Half of Windows 7 Machines Running 64-Bit Version 401
nk497 writes "Microsoft has said that nearly half of machines running Windows 7 are using the 64-bit version, up from just 11% of PCs running Vista. The 32-bit version is limited to 4GB RAM, while the 64-bit version allows 192GB, as well as added security and virtualization capabilities. While Microsoft is pushing 64-bit as a way to gain performance in the OS, it earlier this year advised users to install the 32-bit version of Office 2010, 'because currently many common add-ins for Office will not function in the 64-bit edition.'"
Statistics, statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
32 at work, 64 at home (Score:5, Insightful)
We use the 32 bit at work for the compatability with old the old MS Access databases (don't ask... I just work here...)
I use the 64 bit at home - even though it causes some odd glitches with various games here and there, for the most part it runs everything much smoother. I decided that I'd need more than 4 Gigs of RAM to run Visual Studio to Debug my modified Source game.
Same boat here (Score:5, Insightful)
Just got the word that the desktop team is pushing out Window 7. Unfortunately, there are "a couple" of printers that they couldn't get working 64b drivers for. So they are pushing the 32b version out to everyone...
Blows my mind... It would cost at most a $5000 to replace those printers, compared to the cost of 600+ copies of Windows 7. Crazy.
-Rick
Re:What about flash? (Score:5, Insightful)
We've only been waiting FOREVER for a Win64 version of Flash from adobe...
They probably don't feel like they need to rush it, because, as it is, Win7 x64 still ships with 32-bit IE as a default browser (due to need to preserve plugin compatibility), and all other mainstream browsers only release officially supported Windows versions in 32-bit.
Re:limits (Score:1, Insightful)
Games are a big deal. For those of us who *aren't* using Linux, we're well past the days of CGA games that run from a single floppy. Some of us demand more, and all of that map and texture data isn't just going to store itself.
And games are just for starters. What about music and video? You can't play MP3s or watch Blu-Ray video (or any other type for that matter) with 640k of RAM. Some people want to use our PCs for more than spreadsheets or word processors, and 640k is more than a little limiting.
(Admittedly, modern word processors and spreadsheet programs are definitely more bloated than they really need to be, but we've gained functionality as a result -- like the ability to actually see what our documents will look like when they're printed, instead of lines of monospaced text. Being able to edit larger documents and spreadsheets without continually having to go to disk to get more data is nice too.)
Re:Statistics, statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
And considering so many companies are moving towards web based interfaces for their internal applications, this is going to take a long time. Sure, MS can stop making IE for XP, but get SP3 on the machines and it's pretty damn secure. Add to that Chrome or FF to run the business applications and you have a machine that's going to last for many years to come. Want to go faster? Get faster/more servers! XP can essentially become a dumb terminal as for as those enterprises are concerned. I think that about the only thing they could do is to make new versions of office not run on XP. That'll make a few companies switch because they can't be without outlook+exchange/word/excel.
Re:Artificial limits R US (tm) (Score:1, Insightful)
If they can't test it, they don't want to ship with it.
Re:Statistics, statistics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Statistics, statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
64 bit isn't too far off. As a developer you'd be better off getting a copy soon and work on merging your projects over to work on 64 bit now, rather than wait for crunch time.
Pro-active developers ? You've got to be kidding. It took the "annoyance" of Vista's UAC before developers finally started changing their Windows applications not to needlessly require admin privileges. They're not going to be implementing 64-bit support one second before "crunch time" arrived.
why I'd pick 32 bit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Artificial limits R US (tm) (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a reason they can't go above the artificial limit of 192 GB?
Is there a realistic way of testing it past that amount?
Re:What about flash? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you just say that we don't have 64-bit flash because Windows uses 32-bit IE because we don't have 64-bit flash?
Blame MS's Pricing Plans (Score:4, Insightful)
There are multiple version with multiple flavors at different price points that confuses "people". Add to this the finicky way upgrades behave and "upgrade upgrade" software and it is no wonder a lot of people don't care or realize a 64-bit version exists.
Re:Artificial limits R US (tm) (Score:5, Insightful)
My best guess would be that OS releases are artificially limited to the amount of memory they actually test internally against. Home Premium probably doesn't get serious testing beyond 16GB while Ultimate might get tested against 192GB workstation hardware. High end server releases probably get tested with up to 2TB (probably the maximum amount of hardware available at time of testing). 32-bit desktops probably don't even get tested with PAE enabled at all since chances are desktop hardware drivers will crash and burn so they get a 4GB limit.
Re:Statistics, statistics (Score:3, Insightful)
A Mac seems to run everything just fine (Score:3, Insightful)
If I wanted a computer that no software ran on, I'd buy a mac.
Ha Ha. But what do you mean? The 64 bit transition there has been much smoother. And these days what doesn't run on a Mac? You can after all even run Steam now...
Re:Why, oh why? (Score:3, Insightful)
The real issue is market segmentation. The driver issues would not exist if the windows driver space made any damn sense.
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
It gets circular like that because developers are lazy fucks. So MS includes 32-bit IE, 32-bit Windows Media Player and so on as compatibility measures. Your old plugins will keep working in your new OS. They also have 64-bit versions so that when they upgrade you can use that, but they maintain old versions for compatibility. So, the lazy fucks at Adobe say "Well 32-bit is there, so we'll just keep that since that's what people use." People then say "Well Flash isn't out for 64-bit so I'll keep using 32-bit." You do get a circular situation. You can't blame the users, they use what is available, you need to blame the lazy shit devs.
Re:Why 64-bit is ready now (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, despite the bitness upgrade, the closed Microsoft world remains stuck in the x86 world. Meanwhile, others are free to choose the best/nicest platform for the job.
The Windows NT line has run on the Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC architectures. Microsoft dropped support for these a long time ago because hardly anybody used anything other than Intel's offering. More recently, Apple has also chosen to do the same thing and most Linux desktops are x86.
So I guess being able to choose the best/nicest platform doesn't mean you will be any different than Microsoft.
Re:I'll never get it either (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno.... I do understand it from the users' perspective. Sometimes, a printer or a scanner is clearly not a piece of shit, worthy of just throwing away, simply because nobody could be bothered to code updated drivers for it. EG. We have a couple of HP DesignJet plotters where I work that use the 42" roll paper. They probably cost well over $12,000 each when they were new, and even today, I see them selling for over $1,000 on eBay. HP never wrote drivers for them for any OS newer than Windows XP (although I understand a 3rd. party now sells a driver for Vista for them, for $150 or so a copy).
The idea that you'd just throw one of these away as part of a Windows 7 upgrade is ludicrous though. Most rational people would say "Screw that! I'm better off keeping a Windows XP box around just to run it on!" You have to figure, most places using these things also have an investment in ink cartridges and supplies to consider, and they're big and bulky. Shipping alone for a new replacement is not going to be cheap.
How many users will ever actually CARE that their OS is 64-bits vs. 32-bits? It doesn't matter for 95% of what people do every day with their PC, but forcing them to get rid of a well-liked piece of hardware they DO use regularly is going to bother them.
Re:I'll never get it either (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a very nice flatbed scanner that does 1200DPI. It isn't supported by Windows after XP, but it works fine in every single version of Linux I have tried it with.
Why would I want to replace perfectly working hardware? Do you value your money so little? Or do you just hate the thought of not being a "consumer", not buying the latest and greatest when it comes out?
There is no reason, except for the proprietary locked-down model of Windows, for that hardware to not keep working.
Re:Statistics, statistics (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they will implement something after the axe falls, but alpha or at best beta quality. When users call in griping how their product doesn't work, the company will say it was MS who did this. Vista got a lot of flack from lazy development houses because they would not bother making their stuff UAC compatible, or even writing solid drivers for Vista's driver model, blaming any crashes and blue screens on MS.
It is funny how on every other platform but Windows, should a major shift happen, devs gripe, but they deal with it. On Windows, just getting companies to separate user/superuser code causes a major trainwreck because the software companies (or the offshore code sweatshops) are too lazy to deal with it.
I agree that's a reason Vista got a lot of flak. Another reason is OEM preloads. The performance hogging junk the likes of HP preinstall is amazing. NIS 2007/2008 were probably the worst, and right during Vista's prime. An unactivated NIS trial with no tray icons or indication it was running doubled the boot time. I also saw a recent HP i7 laptop with Windows 7 preloaded and it took 5 minutes to boot. Ridiculous. Of course when these computers are downgraded to a fresh blank version of XP, of course it will run better.
Re:Statistics, statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
It truly amazes me how little the average person understands about economics.
A business exists to make money. A company doesn't sell a sound card out the kindness of their heart, and they don't write drivers for said sound card out of the kindness of their heart either. They can't survive if they do. If being pro-active does not generate more income than it costs, then it is economic suicide to be pro-active.
It's called return on investment, and any halfway decent developer is going to do at least a rudimentary ROI analysis before beginning even a small upgrade, let alone a complete overhaul of their code.
Basically what you are asking developers to do is exactly the same as your boss telling you you need to work evenings and weekends for no pay. You'll do it if it means losing your job, but otherwise you'll tell your boss to either pay you for it or fuck off. Getting an updated driver is no different. If it's free, expect it to take a while - they'll have to spread the cost over a long period of time to make the investment feasible. If it means losing customers because they didn't write the driver, well then you'll get it pretty quickly.
Re:Why, oh why? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Half of the windows 7 Machines Running 64-bit Versions, 90% of users don't even realise"
The average desktop user doesn't know what defragment is, has 50 apps that load on startup, and think computers naturally get slower over time and simply require replacing.
Re:Statistics, statistics (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say you're the one who doesn't understand economics.
You seem to think its only businesses that do ROI calculations. Consumers do ROI calculations too, you know.
If I bought a product from a company that doesn't give me support, I'm going to consider future purchases from that company to be a bad ROI. In fact I may even come to the conclusion that pretty much all of the corporations won't support their products. So I'll just assume that all products have no warranty and buy the cheapest stuff I can. Which basically means stuff manufactured in china. If it breaks or doesn't work with newer tech, I'll just buy another one. And then happily ignore all the big corps whining about how nobody is buying their stuff anymore.
If supporting your customers doesn't have a high enough ROI to be worthwhile, don't be surprised if your customers think your products don't have a high enough ROI to be worthwhile either.