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 344757
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-05-02
Thanks, you're indeed right. Especially your second link provides some insight. The more I'm thinking about it, I find the Wikipedia page about x86-64 somewhat contradictory:
(...) It is used by 64-bit operating systems. (...)
which makes it sound as if only 64 bit operating systems can use the 64 bit features of the CPU (and which, in retrospect, also raises the question what constitutes as a "64-bit operating system").
Later, in the Mac OS X section, they claim that Mac OS X v10.5 uses the 64 bit capabilities of the CPU and also that "The kernel is 32-bit."
Hm. I guess I should put my thoughts on the Wikipedia x86-64 Talk page...