Two of the biggest forces in the IT industry called on developers to begin porting their applications to x86-based 64-bit architectures. Microsoft and Intel said hardware and software pieces are in place to convert the computing industry away from a 32-bit Wintel ecosystem (define) to a world where all platforms, from servers and workstations through desktop and mobile, can run at nearly twice the speed with a larger address space. Elsewher, Microsoft’s Longhorn Windows client product team will be led by G. Michael Sievert.
Microsoft, Intel: The Time For 64-Bit is Now
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 RC2 wouldn’t come past the login screen.Password entered,windows screen comes,than nothing,dito for server 2003
(64-bit).Tested on a ASUS K8N nforce3-250 1024 DDR AMD64 3000.
Can be my misjudgement but i get the feeling everything runs a lot less “snappier” than with let’s say XP-32 bit.,
64-Bit Windows developement is dependent on 64-Bit Windows being available! Why intel is beating this drum…they don’t even have a 64-Bit desktop CPU! -shakes head-
Microsoft should have had XP 64 out the door 6 months ago; I think they intentionally delayed to wait for Intel.
I’m still trying to understand this “twice the speed” statement
.
This is one more cycle of “How wonderful the world can be with these new stuffs! Buy them now!” progaganda.
Most of the users really don’t need that but …
Started at least in 1992 with the 64bit alphas.
And Itanic/Itanium2 has been on the market for years now.
Oh, and let’s not forget Opteron and AMD64.
…and G5
All running *nix or Linux
Welcome in the developed world, microsoft.
I’m actually using a 64 bit computer at home as my media center and main server.
But I’m using a 64 bit processor that exists NOW (Athlon64), with a real 64 bit operating system that exists NOW (Gentoo Linux).
…and G5
MacOsX completely 64-bit?
Thanks for Screwing over AMD, Microsoft, really professional behavior.
It’s pretty amazing that during the last year Intel went from saying the consumer world wasn’t ready for 64 bits to having a consumer-level 64 bit product.
The power of marketing.
I don’t know where this would be true in the general case, since the general case as of now doesn’t have many applications using more than 32 bit address spaces, other than pointing to recording video of some duration.
The concept of “double the bits of the internal CPU and you double the speed” is BS. The 32 bit processors (pentium and up) already swallow memory in 64 bit wide data busses. Where the speedup comes into play is if you’re already hitting that 32 bit addressable memory barrier and are now having to do explicit 64 bit addressing of data via some form of bankswitching, and you’re doing that on a frequent basis. Otherwise, using 64 bit addresses on a processor that doesn’t have a wider data bus will actually slow things down, if they’re used much. That’s from a combination of two things:
1. The data bus bandwidth required for the same effective number of op codes is higher
2. The cache will be filled with fewer instructions, since they take more space
Both of these reasons will incur a performance penalty, especially when the processor cache isn’t big enough to fit larger code that’s executed frequently.
Thus, for software that doesn’t actually address more than 32 bits of address space or use 64 bit ints for other things (floating point already requires more than 32 bits beyond single precision, and that’s loaded via the already-present 64-bit wide data bus), being “64 bit” is merely a marketing gimmick, as most data manipulation won’t benefit much, if at all. The SIMD instructions work on the majority of data types people use regularly that requires speedy handling for multimedia. Nobody needs 64 bit processing for Solitaire or word processing, or most of the desktop applications people use everyday. If an office suite ever requires 64 bit processing, chances are it’s incredibly bloated, unless it gets to the point where it’s manipulating holographic displays!
AMD should sue Microsoft and Intel for pushing 64 bit now. Why have they waited so long? It seems pretty obvious.
It seems pretty clear now which corporation would do best to heavily finance desktop Linux: AMD.
While I have an AMD64 and I really love it, what good does an AMD64 do you on a mediapc, when half the codecs out there don’t exist for 64 bit cpus. Or on the other hand are you running a 32 bit OS/media player on the system with 32 bit codecs and then again I ask, why AMD 64?
It will be a good time to get a 3.2 ghz 32 bit processor for next to nothing and run Linux for free.
The twice the speed statement is obviously cooked up by some clueless marketing droid (there can be clue-full marketing people, I would note).
The main benefit of AMD64 (and yes, I’m calling it that since Intel is a big schmuck) for desktop and mobile users is the addition of the additional registers to an otherwise very register-poor architecture like x86-32. That won’t give you 2x speed, however, and in fact the larger 64-bit instructions and data types may put more pressure on caches, slowing things down.
Even further, 64-bit code can be SLOWER than 32-bit code on the same machine, because more 32-bit code can sit next to the CPU in the cache.
If Microsoft and Intel actually ever push “twice the speed” in real advertising, they should be sued into oblivion.
Oops, my statement was the same as your last sentence. Now, it’s double true!
Didn’t I just read somewhere that Mircosoft was dropping support for Itanium processors and that there would be no Windows os for them?? What does that leave for Intel processors – Pentium w/ 64bit extentions?
Read this article to get an idea how AMD dealt with those issues.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/amd-hammer-1.ars
I’m not sure about Itanium, but AMD Athlon 64 soundly beats Pentium w/64-bit extensions on most benchmarks. And Athlon uses a lot less power–it’s both faster and more energy efficient!
http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/24/1747228&mode=n…
I kinda think Intel got caught with their pants down when AMD64 came around. All Intel can do now is spin their marketing.
these guys just don’t quit. they’ll say anything to sell stuff as long as they can get away with it and they do get away with it.
Intel should be ashamed of their marketing department. All they do these days is spin more and more hype. I look forward to seeing IBM and AMD stealing some share.
Thank you ol’mighty Microsoft and Intel for granting the average joe, 64-bit processing!
You know, it only took you forever to get this out.
AMD has been spitting out 64-bit procs for a while, and Apple is already release a pure 64-bit OS early this year. How long has Windows XP 64 Edition been “in testing?”
This is why Microsoft is killing the industry. Wintel’s thinking – people are spending now, what’s the point of advancing technology.
From the article (first link):
Kay recounted a personal experience where he could not transfer or even play a video he uploaded to his PC because the 4GB of memory was not enough.
If you don’t have enough (network) bandwith or the network is frozen altogether what does the amount of memory have to do with it?Or is it a new era where harddisks are suddenly obsolete?
This is obviously a cut’n’paste job (define). Is proofreading (define) before posting articles (define) too much to ask?
Smartpatrol (IP: —.client.comcast.net):
64-Bit Windows developement is dependent on 64-Bit Windows being available! Why intel is beating this drum…they don’t even have a 64-Bit desktop CPU! -shakes head-
The latest Prescott P4s have a full EM64T implementation. Go to Dell or HP’s web site and they have these processors specifically labeled as supporting EM64T. Any decent Dell you buy nowadays carries a 64-bit P4.
EM64T is a full 64-bit implementation with 64-bit ALUs and 64-bit SSE2/SSE3 units. The main difference compared to AMD64 is the use of a 48-bit virtual address space as opposed to a full 64-bit one, but this still allows for up to 281TB of virtual address space, which is certainly good enough for the time being.[/i]
rspickles (IP: —.nwc.acsalaska.net):
Didn’t I just read somewhere that Mircosoft was dropping support for Itanium processors and that there would be no Windows os for them?? What does that leave for Intel processors – Pentium w/ 64bit extentions?
Microsoft is only dropping support for XP on Itanium workstations. Windows Server 2003, MS SQL, and many other server products will continue to support Itanium.
AMD is getting into the habit of catching amd with its pants down. better quality, faster speeds, lower costs… the only reason to buy intel is cause that case sticker is still cooler.
FYI. Apples OS X is not 64 bit yet. Even the new Panther will be compiled in 32 bit not 64 bit. Apple stretched the truth when they advertised as the first 64 bit personal computer. The hardware can handle 32 and 64 bit, but the software is only made for 32 bit.
It’s all about having stuff ready before it is actually needed. Also, marketing.
Really, though, I just built an Athlon64 system fore somebody, and I was VERY jealous. It’s a wonderful chip, easy to install the heatsink, runs very cool (even cooler than my AthlonXP), fast, plus Cool&Quiet is excellent.
I mean in all seriousness, why? I can understand that there are some applications that 64 bits (video, database, etc). Yet email, spreadsheet, and other generic tasks have no real benefit of 64 bit. Maybe the companies pushing 64 bit should start to realize this.
You know though, if I really wanted 64 bits to fly, here is the computer I would created.
64 bit CPU
200 GB RAM
Simple, ok the 200 GB RAM might be an issue, but imagine a computer with no hard disk? That sucker would scream! Build such a PC, and then I think people would upgrade.
Yeah, that would be cool and all, until you rebooted or had a power-outage and everything was erased.
who cares?
Does it has, 64Bit Office? 64bit Photoshop? 64bit AutoCad? 64bit Warcraft?..etc etc..
I seem to remember that 64-bit AMD processors could often run two 32-bit instructions at the same time (with some restrictions though, e.g. no data hazards and the like). That advantage would also disappear when the programs are compiled for 64 bits.
Christian Gross: Simple, ok the 200 GB RAM might be an issue, but imagine a computer with no hard disk? That sucker would scream! Build such a PC, and then I think people would upgrade.
Michael Moran: Yeah, that would be cool and all, until you rebooted or had a power-outage and everything was erased.
Well… Two things, you could create a system that has a “backup harddrive” (or some similar device) which the ram drive could periodically save its data to and then restore from at boot time. This you can do now with ease.
Or… You could have another “special” setup. Where the contents of memory are preserved via some other method for example a rechargable battery.
Just yesterday gave me the task of making 64 bit releases of our software. Why? Two things: no 32 bit drivers will work in Win64 and a 64 bit app cannot load a 32 bit dll. Think about that first one for a minute. That means that Microsoft is actually, willingly, throwing away the massive driver set they have for Windows. The only drivers available for Win64 will be the ones the hardware companies consider worthy of being ported to 64 bits. That’s insanity++ there.
ryan posted…
Intel should be ashamed of their marketing department. All they do these days is spin more and more hype. I look forward to seeing IBM and AMD stealing some share.
I would say otherwise, Intel should be ashamed of its Desktop processors division, those engineers sucks. If they made a Centrino with higher 800 or 1024 FSB, 64bit extensions, they will run circles around current P4 offerings while consuming a lot less power.
Intel has an excelent marketing department. Even while making the P4 crap for all these years, they are still the No 1 processor company. And thanks to marketing.
Yes, because 64 > 32, obviously the machine will be *twice* as fast.
Why do such articles get posted, when they are clearly wrong?
Why anyone would buy a Windows 64-bit to run only 32-bit closed and proprietary applications (the most typical use os windows nowadays) ?
I agree the future is 64-bit, but without M$ and with AMD…
” AMD should sue Microsoft and Intel for pushing 64 bit now. Why have they waited so long? It seems pretty obvious.
It seems pretty clear now which corporation would do best to heavily finance desktop Linux: AMD. ”
First of all, desktop Linux is a joke. sure everyone says “Linux is so good my grandma can use it”, sure grandma can use it if she is an retired IBM engineer. AMD has done nothing for the Linux desktop and I doubt whatever involvement they have with the Linux desktop folks will be limited at best. As for AMD should sue Microsoft, okay, why? Microsoft you should remember dropped the Itanium version of Windows server 2003 and guess what processor they developed the 64 Bit edition for? AMD numbskull. Okay now Intel is releasing their chips to compete with AMD, its a free market and Intel can release their 64 Bit wonder whenever they wish. if you want to dictate when they should release it, then by all means become the Intel shipping exec and I am sure you can then tell Intel and Microsoft when they should ship. Now, its a free market as I stated and may the best chip win. Whichever is better than use it and quit with these comments about Microsoft being in cahoots with anyone to try to crush their competition. I dont hate Linux or Open Source and I dont really hate the mac, although I wouldnt use Linux to host my DOG’S website much less anything else mission critical. My advice to you is to quit cheerleading for a company that you think is trying to fight for your cause and support the company that makes the better product.
Microsoft said countless times it wouldn’t release the 64-bit version until a fair amount of drivers would be ported to 64-bit.
Yes, because 64 > 32, obviously the machine will be *twice* as fast.
Why do such articles get posted, when they are clearly wrong?
That’s called marketing. Something you, and a lot of other posting here, don’t know anything about. Imagine you are spokesman and you were given the task of getting more (all if possible) developers to switch to 64 bit. What would you say? “Sure it gets you more address space and more extensions, but that’s it.”? I will watch out for your comment.
imple, ok the 200 GB RAM might be an issue, but imagine a computer with no hard disk? That sucker would scream! Build such a PC, and then I think people would upgrade.
I remember it can be done with windows to put it into RAM. There was an app that could do this, but it only supported 64 megs max, but that was some time ago. Maybe they improved it. And yes, it screamed
Hard disks will always be here. They are very cheap for storing large amounts of data. I can tell you that I have 2×200 GB and I am nearly running short of space. Only my ‘Program Files’ folder is more than 10 GB in size (damn you MSDN library & Encarta!).
There’s no need to store everything in RAM, we just need fast RAM (check out the upcoming ATI R520 to see what I mean by fast RAM) a larger CPU cache and faster hard drives. OK, 7200 rpm is already fast, but I’m thinking something like todays SCSI drives are doing. 20k+ rpm would be neat
“The prospect of Microsoft and Intel talking up 64-bit chips, dual-core architectures and virtualization may seem abrupt, given that six months ago, Intel executives were telling customers the time was not yet ripe to begin porting applications to 64-bit. So what’s changed?”
Here is where the stability comes into play. The transition is going to be rough unless the developers get their drivers pushed out.
You The prospect of Microsoft and Intel talking up 64-bit chips, dual-core architectures and virtualization may seem abrupt, given that six months ago, Intel executives were telling customers the time was not yet ripe to begin porting applications to 64-bit. So what’s changed?
Software can in either 32/64 bit mode but drivers have to be in 64 bit mode.
“Really, though, I just built an Athlon64 system fore somebody, and I was VERY jealous. It’s a wonderful chip, easy to install the heatsink, runs very cool (even cooler than my AthlonXP), fast, plus Cool&Quiet is excellent.”
That’s one of the reasons to upgrade. The fan on my old Athlon was LOUD! I could hear it in the next room. However the presnt Athlon64 with stock cooler is quiet. I can barely tell it’s running from the next room. The “runs cooler” is a nice bonus in a machine that’s stuffed.
The time for 64bit was last year when amd64 was released and Linux/*BSD gained full support.
Fine, so I move to G5 ;o)
I sent feedback to their website yesterday that their article is in error (64-bit, double-speed, yeah right). I wonder how long it will take for them to fix it? Time will tell if they care about the facts. This is the age of journalism on the WWW, right?
Don’t you think this would basically mean the WINE devels would have to start over from scratch?
“Microsoft, Intel: The Time For 64-Bit is Now”
GNU/Linux, AMD: The Time For 64-Bit was from Early Last Year
I don’t think you have ever tried Linux, just trolling around here. Wake up, man…. Eugenia, you are not moderating this because of you’re on the M$ side? I swear, I will read no more osnews.com if you are continuing in this way
OFF:
I realized, why my news about Microsoft using pirate tools to create Windows was never put on the site…. Shame….
” I don’t think you have ever tried Linux, just trolling around here. Wake up, man…. Eugenia, you are not moderating this because of you’re on the M$ side? I swear, I will read no more osnews.com if you are continuing in this way
”
Yes I have used Linux, I am an Linux user. Im just not a rabid OS religous fanatic. If you think Im critical of Linux go check out my posts to Channel 9 and you will see Im just a critical of Microsoft. When smeone does a good job I give them their props if they come up with a stupid Idea I tell them I think its a stupid idea and I give my opinion, now sometime we agree sometimes we disagree.
The time for 64-bit is *NOW*! Why? Well, because that’s you’ve been told. History tells us when Microsoft makes an announcement of that sort, two things happen: they spend as much money as it takes to make it appear like everyone agrees… and then people start to come on board with the idea. This is most effective when MS is in the keeping-up with the Jones’ position they find themselves in today. Nevermind that for the average user, it doesn’t buy you anything more than a headache.
Obviously there’s nothing new about 64-bit computing. Moreover, there are a few million people using 64-bit desktop computer already — mostly without Microsoft products.
Drivers? Well, Linux’s driver set was ported to 64-bits in a couple of days, but that’s predicated on availability of the driver source code and the 64-bit ready kernel that needed little more than a recompile. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they write very few drivers. Most of their drivers are actually provided by the vendors. It will be the vendors’ duty to port support for their products. In many cases this means they simply won’t, certainly for older systems. Likewise, the time will come when vendors tire of writing two sets of drivers and they will drop support for one of the two platforms (probably 32-bit, if the predominant vendor is doing all it can to move people to the new platform).
Can’t you use those 32-bit drivers on the 64-bit platform? Well, conceptually, that would be possible if the driver was loaded by a 32-bit process and connectivity was handled through some form of interprocess communication (Windows has a number of options in this regard). The problem there, is that many drivers are loaded in whole or in part by a portion of the application layer. By design, many 32-bit drivers could not be made to function on the 64-bit platform.
So what does this mean? FEEDING FRENZY! UPGRADE MANIA! GET YOUR SPANKING NEW PERIPHERALS! Really, this sort of thing generates a lot of economic activity. Nevermind that very few people need it.
Also, the comment about Linux not being ready on the desktop and grandmothers needing to be engineers is annecdotally very off the mark. And, the notion that 64-bit = 2x speed is silly, though it is true that 64-bit Linux distributions are observedly much snappier than 32-bit on AMD64 hardware, but that likely has to do with other features of the processor and the high quality of the AMD64 back-end to GCC than anything else.
First off the comment about Grandma needing to be an engineer was not that far off the mark. There are still several things wrong with the Linux desktop that very much suggests that Linux is not ready for the consumer desktop. When installing apps under Linux is point and click with no confusing error messages talking about dependencies or having to compile source then I will say, yep its ready for grandma to use. When you can install drivers without having to load and unload modules compile modules and plug this firmware into said directory then yes, grandma can use it. Until that day, I wouldnt even consider giving someone who is not a technical oriented person a copy of Linux. In some cases progress is being made but until I can deliver the whole package then it aint gonna happen.
It must be nice seeing the world in such a black and white fashion. Anyway give SuSe to grandma. Or anyone else who wants to try an alternative (why should grandma have all the fun?).
Why is it that every post about an OS becomes a dogfight between rabid XP users and rabid Linux users? I think so far Roberto Dohnert has been unbiased so far. I tend to agree with him…and I tend to disagree with him on the mission critical hosting dog’s website part with Linux. Both OSes have pros and cons. Live with it. Or fix it. One of them is Open Source after all 😉
First off the comment about Grandma needing to be an engineer was not that far off the mark. There are still several things wrong with the Linux desktop that very much suggests that Linux is not ready for the consumer desktop. When installing apps under Linux is point and click with no confusing error messages talking about dependencies or having to compile source then I will say, yep its ready for grandma to use. When you can install drivers without having to load and unload modules compile modules and plug this firmware into said directory then yes, grandma can use it. Until that day, I wouldnt even consider giving someone who is not a technical oriented person a copy of Linux.
My grandma died a few years back – but I have a brother that barely knows which end of the mouse to click — He uses Suse on both of his computers. I set him up that way. True he has not installed software himself – he has not needed to – Suse is complete enough for the grandma and brother type user – in fact most f**ked-up Windows systems I am called into fix is because that grandma has installed software (often scumware but sometime just a goofed up install) themselves. As for Windows installing hardware without problems – my job (systems admin for a non-profit) has seen me installing hardware of all kinds on many different computers – and yes I have had my share of problems installing hardware on our Linux computers – But I can say that I have as much if not more problems with our Windows computers. Its all from your prospective – I find Windows is no more ready for Grandma than Linux.
I take it that you feel that GM should not sell cars unless the end user is able to install anything they want or make any repairs they wish themselves. Fact is you probably buy your car just the way you want to use it or pay a professional to add up grades and do repairs. In fact all car makers now design cars that require scadds of special tools to repair them so that many repairs require a trained professional.
” but I have a brother that barely knows which end of the mouse to click — He uses Suse on both of his computers. I set him up that way. True he has not installed software himself – he has not needed to – Suse is complete enough for the grandma and brother type user – in fact most f**ked-up Windows systems I am called into fix is because that grandma has installed software (often scumware but sometime just a goofed up install) themselves ”
Thats great, when he has problems it will most likely be when you arent around and you can have the real ‘Linux’ experience. Yeah and those who dont know how to install or update the system end up having a bunch of buggy insecure software on the system. Good experience.
” As for Windows installing hardware without problems – my job (systems admin for a non-profit) has seen me installing hardware of all kinds on many different computers – and yes I have had my share of problems installing hardware on our Linux computers – But I can say that I have as much if not more problems with our Windows computers. Its all from your prospective – I find Windows is no more ready for Grandma than Linux. ”
I have found it the other way around, Linux hardware problems in my opinion are much more severe. Part of that problem are the reversed engineered drivers and lack of official support and development. Some work, some dont. But yes, I do find the problems much worse on Linux. I never said that Windows didnt have problems with hardware, it does. I have had problems with hardware under Windows but for most of the installations of Windows that I have done they were easily fixed and far and inbetween. When I was working installfests at LUG’s the hardware problems I experienced most often times required that the hardware be replaced. Like I said, I would only suggest Linux to people who are technical, i would not recommend it for the casual user and I have often times told the casual users that have told me they were tired of Windows and whatever problems they were having and wanted the change i would recommend the Mac. to me the transition from Windowws to the Mac would be a lot less painful then it would be for Windows to Linux. The Mac has much more commercial support for it and until the Linux community works out the problems such as a streamlined method of installing applications and hardware where the user doesnt have to look at the command line or source code then I will say Linux is ready for the desktop, when I can give a casual computer user a Linux install disk and they can install Linux without having to call me and I spend three hours of my time tryingh to explain it to them, then and only then will Linux be truluy ready for the desktop.
(quoted from captrb)
“It’s pretty amazing that during the last year Intel went from saying the consumer world wasn’t ready for 64 bits to having a consumer-level 64 bit product.”
“The power of marketing.”
Haha.
And remember when Bill Gates said–what was it,…640k was enough?
Good to see Microsoft has decided to follow the rest of the world who is already leading the way to 64-Bit
–EyeAm
“Haha.
And remember when Bill Gates said–what was it,…640k was enough?”
He never said that.
“Good to see Microsoft has decided to follow the rest of the world who is already leading the way to 64-Bit
”
MS has had a 64-bit Windows for some time. This is just a version of XP for *x86-64*. “64-bit” support isn’t the big deal you seem to think it is – particularly in the desktop space.