Windows XP X64 Goes Gold 359
Kasracer writes "According to The Inquirer, 'Microsoft has released the final version of Windows XP 64 to manufacturing, meaning that those with machines that have 64-32 bit processors in from AMD and latterly Intel can now see what the extra addressing brings to the party.'"
Re:Longhorn (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Is this Longhorn? (Score:5, Informative)
can now? (Score:5, Informative)
(1) The opteron is a true 64-bit architecture. The em64t (intel thing) is a bit of a bodge (still basically a xeon core, with shades of 32-bit-ness in odd places like memory mapping for devices), but still appears 64 bit.
(2) Linux people have been running x86-64 Linux for _ages_ now. It's a cheap and cheerful server platform without some of the worst cruddiness of x86, and a cheap, extremely cost effective, and generally excellent scientific workstation and compute cluster platform, and is selling like wild here (euro) anyway.
Don't get *too* excited yet... (Score:5, Informative)
XP for x64 has NO 32-bit hardware driver support. Very very few manufacturers have x64 drivers available yet. Thus, don't feel surprised when you literally can't use any of your fancy toys. On the bright side, NVidia does have beta 64-bit drivers available, so you might luck out. Of course, considering the stability of final-release NVidia drivers, do you really want to use a beta?
XP x64 has also completely dropped 16bit support. No more old DOS programs. No more Win3.1 programs. More importantly (as I mentioned above), no more installers that used 16 bit code, even for purely 32-bit programs.
I too look forward to running XP x64 on my Athlon64. But for the moment, the average Joe just doesn't have that as a realistic option. In another six months, perhaps. But not yet.
Re:Is this Longhorn? (Score:5, Informative)
Longhorn will not be out until next year at the earliest.
Re:Is this Longhorn? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Heh (Score:2, Informative)
My contribution to the list: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Heh (Score:3, Informative)
"Can now see" (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Longhorn (Score:5, Informative)
I agree to with you to a certain degree, I just think you're maybe a little too paranoid.
Re:Is this Longhorn? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know where all misinformation about Longhorn being aimed for 64-bit processors come from. I keep seeing it everywhere on forums.
Longhorn will be released just like Windows XP; in 32- and 64-bit editions.
Re:Is it worth upgrading? (Score:5, Informative)
And even if you are doing those things, only if the drivers are available.
Basically, hold off unless you have no choice
Re:Historian Publishes! (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, I've played only Freeciv [freeciv.org] (and not the original one) for a long time, but I'm pretty sure the Historian Publishes were on the original also.
"extra addressing...." (Score:5, Informative)
Translation: If you've never heard of a register, what this means is that there are twice as many internal storage locations in the processor. moving data between internal registers suffers from no delay, while accesses to memory (ram) is slow and processing cycles can be lost to wait states - basically the processor must pause and wait for the memory access to get done.
This is why most code when recompiled for the new architecture will see an immediate performance improvement. Some code will see gains from the 64 bit width of these registers - but not as much. Virtually no one will see a benefit from being able to use more than 4gb of ram.
Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (Score:5, Informative)
Something tells me Duke Nukem Forever will take full advantage of the 64-bit platform.
Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (Score:5, Informative)
In the binary world, an upcoming version of SQL Server 2005 x86 is promised.
Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (Score:1, Informative)
Unfortunately, the Asus K8V SE SATA hard drive driver apparently identifies itself incorrectly or is in someway incompatible. It works fine under XP but XP-64 refuses to load it, saying that it's the wrong version, and XP-64 doesn't recognize the SATA ports out of the box. I have an IDE drive as my primary, so I can boot into XP-64 but I can't see either of my SATA drives when I do.
And no, I won't talk about how I have a copy of a program that just went gold, and no, I haven't seen a crack for the registration requirement yet. Hopefully, one will come out before my 30 days are up.
Re:"Can now see" (Score:5, Informative)
Booya!
Re:can now? (Score:1, Informative)
>> (2) Linux people have been running x86-64 Linux for _ages_ now
Parent is trolling fanboy. I pay the bills as a developer on a major x86-64 application.
1) x86-64 is the same on both Intel and AMD. If they were really different, we would target Intel because Intel is shipping 10x the x86-64 volume AMD does.
2) We have been DEVELOPING for what seems like ages. Wide spread deployment of x86-64 production envrionments is still a few quarters out. Fact is it is not quite ready for prime time.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Informative)
It's highly debatable whether you could call it "pure 64-bit". A description of the implementation from here [macintouch.com]:
So has anyone TRIED it yet? (Score:3, Informative)
I tried 64 bit Ubuntu briefly, but I went back to 32 bit after failing to acquire such things as my favorite XMMS plugins (which I never could get compiled and working properly, even in 32 bit, so was forced to get binaries), and 32codecs, and of course, browser plugins.
I would imagine that the video codecs work a lot better in Windows XP, but I would imagine that it would be much similar to Linux in that I would have to run in 32 bit mode in order to actually use most stuff.
I am aware that there's a way of running a 32 bit mode in Linux as well... but it seemed far too complex to actually go through with, and I am too much of a newbie to actually get it working properly.
The Horse's Mouth (Score:5, Informative)
Re:can now? (Score:5, Informative)
With EM64T you can't do DMA from devices to addresses above 32bit. This means that the transfers have to be done into a buffer below 4Gb and then copied over to the application buffer (above 4Gb). This implies a serious performance penalty and puts EM64T out of the "true 64bit" bag.
Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The biggest challenge for Windows... (Score:3, Informative)
here [xfce.org]
Re:Longhorn (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously you haven't read The mythical Man Month [amazon.com].
Of course if you aren't a software engineer or you are a "pointy haired boss" [wikipedia.org] then I'm not surprised you haven't read it and think throwing extra money and people at a project will make it faster.
Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (Score:5, Informative)
Also,
Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (Score:2, Informative)
You have a reference for that? Every source I've seen indicate that neutral
Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (Score:4, Informative)
"Increases the size of the user process address space from 2 GB to 3 GB (and therefore reduces the size of system space from 2 GB to 1 GB). Giving virtual-memory- intensive applications such as database servers a larger address space can improve their performance. For an application to take advantage of this feature, however, two additional conditions must be met: the system must be running Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows NT 4 Enterprise Edition, Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Datacenter Server and the application
(take from sysinternals.com, a la Mark Russinovich)
- Oisin
Re:can now? (Score:4, Informative)
As also one of the responses to this point out, you're not entirely right here. As I know it - and I'm not trolling here, just not having too much hands-on experience, so I could be somewhat wrong - they may "seem" equal, that is you can code almost exactly the same on them, but internally Opterons give you a 64bit architecture with all the benefits (and hypetransport being the chocolate on the cake) with 32bit compatibility, while 64bit-extended Xeons seem to be just as the name suggests.
Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it? (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, 64-bit drivers are required when running in 64-bit long mode on the processor. So it isn't an artificial limitation of Windows 64, but rather a requirement imposed by the processor.
For those who aren't real familiar with AMD64 architecture, it works basically like this: The processor starts in real mode, and at some point the operating system sets up the necessary mechanisms to support protection, paging, interrupts, etc. At the point it switches the processor into protected mode which is where all modern operating system and code run. There is also a virtual 8086 mode to run native DOS type applications, which is where the run dialog in windows executes. These three modes are known collectively as legacy mode.
From protected mode if you want to run 64-bit code you need to switch into long mode, which is a collective name for 64-bit mode and compatibility mode. 64-bit mode is a pure 64-bit environment. The operating system must run in this mode, and all drivers must be 64-bit. I believe this is because interrupts automatically switch the processor into 64-bit mode. On a code segment by code segment basis you can also run in compatibility mode, which allows 32-bit code to be run in long mode. That is how all the current 32-bit apps will be able to run even in long mode. so from protected mode the OS must switch into compatibility mode, then into 64-bit mode to run 64-bit code. Once in compatibility mode any interrupt will force a switch to 64-bit mode, which is why drivers need to be 64-bit.
Its also worth noting that switching from 64-bit mode to compatibility mode and back has been designed to have no performance penalty.