The last time Microsoft made a major change to its operating systems architecture with the 32-bit release of Windows 95, it staged massive launches around the globe. For its most recent evolution, to 64-bit computing, the software giant adopted a more restrained approach.
64-bit ready for flying start
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The 32-bit release of Microsoft Windows 95 was not a major architectural change. It was a lot of the same old top-heavy monolithic OS-designers nightmare with a new 32-bit shell and a more complete 32-bit API than the old Win32s.dll they had before, but by the time Windows 95 was finally released, both DOS and Windows 3.x had been effectively running various 32-bit programs for some time.
Even the DOS version of DOOM was a 32-bit application! 🙂
Windows NT was the version of Windows that derived some real benefits from the new 32-bit architeture, not the Windows 9x line.
I’m hoping the XP version gets pushed out to market hard and fast, unfinished or not.
The sooner I get 64-bit flash and 64-bit binary codecs on Linux the better. And we need Microsoft to push the commerical software developers like so.
64-bit isn’t new to Windows, get a clue. Microsoft has had 64-bit versions of Windows since 4.0 (see also: DEC Alpha), and later on IA-64.
The only new thing about 64-bit on Windows is the AMD64 line of products.
A retail/production/manufacturer 64-bit release?
A wonderful OS just keeps getting better. Love ya Microsoft
The alpha release of NT wasn’t 64 bit, it just had access to 64bit memory. I think the only pure 64 bit was/ xp -64 bit which has been floating around as beta, and in production boxes for a couple of years now.
Now that the 64 bit version of Windows is out, I’m going to look into upgrading my computer. I think I’ll wait a few months more and look into a dual core AMD chip. Its great that you can trade in your existing Windows lincense for the 64 bit one.
…because most consumers (i.e. home users, grandma, students) will see very little, if any benefit from using a 64-bit OS.
I’ve been watching the benchmarks and really, not too impressive. In some cases, XP64 performs *worse* than the 32-bit version.
The real adoption will happen (at least at first) in the corporate/enterprise environment where people will want more scalable database servers, media servers, etc. Of course high-end workstation users will adopt it as well (i.e. CAD developers, animators, etc.)
It’s all nice and good to be running WinXP 64bits but with drivers still in beta (Creative Labs) and with HP dropping support for some of their (only) 1 year old printer… I’m in no rush to upgrade even if my CPU is 64bits.
Nobody seem to care about this release. All the major compagnie where there when Win95 when out. Not this time…
It’s not ready for prime time, I had a terrible time trying to get any drivers to work so I went back to my good old 32 bit XP.
Windows 95 provided a distinctly different face on an architecture that was a bastard child of both Windows NT 3.1 (a truly large architectural change) and Windows 3.11 For Workgroups. Windows 95 did introduce a few relatively minor things that Windows NT didn’t previously have, but very few had any architectural significance. Windows 95 was a major step forward for 16 bit Windows users, but in terms of architecture, a step back from Windows NT 3.1 and successors, because Windows 95 was created with a lot of the 32 bit features reduced down to 16 bit code, and some Windows NT features (security-related APIs come to mind) not even implemented at all.
Windows 95 was a backwards compatibility and relatively hardware friendly way for Microsoft to get people into using 32 bit Windows applications: it wasn’t completely 32 bits under the hood, but it also ran on a more stripped down hardware base than Windows NT required as well. Straight 16 bit applications had many incompatibilities within Windows NT when run under WOW (Windows on Windows) which allowed 16 bit applications to run…well, at least quite a few of them. Windows 95 was more 16 bit Windows application friendly, with the compromises that 16 bit Windows had when it came to providing compatibility with some of those practices.
So, no, Windows 95 wasn’t architecturally a major advance or change from Windows 3.1 or from Windows NT: it was something more incremental, but instead of being above both, it was between the two ends. And yes, Windows NT existed for 2 years before Windows 95 was out.
Ordered my free upgrade to 64bit over 2 weeks ago, still waiting on it…i have a brand new 64bit machine gathering dust (well, running winXP32). Bueller? Bueller?
I also hope MS pushes 64 bit x86 architecture. When consumers in the broad markets HAVE 64 bit machines, but largely use them in 32 bit mode, no software company would be interested in making their software available as natively 64 bit.
If all the AMD64 hardware would be used as 64 bit machines, there would be no Software company who would like to stay behind with supporting that architecture, after all it is the future.
Yeah just got my amd64 system with winxp64, very fast, and some new features i really love. Just waiting on my video card so i can get gaming.
Had zero problems with drivers, everything ive got is supported fine
Im happy!
sorry, but all the gushing from the people on here is ridiculous!!!
it is not going to run your programs faster. there is no reason for your desktop apps to run 64 bit. there is no reason at all to use a 64 bit OS if the apps you use will run fine as 32 bit apps.
if an app needs more memory, a library can be offered for that app maker to use (photoshop, etc.) but please. stop fooling yourselves into thinking that 64 bit is some fantastically superior way to compute.. especially when AMD-64 will run 32 bit code FASTER than 64 bit code.
It’s likely to initially suffer from the same problems as early 64 Linux; poor compiler optimisation, for a while.
If we followed your logic we would all be running 16 bit processors using hacks like extended and expanded memory to access anything over 1 meg. I have run into the 4 gb memory limit too many times (actually, its a 2 gb limit on windows). I can’t wait to get 64bits of addressing. I agree 64 bits of math crunching isn’t by its self going to increase speed. But with more registers and optimised compilers it will help. Plus its just cool. I just wish the alpha wasn’t put down.
Sounds like your jealous that your drinking water and we get the kool aid!
(Jonestown references removed)
first off.. Microsoft cold give you the 4 GBs if they so chose to.
second off… YOU CAN GIVE 64 BIT MEMORY SPACE ON A 64 BIT PROC IN A 32 BIT OS!!!
holy crap you can not make an analogy. a 16 bit processor with an OS allowing 32 bit memory space is different than a 64 bit Processor with a 32 bit OS allowing 64 bit memory space.
thirdly, all those extra registers are used by 32 bit processes as well!!!!! you will see no performance increase from 64 bit code on 64 bit windows over 32 bit code on 32 bit windows both using the AMD64.
in fact, explorer (the window manager) will be slower in MOST regards, as will all the normal desktop apps because they are being forced to use 64 bit instructions which take up more space and take more time to run through. really truly, the only applications that can benefit from 64 bitness are those that require REQUIRE large amounts of memory to function OR NEED, _NEED_ to crunch very large numbers…. and no.. video games are not even close to that size integer.
and why exactly do you wish the Alpha was not pt down? it was a good chip for Scientific computer, and that was all it was really good for.
umm.. no, I am just annoyed with the fanboys who think (due to their lack of understanding) that 64bit is something that matters for 99% of the population
You are clueless. A 32-bit process will not use the extra register of the AMD64 architecture. The performance gains of using a 64-bit application on a 64-bit OS vs. 32-bit/32-bit are very real. Go find some benchmarks.
Granted, not all things benefit, but properly-optimized applications that can actually make use of the extra registers benefit hugely. I remember seeing a media encoding test that resulted in gains of about 40% when going to 64-bit.
Turn off the lights in 32-bit land when you’re the last to leave.
…didn’t help Nintendo.
Actually it was 3.51 if I’m not mistaken.
Except in this case it’s not just hype — the numbers are there, and you can buy a 64-bit processor right now, and begin using existing 64-bit software with the performance boost.
*nix has 64bit (amd64/ia64) right when it hit the market, Microsoft is just arriving to the game. Why most the digital world revovle around the slowest member?
Because Linux’s AMD64 support is poo, and 90% of the world runs Windows. Does that answer your question?
You need to go do more research into 32bit vs. 64bit architecture.
First, while in 32bit mode, the AMD64/EM64T are just like normal 32bit CPUs. They only run faster. There are no extra registers, and no extension of the memory space.
Second, while 32bit CPUs supporting PAE (Physical Address Extension) can access memory beyond the 4G point, it CANNOT access more than 4G. Simple example: if you have 8G of RAM, four Windows processes could each be accessing 2G of RAM without the need of virtual memory. By the way, 32bit Windows limits RAM per process to no more than 2G out of the 4G space. 1G is reserved for shared pages, and the last 1G is reserved for the Windows kernel.
Third, even without optimizations, most 64bit programs are less than 15% larger than the same program compiled as 32bit. Instructions are prefetched and give no noticeable reduction to program speed just because you have a few extra prefixes.
Fourth, benchmarks which are slower in XP64 are 32bit benchmarks running in XP64. I haven’t seen a single 64bit benchmark that didn’t beat the equivalent 32bit benchmark. Even then, the 32bit benchmark in XP64 is usually only slower by ONE OR TWO PERCENT! You’d never notice the difference on 32bit programs. However, 64bit programs are usually ten to thirty percent faster, which you DO notice. XP64 is noticeably faster and more responsive than XP, ON THE SAME COMPUTER.
umm.. Hello.. read CAREFULLY. I know I was throwing around a lot of numbers, but come on, I am talking about ONE PROCESSOR. the AMD64.
32 bit CODE on an AMD64 gets to use all the nice new General purpose registers that it now sports…. on an AMD64, there is NO SPEED DIFFERENCE between 32 bit CODE and 64 bit CODE, and in almost all cases, applications used for the DESKTOP, like the Window manager, Text editor, web browser, etc. will see a slow down when made to be 64 it CODE.
that is why Win64 is NOT SOME CRAZY AWSOME GREAT thing that will revolutionize ANYTHING. windows already runs on AMD64. if the CAD folks wanted to use the Integer and memory abilities of the AMD64, MS could have simply provided them some frigen libraries.
if the AMD64 cannot provide programs access to 64 bit integers and memory when using the right system library, then it is a crap processor. the PPC970 allows 64 bit and 32 bit applications to run at the same time.
The processor changes quite a bit when you switch to long mode (64-bit extensions). Compilers have access to more registers than the 8 that come on normal x86. Sure these may just be rename registers that are exposed to code, but it’s probably more than that.
“Crap Processor”: That’s x86 for you. Funny how this crap processor ends up doing really well. Intel tried to kill it off 3 times without much success (think Itanium will ever take out x86?). I read somewhere that x86 does well because it turns out through luck that the x86 instruction set makes a good language for the hardware-JIT that is the front end of a modern x86 CPU. The processor has enough information to make better dynamic optimizations than a fully RISC processor which must rely on better compilers.
Modman, you are one clueless f*ck. How is a program supposed to make use of the extra GP registers … if it doesn’t know about them? It doesn’t.
Get a friggin clue.
The Athlon 64 *can* run both 64-bit and 32-bit software at the same time, but in order to run 64-bit software, it needs to be in 64-bit mode. A 32-bit Windows does not put the processor into 64-bit mode anymore than DOS puts the processor in 32-bit mode.
even without optimizations, most 64bit programs are less than 15% larger than the same program compiled as 32bit. Instructions are prefetched and give no noticeable reduction to program speed just because you have a few extra prefixes.
Each instruction may not take longer to execute, but they still require more memory bandwidth and take up more space in the cache, thus slowing down instruction fetching.
Furthermore, all pointers double in size, again taking up extra memory bandwidth and cache space. That hits object-oriented stuff like GUIs especially hard because it uses pointers an awful lot.
As other posters have said, 64 bits are only worth it if you actually need to access more than 4 GB or your crunching big integer numbers.
The extra registers are a nice bonus that, depending on the application, make up for the 64-bit performance hit. Technically that’s nothing to do with 64 bits though, but was an overdue fix of the x86 architecture, that could just as well have been done to the 32-bit version.
I doubt I’ll look into buying xp64 for a long, long time. For one, I’ve already paid for my 32-bit version of windows xp home, and I can’t exchange that for xp-64, and two, the world is full of 64-bit linuxes, so why bother? And the 64-bit amd’s are still worth using, even without the 64-bit support.