Home > Windows > Windows 64bit to arrive in April Windows 64bit to arrive in April Eugenia Loli 2005-01-24 Windows 45 Comments Sources claimed Microsoft is planning to introduce its 64 bit operating system for Intel and AMD processors (iAMD64) on the 29th of April. The sources are close to Microsoft. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 45 Comments 2005-01-24 8:31 pm It’s already late. the opteron is over a year and change old. Of course windows 95 was the first 32 bit Windows, even though Windows 3.1 required a 32 bit 386 chip to run. 2005-01-24 8:34 pm What really will the 64bit version of windows offer the everday user or even the average desktop user of a company that the 32 bit version does not already offer? is there really that great of an improvement to speed or efficiencey? Lets say the OS is more responnsive what about 64bit apps when will those be available. If the apps aren’t out how can we really take advantage of a 64bit OS. Sounds like its a similar vote to the days of going from 16bit apps to 32bit apps. 2005-01-24 8:35 pm Late seems to there style lately. Linux has had 64bit for awhile now. 2005-01-24 8:46 pm >>Lets say the OS is more responnsive what about 64bit apps when will those be available. If the apps aren’t out how can we really take advantage of a 64bit OS. I always see this pattern. MP then OS then APP. So there will not be APPs if there is not a platform to develop them. 2005-01-24 8:47 pm And yes there is a great performance improvement. Seem couple of Linux64 boxes, they do the work (ex. Gentoo compilation from source). 2005-01-24 8:54 pm Linux has had 64 bitness for about 10 years now. 2005-01-24 8:56 pm had a 64bit version as well. So please.. enough with the “Linux had 64bit for 10 years now” wha wha blah blah, the horse is dead. 2005-01-24 9:12 pm Lets hope that we now can get a 64bit version of Flash for our browsers! 2005-01-24 9:14 pm Windows NT wasn’t portable by the average geek. Linux and BSD are. 2005-01-24 9:19 pm The Alpha version of Windows NT was still 32 bit x86. DEC Alpha motherboards had a second processor chip on them that translated the Windows 32 bit stuff into 64 bit instructions. Without this pre-processor Windows wouldn’t run. If you need proof send me $5 bucks to dig out my Alpha, and pull the motherboard for pictures. It’s clearly labeled. Standard Unix/Linux didn’t need this chip and worked natively with the processor. 2005-01-24 9:30 pm It’s already late. the opteron is over a year and change old. Of course windows 95 was the first 32 bit Windows, even though Windows 3.1 required a 32 bit 386 chip to run. Because I like to nitpcik, I’ll point out that Windows NT 3.x was 32-bit and released before Windows 95. -G 2005-01-24 9:39 pm The Alpha version of Windows NT was still 32 bit x86. DEC Alpha motherboards had a second processor chip on them that translated the Windows 32 bit stuff into 64 bit instructions. Without this pre-processor Windows wouldn’t run. If you need proof send me $5 bucks to dig out my Alpha, and pull the motherboard for pictures. It’s clearly labeled. Standard Unix/Linux didn’t need this chip and worked natively with the processor. Where did you get this crazy idea? Of course it was native Alpha, which is a 64-bit only cpu. I’ve booted NT4 on my Alpha box many times and there was no special cpu translating x86 into alpha. You may have had an alpha box with a x86 coprocessor card or something, but that’s something else altogether. 2005-01-24 9:55 pm Perhaps he’s confusing it with FX!32? 2005-01-24 10:14 pm This looks like a pathetic ploy to once again beat down the little guy. Microsoft and Intel have been ‘colaborating’ for years and since the Chipzilla didn’t have anything to throw at Windows 64-bit Microsoft held back. Chalk one more down for monopolies! 2005-01-24 10:31 pm Lots of people have said the samething, but if you were working on a new 64bit version of your big OS and heard the biggest chip maker in the world is going to be making it’s own 64bit x86 chip, Wouldn’t you wait until it was done so you could have 1 version of Win64 for both x86-64bit chips insted of making 2 seperate versions for each? What if Intel decided to make totally different 64bit extentions then have them be compatibile to AMD’s? It doesn’t make sence money wise to have support for multiple version of an OS, Win64 for AMD chips, Win64 for Intel 64bit Chips?? This is exactly what MS doesn’t want to be doing anymore, because it costs money and takes up worker hours that could be working on Longhorn etc. I think they could’ve been waiting to see how Intels x86-64bit chips would be so they can now just make one Win64 for x86 chips insted of 2. But this is just my guess, maybe it is a big Wintel conspiracy. 2005-01-24 10:43 pm Little AMD has talked and talked about 64 bit processing for ages now and soon we will see Windows tackling its version of iAMD64, just like the Linux OSes have before it. …and the Unix OSes before linux that tackeld 64-Bit… 2005-01-24 10:52 pm Lets be a little honnest there… There is a difference between running Linux on a x86-64 with a 64 bits kernel and having a complete and pure 64 bits OS. It’s only recently that Linux x86-64 distros are really becoming more than juste a simple kernel running in 64 bits. Seriously, I don’t consider Linux x86-64 to be anything near mature. Try running OpenOffice in 64 bits… 2005-01-24 11:19 pm is they mean april of 2010 2005-01-24 11:27 pm Wait on…OK I believe your observation may have been correct a year ago but not so anymore. I have been Gentoo64’ing for quite a few months now and I can count how many apps here are running in 32bit emulation on one hand. There are purists (well respected) that have not installed any 32bit emulation libs or apps and are purely 64bit’ing. Not being an expert in this are I believe gcc on my machine is producing 64bit binaries unless I specifically tell it to do otherwise. My Gentoo64 is compiled from scratch – there are no rpms debs or other nasty binary packages here. Nowdays I don’t even notice I run 64bit anymore. 98% of GNU applications I need to use comile fine. The only shortfall for me so far: Openoffice 1x (until 2x arrives), Flash, Audio/Video codecs and Vmware. I am not crying about it either – i’ve adapted. MG 2005-01-24 11:28 pm Lets be alittle more honnest and correct here. Gentoo has had pure 64bit support since the second week of releasing an amd64 livecd and stage images. It was encoraged in the amd64 gentoo channel and docs to test any bit of software you could and submit any bugs to the bugzilla. 2005-01-24 11:59 pm …what about nintendo64?!! 2005-01-25 12:00 am Windows 64 bit beta has been out for a while as well. What this release announcement means is that they’re going to officially support 64 bit development and you’ll get more support. As opposed to the hit and miss support of Linux volunteers. You guys really don’t understand the concept of business. 2005-01-25 12:20 am I am a windows and linux user. Not by choice, some of my work involves windows. Looking at MS track record this is not going to be any diffirent. Every os (no exception) that MS has released was promised to be more secure and stable. And in reality every release version is in the stage of a beta release, and by SP2 at an RC level. Once they get tired of fixing bugs in one OS they make it obsolete and release a new version. Even NT 4.0 does not have all bugs fixed, and do not even mention NT 3.5, that was simply funny. 2000 was the best OS that MS has wrote, however not without major problems too ! Sorry for the b***h fest but I just get frustraited at how much resources they have and what we get in return. I have yeat to see an MS server up for 2 years, which is what my home linux file/print/mail/DNS/DHCP/VPN/etc server has been up for ! 2005-01-25 12:24 am The Dec Alpha IS a True 64 bit Processer I own 2 of them a 300 and a 500. One of them is running Dec Unix. the other Windows NT 4.0. The Alpha will not run 32 bit applications unless you use the the translation software. and If you want further Proof Take it up with my dad who is a EX-DEC Engineer for 20+ years. 😉 2005-01-25 1:11 am Hello Guys A picture is better than long words : http://ccy.free.fr/XP64.bmp WinXP 64-Bits v.1218 works fine for more than a week has a productive workstation and the followings : Free Anti-virus AVAST (32 bits) ActiveSync 3.8.0 (32bits) bluetooth syncs with my ASUS A620 using Blue-Take usb adapter NVidia beta driver for nforce3 Ultra : PERFECT ! ATI Catalyst Beta : KO , but WinXP64 ATI driver works fine with my Radeon 9000 ( soon DVI with VX912 LCD tests …) Canon S400 printer with native driver : PERFECT XCard with 32 bits driver : KO All the registry tweaks known for XP32 works ! Internet and Ethernet : OK with ADSL2 @ 15MB/s (freebox) NO CRASH (even with suspend to disk : a must ! ) CCY from France 😉 ( hope with the beta S/N , we will get a discount for official release ) 2005-01-25 1:20 am Going from 32 to 64bits is not that great of an event as going from segmented to flat programming mode. This 32 to 64bit move is just a small event for specialized apps not likely aimed at the mainstream user with perhaps the exception of gamers who get boost from 64bit hw and apps. 2005-01-25 2:35 am >2000 was the best OS that MS has wrote, however not without >major problems too ! eh? 2003 is way better. They secured the OS a ton… IIS is hugely improved as well (metabase gone, security). Kernal improvements as well. 2003 is also the fastest windows ever. Helps to ship with a bunch of services defaulting to off 2005-01-25 3:29 am “Try running OpenOffice in 64 bits… ” Why would you need to? You’ll find that most commercial 64-bit UNIX operating systems are a mix of 64 and 32-bit binaries. In some situations, a 64-bit binary will be *slower*. Now, unlike most 64-bit chips, x86-64 doubles the register count, but I doubt you’ll see that much of an improvement in something like a word processor. 2005-01-25 3:31 am “This looks like a pathetic ploy to once again beat down the little guy. Microsoft and Intel have been ‘colaborating’ for years and since the Chipzilla didn’t have anything to throw at Windows 64-bit Microsoft held back. ” Excepting Windows XP 64-bit for Itanium, of course. Frankly, Intel was right when they said the average desktop user wouldn’t need a 64-bit system for some years yet. 2005-01-25 3:43 am Guess we know what date intel will launch their 64 bit chips now. I’m not into Conspiracies, But this is so late, I can’t help but think this was partially a ploy to stop AMD from getting a big lead on intel in 64 bit land. 2005-01-25 4:13 am 1) Alpha was a 64bit CPU 2) To install Windows NT onto Alpha, you had to download and install a OpenBoot firmware update. 3) The Windows NT that ran on Alpha was 32bit. Windows 2000 was going to be the first 64bit Windows to run on Alpha – it was canned by Compaq before it got out into the wild. 4) As menioned by someone else, FX!32 was a morphing piece of software which allowed one to run 32bit x86 applications on Alpha, the speed penalty wasn’t that bad IIRC. 2005-01-25 7:34 am What really will the 64bit version of windows offer the everday user or even the average desktop user of a company that the 32 bit version does not already offer? The same thing a 64 bit processor offers to those people over a 32 bit one – nothing. 2005-01-25 7:35 am The Alpha version of Windows NT was still 32 bit x86. False. NT/Alpha was native, but it only ran the CPU in 32 bit (and little endian) mode. 2005-01-25 7:44 am Where did you get this crazy idea? Of course it was native Alpha, which is a 64-bit only cpu. I’ve booted NT4 on my Alpha box many times and there was no special cpu translating x86 into alpha. You may have had an alpha box with a x86 coprocessor card or something, but that’s something else altogether. You are correct there was no supporting processors needed for NT/Alpha – it was native. However, it did only run in 32 bit mode – it wasn’t 64 bit. 2005-01-25 8:03 am Some of you guys sound like Gates. I suppose that 640K was a decent amount of memory too? I don’t know much, but my guess is that 64bit Windows could’ve been released earlier. They held things up because of Intel… and it’s not a conspiracy to kill AMD. It is a business decision that MS couldn’t move forward without supporting it’s biggest, most important partner. Business, that’s it. 2005-01-25 9:06 am You are correct there was no supporting processors needed for NT/Alpha – it was native. However, it did only run in 32 bit mode – it wasn’t 64 bit. I did a little bit of research. You’re totally right. I didn’t have the impression there was a 32-bit mode for the alpha, but my knowledge of the architecture is a little hazy. Anyway, I guess we’re all done beating this horse. 2005-01-25 9:25 am may be i am an ignorant but… why a 32 bit app don´t run in a 64 bit cpu? And more important… why not there are 128 bit cpu yet? 64 bit cpu´s are present for years (dec alpha, sun sparc) not is moment for a step fordwars and make 128 bit cpus 2005-01-25 9:25 am may be i am an ignorant but… why a 32 bit app don´t run in a 64 bit cpu? And more important… why not there are 128 bit cpu yet? 64 bit cpu´s are present for years (dec alpha, sun sparc) not is moment for a step fordwars and make 128 bit cpus 2005-01-25 9:39 am ….after all the graphical cpu (GPU) of the moder graphics card are not up to 256 bit?….why not make the cpu´s also 256 bit? the motherboards are full of bottlenecks (a 3 GHz cpu in an 800 mhz ram memory with cards in a bus a 66 mhz).will be better instead of doing more and more faster cpu´s, made more equilibrated computers, just imagine: a computer with a cpu at 1 ghz with 1 ghz ram with 1 ghz buses i´m sure that this beast outperform any actually 3 ghz system, and let´s imagining a 3 ghz cpu in a 3 ghz buses and ram.Now imagine any non windows operating system running in this beast……….the perfect system !!!! 2005-01-25 10:11 am 32bit apps do run on 64bit cpus if the cpus have backward supporting architecture like amd64 does. As to why we don’t have 128bit cpu, well I think we don’t need that large of a number represented by 128bits and/or don’t need to address such huge memory yet. 2005-01-25 1:25 pm Jeesh, they’ll even be late for their April Fools joke! 2005-01-25 2:09 pm why not there are 128 bit cpu yet? Because (1) it’s not necessary, and (2) it would slow things down. Seriously. Please note that I’m greatly simplifying everything in this discussion, especially any numbers I pull out of my proverbial ass. It’s not necessary. The primary benefit to a 64-bit architecture is that it simplifies programming. 32-bit architectures only permit 4 GB of memory access when using a flat memory model, and all programmers prefer using flat memory models. (The alternative to flat memory models are bank switching models, such as 16-bit 80×86, where with herculean efforts the programmer could make sure that memory was sane. The flat memory model provided by the 80386 and every other 32-bit archicture greatly simplified things.) At the present time, we are unlikely to reach the limits of a 64-bit flat memory model, so there is no need to use anything larger for most applications. It would slow things down. Pointers are the name of the game when discussing bit-ness. 64-bit platforms need 64-bits to store a pointer to an object in memory. 32-bit platforms only need 32-bits. Consequently, 64-bit platforms require twice the memory to store a pointer as a 32-bit platform. This tends to bloat every structure that contains pointers, and is the primary reason that 64-bit programs tend to need twice the core memory of the 32-bit equivalent. This additional memory pressure slows down effective memory requests — memory bandwidth is limited, and doesn’t scale with pointer size — so doubling pointer size is equivalent to halving your memory speed. Oops. Because of the increased memory requirements, a 64-bit program won’t necessarily buy any performance improvements over a 32-bit program. It may actually slow things down, due to the memory bandwidth limitations. For example, I remember seeing a blog (can’t find it) comparing the performance of Microsoft’s C++ compiler for AMD64 vs. 32-bit x86. They had about the same execution speed, despite the fact that AMD64 has twice the registers (16 vs 8). The only reason the AMD64 kept up was because of the added registers; the additional memory requirements slowed it down by about the same amount. Given this, why the rush for 64-bit programs? Because the additional pointer size will simplify program development — for example, you could keep an entire video in RAM while editing it, instead of explicitly paging to disk. Databases will also benefit, as they’ll be able to cache more data in RAM without needing to use tricks such as bank-switching (on platforms that support bank-switching). This is also why you don’t see a rush for 128-bit processors. All things being equal, a larger pointer size requires more memory which requires a faster memory bus to get the same performance, and the memory bus is already slowing things down. As no applications currently need a 128-bit memory address, there is no impetus to develop such things. 2005-01-25 4:43 pm > Lets hope that we now can get a 64bit version of Flash for our browsers! True, but we need 64-bit IE plug-ins too: Adobe for PDFs, QT for music/video/QTVR, Real for rm, etc. And those multi media editors/viewers too. Don’t really think that we gonna get a viable working 64 bit desktop for some 2 yrs or so. Am actually getting a new 32 bit new puter next month ……. wasn’t gonna wait for longhorn, when its filing system isn’t coming out till next decade. JJ 2005-01-25 8:49 pm …until I get 64-bit vi! 2005-01-25 11:44 pm at the moment exactly as Jonathan Pryor said, 32bit can very well be faster than 64bits. But when more than 4GB becomes the norm, then 64bits will outspeed 32bits. (32bits could effectively address more than 4GB, just like 8bit computers addressed more than 64KB by multiple machine code calls that would slow it down.) As for having 128bit or 256bit processors… This is indeed not needed for the seem reason as switching to 64bit now may be detrimental. However it would be beneficial to have 128bit or 256bit buses simultaneously carrying the 64bit or 32bit words, but this too introduces problems, synchronisation problems and the hardware to efficiently use this. Extremely wide buses, like 128 or 256 bit buses are most likey to be used on-chip over very short distances with limited sync probs rather than between chips which is much more difficult. SATA is an example of moving away from parallel wires (wide buses) as this is the better solution for such distances.