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?
Thread beginning with comment 344846
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-08-29
If you tell us about your experience with fedora x64 you will be on topic, like the people telling us about their ubuntu x64 experiences are.
Been running ubuntu x64 for a while (using 8.04 atm, might have started with an earlier one) with no trouble except npviewer.bin still sucks (which is itself irrelevant, due to the x64 flash beta), not that I use flash much.
I switched because of a measurable performance increase in video decoding - about 25% as I recall.
Member since:
2006-08-01
Ubuntu, Ubuntu, again and again...
The first x86_64 distribution was Red Hat Linux 9 (a technical preview). Next was FC1. Just after was RHEL 3 (full support, not a technical preview). SuSE also did a good job. Long long before Ubuntu.
Smolt (mostly Fedora right now) :
http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html
x86 : 73.8 %
x86_64 : 25.7 %
Edit : from the begining of x86_64, rpm support mixing 32 bits and 64 bits applications.
Edited 2009-01-22 00:33 UTC