Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Jan 2009 11:30 UTC
We've been able to drop the world of 32bit for a while now, with 64bit processors and support for them being prevalent in all popular, modern operating systems. However, where Mac OS X and Linux seem to make the move to 64bit rather effortlessly, Windows has more problems. Even though 32bit applications should run fine on 64bit Windows, some don't; and to make matters worse, drivers need to be 64bit, as there's no support for 32bit drivers in 64bit versions of Windows. Still, Gizmodo claims that with Windows 7, the time is right to take the plunge. But really, is it so? And why do Linux and Mac OS X seem to handle the transition so much easier?
Permalink for comment 344696
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-05-02
FTA:
I'm somewhat confused by this statement. From the Wikipedia page about x86-64 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 it seems to me that 64 bit features of x86-64 CPU's can only be used in Long mode, and in order to get into Long mode, there must be a 64-bit kernel. If a kernel "runs in 32bit" (as stated in the article), the CPU should run in Legacy mode, making the 64bit features unavailable.
Also, the meaning of the parenthesis "(the kernel in Snow Leopard is supposed to be 64bit)" is not clear to me. Does it mean that since the Snow Leopard release of MacOS X the kernel does not "run in 32 bit" anymore, thus making the aforementioned technique (that I find dubious anyway) of running 32 bit drivers impossible?
Clarification would be appreciated! :-)