16-bit environment. My favourite CAD app is Generic Cadd 6. I still keep a WinXP machine around just so that I can run this "old favourite", 'cause Win7-64 just won't do it.
0 Votes
+ -
no reason to go 64 but no reason not to either
eggmanbubbagee@... Updated - 16th Feb 2010
We might as well go ahead and kill 32 bit now so that more and more software can be written to run in 64 bit mode - we need a single standard.

But unless you need or want to run a lot Ram there is no compelling reason to go 64, until mpre apps are written for it, that is - this is the catch 22. It's up to us tech gurus to push things that way for the betterment of computing.
0 Votes
+ -
You don't need 64 bit apps to use up 4 GB of memory. You just need two or three 32 bit apps taking up 3 to 4 GB of memory. Even 32 bit apps can benefit from a 64 bit system, because they're sharing the memory with a bunch of other applications.

It's a bit of a myth that you absolutely need 64 bit apps to take advantage of a 64 bit system.

It's also true that not all apps are using 4 GB of memory yet. A small application that only uses 10 megs of memory would be rather silly to convert to a 64 bit application. It's the applications that take a lot of memory that generally need to be converted to 64 bit.
0 Votes
+ -
Here in the US, 64-bit preinstalled Windows operating systems have been the consumer standard, for quite a while, on medium-to-high end computers.

Back in December 2008, I custom ordered a desktop computer on HP.com. Vista x64 was the default operating system. Vista-32 wasn't even available as a custom option.

I have had zero software or hardware compatability problems with Vista x64. I suppose some ancient stuff might not work, but anything sold in the past couple years should have been designed to work with x64.
0 Votes
+ -
You are correct
mswift@... 17th Feb 2010
At least in the US the big box stores had only 64 bit Vista Home available once Vista started to ship. Lots of those machines came with 6GB so people would get the idea of a more powerful machine. Marketing, yes, but that is what has been sold. It enables us to sell an app that uses SQL Express and has great performance.
0 Votes
+ -
We need to for desktops and laptops
T1Oracle 16th Feb 2010
Until there is a low power 64 bit CPU for Netbooks and slim Notebooks however, some things will have to stay 32 bit.

The benefit here is not about performance but the value of having a single standard.
0 Votes
+ -
Of course we are.
WinTard 16th Feb 2010
Ever since most if not all recent CPUs became 64 bit compliant.

There are no more excuses.

As well, 64-bit memory access is twice as fast for the same clock cycle as their 32-bit counterparts. Actually all 32-bit CPUs nowadays really use the 32-bit hardware compatibility mode of a truly 64-bit hardware CPU.

So running anything 32-bit is a waste of time and resources.
0 Votes
+ -
You need to check your facts
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 16th Feb 2010
Depending on your chipset, you may have a 64-bit CPU, but might only have a 32-bit memory bus!

Also, note that the performance of 64-bit code can take a hit because int's and pointers are now twice as big, require more memory IO bandwidth, make caching far less efficient and can slow some types of app quite considerably.

In general, 32-bit apps STILL run faster on a 64-bit CPU in a 64-bit OS than their 64-bit version does!
0 Votes
+ -
You must be under the influence of Apple and their crippled OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.2 and its ******** propaganda.

Excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

Intel 64 Implementations
Intel's first processor to activate the Intel 64 technology was the multi-socket processor Xeon code-named Nocona later in 2004. In contrast, the initial Prescott chips (February 2004) did not enable this feature. Intel subsequently began selling Intel 64-enabled Pentium 4s using the E0 revision of the Prescott core, being sold on the OEM market as the Pentium 4, model F. The E0 revision also adds eXecute Disable (XD) (Intel's name for the NX bit) to Intel 64, and has been included in then current Xeon code-named Irwindale. Intel's official launch of Intel 64 (under the name EM64T at that time) in mainstream desktop processors was the N0 Stepping Prescott-2M. All 9xx, 8xx, 6xx, 5x9, 5x6, 5x1, 3x6, and 3x1 series CPUs have Intel 64 enabled, as do the Core 2 CPUs, as will future Intel CPUs for workstations or servers. Intel 64 is also present in the last members of the Celeron D line.

The first Intel mobile processor implementing Intel 64 is the Merom version of the Core 2 processor, which was released on 27 July 2006. None of Intel's earlier notebook CPUs (Core Duo, Pentium M, Celeron M, Mobile Pentium 4) implements Intel 64.

So yeah, you could say 64 bit enabled CPU were there in 2004. What year are we in today? 2010?

It's about time. And for the record, a 64-bit processor is defined by its data bus width of 64-bits and address bus width also 64-bit wide.

Duh!

Be careful what you believe, especially coming from Apple's self-serving half-truths...

~~~~~~~~~~~
If you believe everything you read; better not read!
{Chinese Proverb}
0 Votes
+ -
All computers wait at the same speed
IT_User 16th Feb 2010
The average user's computer is waiting for a keystroke or a bit to arrive or transmit. The processor and internal memory are idle. You want to speed up the wait, fine. But don't spend a lot of money on it.
And for the record, a 64-bit processor is defined by its data bus width of 64-bits and address bus width also 64-bit wide.

De-void's statement may be technically accurate in that a 64-bit CPU may have a 32-bit memory bus.

AMD64 currently has a 48-bit address bus. That in no way, shape, or form makes it anything less than a 64-bit CPU.

In actuality, 64-bit refers to the internal processes of the chips and not the external interfaces such as memory address bus or data bus widths.
0 Votes
+ -
@WinTard: Again, you need to do some more reading and learning
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 17th Feb 2010
A 64-bit CPU is a CPU which supports 64-bit addressing and 64-bit data.

However, note that no current-generation Intel CPU, motherboard chipset nor motherboard support a full physical 64-bit address bus.

For example, even Intel's latest Core i7 (Nehalem) CPU's can only physically access up to 24GB RAM.

When Intel first introduced x64 CPU's there was a well publicized issue that the 945 chipset would only allow up to 2GB RAM to be physically accessed!

On top of these physical limitations is that most OS' today don't actually support the full 64-bit address range becase doing so will unnecessarily bloat the kernel data structures used to map virtual to physical memory.

You'd do well to read Mark Russinovich's fantastic series of articles on Memory, Virtual Memory etc., to better understand this subject ... preferably BEFORE you mouth off in front of a large forum like this.
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx
0 Votes
+ -
is a 8-12% performance increase.
$
Do not forget that the 64bt mode on processor
actually double the number of available
registers. This seriously reduce the bandwidth
need for local computations when using
appropriate compilers.

Do not forget also that only pointers are
doubled in size, pointers are not the major
part of data used.
0 Votes
+ -
Useful data
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 17th Feb 2010
But somewhat app-specific.

All unspecified integers (i.e. int vs. int_32) also grow to 64-bit. Most apps have A LOT of these.

Adobe spent a HUGE amount of time and effort tuning the living daylights out of Photoshop 64-bit. Adobe's own John Nack has much to say on this subject:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/08/a_64-bit_reality_check.html

And in this piece, John asked the Adobe engineers why they didn't see more improvement due to more registers:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/08/photoshop_64-bit_registers.html

Their answer was: "Most of the code we've identified as performance bottlenecks was long ago optimized, and in some cases hand-optimized," replied Jon Clauson. "Such code really doesn't get any faster because the processor/compiler has more registers to play with. We were happy we saw a general 8-12%." He also noted that in many cases, Photoshop is not processor-bound, but rather memory bandwidth-bound."

I echo this latter point too: do NOT underestimate the cost of 64-bit data traversing the memory bus. It can be a perf killer.

Tony Bourke wrote a piece examining 64-bit vs 32-bit code too. It's a little dated now, but the number still pretty much hold up today.
http://www.osnews.com/story/5768/Are_64-bit_Binaries_Really_Slower_than_32-bit_Binaries_/page2/

This is also a useful discussion on the realities of 64-bit code:
http://blogs.msdn.com/maoni/archive/2007/05/15/64-bit-vs-32-bit.aspx

HTH.
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft and WHQL drivers
honeymonster 16th Feb 2010
Since Vista, Microsoft has set the availability of both
32 and 64 bit drivers as an absolute requirement which
must met if you want your driver to have the WHQL stamp.

In my experience, save a few obscure printer drivers I
have not found any drivers missing on 64 bit.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree. What hardware can you NOT get 64-bit drivers for?
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 16th Feb 2010
It's been AGES since I last saw a currently supported device for which I can't get a 64-bit driver.

Heck, even Line6 finally got around to producing a 64-bit driver for their POD line of guitar FX boxes.

What devices/hardware are you not able to get 64-bit drivers for?
0 Votes
+ -
As contrary to vista 32 it is impossible on vista
64 ( don't know the status for 7-64 ) to de
activate the necessity of signed drivers, some
minor open soruce projects cannot be installed (
VPN solutions, virtualization solutions )

certifying a driver is expensive and cumbersome,
and cannot be achieved by non major open soruce
projects, or small software stacks.
0 Votes
+ -
Signed drivers
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 17th Feb 2010
THANK GOODNESS Microsoft took this stance with 64-bit versions of their OS. Preventing unsigned code from running in the kernel is one of the best things they did for Vista+.

It's the primary reason why 64-bit versions of Windows are not as susceptible to rootkits as 32-bit versions are.

You refer to VPN driver issues: I assume you're talking about Cisco. I suggest you talk to Cisco and help them understand that if they're not willing to solve your problems by actually testing and signing their drivers, then you'll find a better supplier.

What virtualization solutions are you having issues with? I've tried several without problems thus far.

Signing drivers may be more cumbersome, but the process is cumbersome for a damn good reason: You don't want code you don't trust compiled by someone you can't identify running in your kernel. Period.
0 Votes
+ -
I was talking about OS projects
s_souche 17th Feb 2010
a year or so ago, you could'nt install virtualbox
on vista 64 for that matter, they did no deem
necessary or ha dnot th rsoruces to have their
network driver certified.

for SVN solution, it was also around a year ago,
and was an OSS implementation. small project, no
way to have certification as easily as for a big
corp.
0 Votes
+ -
Sadly, a few. I have converted one older PC to Win7 64, but have another with adequate memory etc, and running XP very well, that I cannot get a video card driver nor an ethernet card driver for 64 bit. Does not make sense as that PC is only a few years old. Treo 755p is another example. Looks like the manufacturers just want to shelve these legacy products and sell a newer product? So 64 bit drivers are not everywhere. On the other hand, the Win7 64 flies with many programs!
0 Votes
+ -
I am perfectly happy with a 32-bit machine. If I need more than 3.5GBs of RAM, I will install a PAE linux kernel. There is little reason for 64-bit besides the RAM limit increase, which means nothing to linux users. Besides, there are not many 64-bit apps out there yet, even firefox is 32-bit! (Well, exept in Linux). If someone gave me a 64-bit machine, I would put 32-bit Linux on it with PAE. Hell, my server (and occasionally also a desktop) is a P4 1.5Ghz with 512MB of RAM with Fedora Linux 10! We do not need 64-bit yet.
0 Votes
+ -
Less than 5 years old, so there is no reason why someone should not be able to find drivers for their applications.

And yes, there is a reason to go 64-bit: speed improvements. My computer that had 32-bit Windows 7 on it is MUCH faster with 64-bit Windows on it, plus it can take advantage of all it's memory.
0 Votes
+ -
Too bad you use windows.
bendib 16th Feb 2010
Linux users can address more than 4GB of RAM by installing a PAE kernel.
Horses for courses, etc. If you have 4GB+ of RAM then there's no good reason to run a 32 bit OS. I'd be very surprised if a motherboard capable of holding > 4GB would only have a 32 bit CPU installed.
0 Votes
+ -
True, but...
bendib 17th Feb 2010
my point was that the only reason for me to switch to 64-bit was the RAM increase, but I found a workaround. Besides, I'm a bit scared of 64-bit. Half the stuff I use will not build for a 64-bit x86 target, at least not without fiddling.
0 Votes
+ -
??
Orangy 16th Feb 2010
Thanks for the information, but no one asked.
0 Votes
+ -
He's got a point.
chalbersma.12 16th Feb 2010
Man he's got a point. Almost every board with the ability to handle more than 4 gigs of ram is compat with a 64 bit proc.
0 Votes
+ -
Someone had to start.
bendib 17th Feb 2010
It just happened to be me.
0 Votes
+ -
Shame you bothered ...
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 17th Feb 2010
... PAE != 64-bit.

I am sure we'd all have been better off without your prior recommendation.
0 Votes
+ -
Native support vs PAE hack
CobraA1 Updated - 16th Feb 2010
Thanks, but I prefer my native support over a PAE hack any day.

If you want, though, Windows does actually support PAE. It's just disabled by default.
0 Votes
+ -
Hmmm....
bendib 17th Feb 2010
I didn't know Microsoft had caught up there. I was actually very surprised when I learned that the NT kernel was not bound to 26 drives. So what? They mount the extra drives? Anyway, do you install some sort of update? How do you pick a kernel? The NT kernel can't even be executed through GRUB, and even the Haiku bootloader can do that!
0 Votes
+ -
PAE has been in use by Windows since
WinTard 16th Feb 2010
Windows 2000, you know, the one that came out in 1999? LMAO!

When will Linux heads get out from under their rocks? Wake up and smell the coffee!

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx
Operating system Maximum memory support with PAE
Windows 2000 Advanced Server
8 GB of physical RAM

Windows 2000 Datacenter Server
32 GB of physical RAM

Windows XP (all versions)
4 GB of physical RAM*

Windows Server 2003 (and SP1), Standard Edition
4 GB of physical RAM*

Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition
32 GB of physical RAM

Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition
64 GB of physical RAM

Windows Server 2003 SP1, Enterprise Edition
64 GB of physical RAM

Windows Server 2003 SP1, Datacenter Edition
128 GB of physical RAM

And that is OLD info...

PAE? It's DEAD.

~~~~~~~~~~~
I think, at a child's birth, if a mother could ask a fairy godmother to endow it with the most useful gift, that gift would be curiosity.
~ Eleanor Roosevelt, 1884-1962, Former First Lady of the United States
It certainly doesn't seem to apply to WinXP, which your own post shows has a hard 4 GB limit.

Thanks, but I don't know anyone who runs a "Datacenter Edition" on his/her desktop or laptop.

As for PAE, my laptop has 2 GB of RAM and > 1 GB of graphics memory, and runs a PAE Linux kernel. But that's mainly because you need a PAE kernel for NX support.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Are we ready to go fully 64-bit yet?
RhymesWithGeek 16th Mar 2010
This is like a discussion on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

It is irrelevant for a number of reasons:

1. Students are not the only audience or demographic. Hobbyist computer users still exist.
2. Gamers.
3. Installed User Base

I am trying to get a handle on why these points were not raised, #2 especially. For nearly a decade and a half, games drove hardware purchases. I can't count how many times some pundit has forecast the demise of the PC only to end up eating crow having not taken into consideration PC gaming. Gamers have unusually deep pockets and will shell out for hardware when compelling. What makes for compelling is of course software. But no software "needs" 64 bit, just really fast 32 bit.

I also don't really understand your stance on #3. It seems you think people are made out of money (in the worst recession in 60 years no less), whereby people simply junk their existing hardware so they fulfill some prediction of yours and hit some some sort of critical mass of technological advancement. The fact of the matter is that the existing hardware even hardware from 10 years ago was never exploited to anywhere near its potential (Thank You O/S makers!) and most people have far more hardware than they know what to do with.

Given that it hardware is already under-utilized, is there any point in even more advanced hardware?

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix