Recently, Windows XP 64-bit Edition has turned Gold and by the end of the month it will be retailed. What are the advantages of the 64 bit technology, how does it work and what was the history of its introduction on the consumer market, all these topics wiere debated in this article.
Windows versus Windows or 32-bit versus 64bit in a reality test
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I think the computing industry needs to ask itself, what does 64-bit platforms deliver on the desktop that 32-bit doesn’t? The only advantage I can see at the moment is that x86_64 has more registers, but that’s it. No-one will ever need more than 4 gig RAM on the desktop.
I assume you aren’t a programmer then.
64-bit has an advantage because you can copy 64-bits at once instead of just 32-bits. You can write optimized string functions to work by Qwords instead of bytes.
Sure, it’s not an improvement of 200%, but it is an improvement. And yes, people will need more than 4gigs of ram on the desktop.. in time.
Finally someone who understands the big difference between 32 and 64 bit, I assume you are a fellow developer then?
@CloudNine
The way alot of high end apps are moving along the need for 4 GB or more on the desktop is looming nigh, and I’m not just talking about the Video editors, but games, games are become more, and more detailed, longer, and more in depth, with MANY options.
/2cents
“The way alot of high end apps are moving along the need for 4 GB or more on the desktop is looming nigh”
It better not be just for 3D eye candy, the computers better be doing the works themselves, talking, etc.
Yea, let me remind you…
Bill’$ famous words: “no one will ever need more than 640k”
Where working with raw image file in the 100’s of meg’s size ranges.
My roommate is currently running a dual g-5 with 4 gigs of ram in them and can max one machine out with ease.
With XP, OS X, Heck even KDE requiring a good 512mb to run easily, plus another few hundred just to a get a few apps up, you load up two or three large images and 4 gigs are gone in no time flat.
Also Windows 64-bit leaves much to be desired apps wise. At least on Macs the third party programs are begining to convert over.
64-bit has an advantage because you can copy 64-bits at once instead of just 32-bits.
What good is that if primative data types such as integers become 64 bit as well? It’ll just tax the memory bus twice as much as it does running 32-bit mode.
I’ve been playing around a lot with various virtualization and emulation technologies and if I could afford 4G ram, I’d do it. Hell, 128G ram would be great if I were running a virtual server farm. Consider having a farm of User Mode Linux instances and each one getting 1G of ram.
I’m not sure how it works exactly, but I don’t thing that’s true.
Yes, you will need in the future more than 4 gig of RAM. Two things will push this:
1/ Video: after digital camera, affordable digital video device are coming. You need lot of RAM and storage for processing video efficiently.
2/ Next-gen UI: with 16/32 bits graphical personal computer (Atari ST, Amiga, Mac 68k but not PC) it was not unusual to have application eating 1/4 or more of your RAM for graphics and windows in order to have low latency and responsive UI. I expect the same for next-gen UI due to 32 bits depth and dynamic display composing.
2 Gig of ram will probably be needed in 2/3 years for some (new) casual work. And 2 Gig will hit the memory barrier of processes in current OS (4 gig is not the real barrier). After the 2 Gig barrier, 64 bits are necessary to avoid OS declining performance.
My main interest would be for games. Based on these results until games and drivers are optimized for 64-Bit don’t bother with XP64
Gates never actually said that. That quote is incorrectly credited to him everywhere I look.
by library functions?
OHHHH… it will make it easy for LAZY developers who do not want to go through the extra work of separating the GUI from the program operation.
seriously…. it is only worthwhile to the VB.Net developers who want 64 bitness.
No-one will ever need more than 4 gig RAM on the desktop.
Actually, the limit is more like 2GB. Because virtual address space is used for other stuff, usually only 2-3GB is available for physical memory. I haven’t seen very many 32-bit motherboards that’ll let you put in more than 2GB. And 2GB isn’t a lot of memory. When the new compositing desktop environments come out, your 1600×1200 desktop will chew up several hundred of those meg right off the bat. Now, consider the enormous dataset of games like Doom III (HQ mode requires 512MB of graphics memory alone!), and 2GB seems quite limiting indeed.
At the end of the day, the most likely reason to go 64-bit will be because you can. RAM is cheap. 4GB can be had for like $170, shipped. At those prices, there is no reason *not* to get that much.
The test pointed out that as long as there isn’t a wide range of 64 bit applications, migrating from Windows x32 to Windows x64 is not yet justified,
it lacks the ability to run 32 bit code… well, then why buy this?
win64 will be a corporate windows distribution because corporations will benefit from custom 64 bit apps… home users will not buy this because they want to run all the apps they have and want to get and developers will not release games and software for win 64 until it can be justified….
I think if MS had made it possible to run 32 bit apps natively, then it would have been a different story.
When the new compositing desktop environments come out, your 1600×1200 desktop will chew up several hundred of those meg right off the bat.
I don’t know about you, but my composited desktop won’t be utilizing software rendering and system RAM. It’ll be on the video hardware.
N00b.
ram prices are dropping link a stone and £20 buys you 512megs 400mhz ram, now there may not be consumer applications at the moment but they will come. hell if nothing else you will soon be able to have a 4 gig ramdisk and run all apps out of ram caching them to disk later and removing the slowest part of the computer
“What good is that if primative data types such as integers become 64 bit as well? It’ll just tax the memory bus twice as much as it does running 32-bit mode.”
A 64 bit memory bus will always read 64 bits. A 32 bit memory bus will always read 32 bits. You can mask and isolate individual bytes, or whatever. And the reads will take the same amount of time (assuming the same memory clock frequency). You aren’t ‘taxing’ the memory bus anymore so to speak. Think of it this way.
You have 2 highways. One with 32 lanes…one with 64 lanes.
Only one convoy (one shipment) may make use of the highway at any given time.
So if a convoy of 64 trucks takes the 64 lane highway and a convoy of 32 trucks takes the 32 lane highway…is one being taxed or stressed more? I don’t think so.
So yes, if you’re reading an individual integer, there would seem to be no difference. On a 64 bit system, the read of a 64bit int would take the same time as a 32 bit system reading a 32 bit integer.
However, common tasks like iterating strings or copying memory can now be done 64 bits at a time instead of 32 bits.
Think back to the track analogy. If I have a convoy consisting of 128 trucks. That’s 2 trips on the 64 lane highway. But its 4 trips on the 32 lane highway.
Also, I’m not too sure about how much of an impact this is:
But you could also take into account the caches. If a cache page needs to be written or read, it can now be down twice as fast (64 bits at a time, instead of 32 bits.
Also, there is a need for 64 bit integers in some areas. Some just need it to handle more memory on a system. Some for encryption…some for big counters, timers…
it lacks the ability to run 32 bit code… well, then why buy this?
Can you seriously not read? Read the article and the quote. You HAVE to run 32-bit applications right now, because there is barely any ported to 64-bit.
@Yamin: Thanks for the explination
I know how it works, but couldn’t explain it like you did.
You are right… Bill Gates did not say no-one would need more than 640k…
He in fact said no-one would need more than 637k
have a look here
http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/quotes/b/bill_gates_11.php
Did they clean up the api and code and remove deprecated functions?
Aren’t MMX & SSE instructions 64-bit? We were already benefiting from 64-bit instructions for floating point operations. The additional 64-bit instructions in these new processors are of a smaller benefit to everyday users.
Right, it must be true because some pop-culture quote site says it is! Wikipedia says the quote is apocryphal, and hence has been removed from the Bill Gates page.
Do a simple Google search if you don’t believe me.
Another thing is that even if you don’t have more than 2gb ram, you might still want to use 64-bit addressing, if you do things like mmap-ing huge files into memory
It amazes me people are falling for this. Hardware makers and Microsoft say “Buy yet another new 32-bit machine and upgrade your Windows to XP!” People say, “Why? My current system does everything I want it to.” Hardware makers and Microsoft say “32-bit is obsolete! Buy your *first* 64-bit computer and upgrade to a brand new XP64!” And people actually say, “Well, gee, I don’t want to be *obsolete*. This *new* stuff is cool.”
If anyone’s ever seen Spinal Tap, they’ll understand “Ours go to 64.”
People went to the *moon* on computers weaker than the original 8/16-bit c.640K PCs. Businesses were running Lotus and more in 640K.
This is just disgusting waste. People buying things they don’t need; programmers with more hardware resources to waste.
I don’t deny NASA might be interested but the idea Joe User and Joe Programmer *need* this on their *desktops* is simply ludicrous. Preserve your current hardware and your current systems. Save a buck. Save a tree. Have fun. Relax.
No-one will ever need more than 4 gig RAM on the desktop.
You have clearly never done any pro/prosumer level image & video work.
There are *many* people out there with Pentium II’s and K6-2’s. These people don’t have the need to upgrade, and henceforth, don’t. No one is forcing YOU to upgrade either. If someone has the money, they’re free to buy/upgrade anything they want. If someone wants a 64-bit CPU for the performance enhancements when running a 64-bit OS, they can go ahead and buy one. Who are you to judge them?
As for Microsoft … XP64 is free as long as you have a valid XP license currently. They will exchange XP32 licenses for XP64 licenses free of charge.
I’m not so much judging them – well, I am, but more in humor than condemnation.
And I don’t say no one should have the right to do whatever they want to do, at all. I just feel that, while some niche markets may genuinely want this, it’s not market demand and genuine need driving this – I think the public’s basically being played by the corporations. That’s my main issue – false demands, hype, marketing.
This is partly related to the GUI work in another thread – eye candy to drain resources, thereby ‘requiring’ the resources, thereby encouraging the upgrade cycle, thereby enriching the corporations and the landfills.
I’d just like to see something done *right* and see people get into understanding what they’ve got rather than seeing things half done and people always jumping along to the next new thing.
People haven’t perfected 2D desktops or fully utilized their 32-bitness for the most part and we’re jumping into 3D desktops and silly effects and 64-bitness.
It just gets old.
And it doesn’t surprise me that MS is giving away the license now. The first hit is always free. Generates the momentum as more people are running 64-bit. So more developers develop – so more people are around to buy when MS makes the license very definitely *not* free.
Let me try again: what I mean is, if you did spontaneously say one day “Damn, I need 64-bits; this 32-bitness ain’t cutting it,” and looked around and waited and finally they offered your these new systems, go grab them. Absolutely.
But if it never crossed your mind until it was promoted to you, don’t just go for it because it was promoted to you. Is it bigger, better, faster, more? Well, sure, almost by definition. But is it *necessarily* bigger, better, faster, more?
“Do I *really* need this?”
That’s all I mean.
It’s not the license that’s free. You’ll still have to buy XP64 if you don’t have a license. I was saying that if you already have XP but want to go 64-bit, you can exchange it without paying a cent.
As for market pressure — it’s your fault if you succumb to it.
My dad was very pleased with his K6-2/256 MB running Windows 2000. It did everything he wanted to do. At one point I had some parts lying around (XP 1800 + mobo + 512 MB DDR), and I asked if he wanted them. I put the thing together, he’s happy, and he now authors DVDs every now and of some videos he’s got archived. Sure, he didn’t do it before, but it’s nice when you can.
The same applies to 64-bits and 3D desktops. No one’s forcing them on you, but when they’re here, it’s nice to have them, but not a necessity. Ah well — the sheep always buy into whatever is shovelled into their faces. I assess my needs and purchase accordingly.
And we should believe what you said, because you said so, your name is Tom and you have no email, right?
.
If you use Wikipedia content as an argument, why don’t you provide a direct link?
so does this mean that Longhorn would require a 64bit processor?
In this moment, Windows XP 64 bits is not an option for AMD 64 owners. The incompatibility with 32 bit programs is one of the problems of Windows XP 64 bits.
hello!!!!
….until you install “Longhorn”
Well you don’t *NEED* your 32-bit system. Why not go back to a 486?
@modman:
Hm.. why then are some f the tests using 3dmark05 which is 32-bit, running on Windows XP 64-bit on the test system which is AMD Athlon 64?
Where have YOU been? A 486 is 32 bit, as is a 386: not nearly as fast as what we’ve got now, and shy quite a few interesting instructions the later generations have, but still very much 32 bits!
On Windows x32 it ran without any problems, but on Windows x64, until we deleted the pcibus.sys file, installed in the driver section, it refused to start.
given this fact, I assume that is what caused them to say what they said in the conclusion.
who knows what that means as far as programs go. in this case it seems that they tricked windows into running the code.
Besides the fact that the “quote” has several different versions and never has the same attribution, Gates and Microsoft’s well documented actions during that time period run directly counter to that “quote”. It doesn’t take much research to find instances where Gates/MS was always pushing for newer hardware that removed limitations like 640k, segmented memory addressing, and other issues.
One of the reasons for MS’ breakup with IBM is that IBM didn’t want to move the PC forward at the same rate that MS did (one example is that MS wanted to base a new version of OS/2 on the 386 but IBM wanted to keep 286 compatibility). There’s also the complaints from some users that occured and still occur with practically every major Windows release (especially with NT) about increasing hardware requirements and adoption of new hardware features.
Gates has denied he’s said the “quote” several times
[Here’s one instance]
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/gatesivu.htm
(though, again, his actions speak louder than his supposed words), and (granted this is another MS source, but the other assertions above are easily searchable) Larry Osterman (worked on the LAN Manager team at the time) has talked about how Bill once got angry because the LAN Manager network stack for MS-DOS took up 60k of the 640k base memory.
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=28193#28193
Do I do anything right now at work or at home in pursuit of my hobbies that requires 64bitness.
No.
However, in FCP and P-shop a computer with more than 4 gigs of ram would be wicked keen … provided the programs could really take advantage of it.
Two of my major activities, writing and htmling can be done on anything that lets you type.
However, I sure as hell wouldn’t want to surf the web on an 8088, Apple IIe or a Commodore 64. And don’t tell me about the glories of Lynx. The web was not conqured in Lynx. What made the web rocket into high gear was the graphical browser … because that’s what allowed for the pictures and the cool multimedia and all the things that make the web such a unique and revolutionary way to disseminate information.
And, while I’m all for the effiency of code and I know that my old Handspring Visor Neo has more computing power than put a man on the moon, no effiency of coding is going to get one of those refrigderators that put a man on the moon to play MP3s, or run KPTs in p-shop (much less run p-shop), or let me browse the web in Opera or any other GUI browser.
Yet we do all of those things today, take them for granted, really, on our 32 bit computers. And, code-bloat aside, at the end of the day, MP3s, KPTs & Pshop, and graphics require some heavy lifting. Possible on a 16 bit processor? Probably, but better on a 32 bit one.
As for putting a man on the moon, the computers that NASA has are doing much much more today. Calculations that used to take my dad all night back in 1972 (punch cards, people, punch cards) take seconds for him to do on his desktop.
So, in this round about way, I’m saying I welcome 64bitness on my desktop. Sure, for the first few years, it may be a waste, it may be like shooting a sparrow with a cannon, but back when I was playing Zork on that C64, I had no idea that 20 years later I’d “ripping” something called a CD to make something called an MP3. Or that I could be doing that in the background while typing a post on something called the internet.
“If you build it, they will come” — 64bits for the average schmeddly is going to usher in something really cool, some killer app that we’ve not yet thought of.
I can’t wait to see what cool thing happens next.
—
And I really really want Apple to release a fully 64 bit OS, even though I don’t “need” it.
Or, barring that, if Team Ubuntu would do a 64 bit compile for the G5 that would be wicked keen.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates states that the quotes are wrongly attributed to billg….
what is wrong with the 64 bit libs for hose programs
***One of the reasons for MS’ breakup with IBM is that IBM didn’t want to move the PC forward at the same rate that MS did (one example is that MS wanted to base a new version of OS/2 on the 386 but IBM wanted to keep 286 compatibility).***
I fail to see, where globally the breakage of backwards compatibility equals to moving forward.
It is and has been quite clear, what the tactics of most sellers and producers of commercial software are…
“to sell the *new* Version”tm
Some time back, I read that even the now kinda oldish Battlefield 1942 was already able to make use of “as much RAM as is there”… well, I don’t know whether there’s a limit somewhere, but if you had 1 GB back then, it would take it…
So now, where I ordered a new machine, I consider 1 GB of RAM the lower limit for ambitionate users.
“Probably the fastest conventional telephone dial-up modem you’ll ever have is 28.8”
i did nearly same experiment with 32/64 doozes myself bit earlier this year.
conclusion:
all what is said in article is right.
and windows is’nt ready for 64 bit because lack off native 64 bit applications.
in pure perfomance- ther is currently no big difference from any side.
most 32 applications do well on 64 bit, but those needing lowlevel 32 bit kernel drivers don.t.
example of programs what do not well in 64 bit windows are any kind dvd/audio/video encoding multimedia software.
try to find native 64 bit ripper for example.
so this is not windows, who isn’t ready, this is actually 3-d level applications support.
and i will not touch 64 bit windows more till 2006.
if minesweeper, mediaplayer and wordpad is all you busines needs-you may switch instantly.
Yes, I am a programmer in fact, and have been for 5 years now (but true, I haven’t done any video work). I know that, except for servers and maybe video editing, we’re not working around the 32-bit limit desperately like people were with 16-bit. Desktop’s can stay at 32-bit, and they won’t suddenly break because 64-bit CPUs arrive (I own a 64-bit CPU btw).
If you were really a programmer, you’d understand the advantage of 64-bit.
@modman: You mean, they had some problems with a DRIVER? And that suddenly means 32-bit apps arent able to run on Windows XP 64 on an AMD Athlon 64?!
Great conclusion..
“and windows is’nt ready for 64 bit because lack off native 64 bit applications.”
Chicken and egg deal there, ain’t it.
“If you were really a programmer, you’d understand the advantage of 64-bit.”
There’s differences between being a programmer, being a good programmer, and being an informed programmer, it seems to me.
For everyone discussing whether we have reached the limit of 32bit : Yes, we have. Plenty of industries and research have made the switch to 64bit long ago (that is, running Linux or various Unix flavours etc).
Genome research : Using 64 bit
Oil and gas (prestack depth migration etc) : Using 64 bit
3D volume visualization : Using 64 bit
CFD & FEM : Using 64 bit
and plenty more…
All these apps & systems (thousands) are running on 64 bit processors on 64 bit OS’es OTHER than Windows. So, to say that there is no need for a 64 bit Windows is rather short sighted. If any of these applications are to be supported under Windows, a 64 bit edition will be necessary.
QED