Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Jan 2009 11:30 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems 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?
Thread beginning with comment 344745
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Solaris
by Phobos on Wed 21st Jan 2009 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Solaris"
Phobos
Member since:
2008-04-30

The reason they dont talk about Solaris (which has been 64 bit many years back) is maybe because they mostly talk about Windows and other non Enterprise Server OS?


That of course if you don't consider OpenSolaris into the mix...

OpenSolaris is also a desktop oriented OS and should be considered, given that it has many advantages when comparing with the rest of the OSs

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Solaris
by poundsmack on Wed 21st Jan 2009 18:09 in reply to "RE[2]: Solaris"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

Solaris is a perfect example of how stable a 64 bit OS can be.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Solaris
by renox on Wed 21st Jan 2009 21:33 in reply to "RE[3]: Solaris"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh? bitness and stability are orthogonal, so I don't see why you're linking both..

Of course 64bit Solaris is stable: it has been 64bit since a long time (before AMD64 even existed with the SPARC) so it's a mature feature plus as Solaris is a server OS, its developers have always put a big emphasis on stability..

Reply Parent Score: 3