64-Bit Windows Releases Now Available 594
SimplyJeff writes "Athlon 64 users rejoice! Today at WinHEC 2005 in Seattle, Microsoft announced availability of the 64-bit editions of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. Strangely (and possibly a sign the drivers aren't yet up to snuff), Microsoft will not sell the 64-bit releases in retail outlets. For now, only new PC buys can get Windows x64 Edition as an option. However, those who purchased Windows XP after March 31, 2003, can trade in their copy for the 64-bit version at a cost of $12 and a voided warranty. Although, x64 users will get one free support call to Microsoft." Reader bonch adds a link to CNET's review of the OS.
Applications? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Applications? (Score:3, Funny)
This isn't news! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Applications? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Applications? (Score:3, Funny)
void* = 64bit
int = 32bit(?)
long = 32bit(!)
long long = 64bit
Good thing it's not "long long long long"
Assholes.
Re:Applications? (Score:3, Insightful)
So you go and make a bunch of typedefs for things to garantee storage is of the required size and then some smarty-pants comes along and says "you mustn't do that. It's not how the language is supposed to be used Blah blah blah blah confusing for other people blah blah blah might introduce bugs blah blah blah why do you think you know better that the people that wrote the com
Yay! (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you.
I will be using those definitions from now on.
Re:Applications? (Score:5, Insightful)
New Paintshop Pro 64! Now able to address 16TB of RAM! J00 need it!!
Re:Applications? (Score:3, Informative)
Anything that is doing tricky work tied closely to the OS might have problems:
Anti-virus, firewalls, virtual private networks, low-level utilities, etc.
Re:Applications? (Score:5, Insightful)
Will they work on XP64?
I have a feeling it'll be another case where the cracked version is more compatible than the original..
Re:Applications? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, there are some cases where this will not work:
One obvious example is Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow. Nobody has been able to crack it and ubisoft has not patched it to the latest version of Starforce3 which supports xp64.
Re:Applications? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Applications? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Applications? (Score:5, Interesting)
There was far more to it than that. When you're writing C or C++ code you often make implicit assumptions about the size of many objects. Also MS changed the layout of values passed to Windows messages in many cases, and that required extensive code changes.
I don't see many apps being ported to 64 bit though - only apps that have very heavy memory requirements. MS made a mindbogglingly stupid choice when they made sizeof(long) = 32bits in their 64 bit data model. Every other 64 bit operating system made sizeof(long) == 64 bits. That means that even if you've ported to 64 bits before (because you're a server app that works on thing other than Windows), you're up for porting work.
Re:Applications? (Score:5, Informative)
AMD made it so that a program running in pure 64-bit mode has access to double the number of general purpose registers and SIMD registers. More registers == fewer memory accesses && fewer memory accesses == faster programs.
Re:Applications? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not letting you code C for my company!
Justin.
Re:Applications? (Score:4, Interesting)
Our world is such that we commonly work with numbers between positive and negative 2 billion. Everything from monetary amounts to the number of records in a database, from distance between places to weights and quantities - we generally work with numbers well within the 32-bit range.
When 32-bit processing came around we had a general and common need to process numbers bigger than what could be handled by 16-bit CPU registers, e.g. numbers bigger than 65,000. But this need for large number processing have stayed the same over time, and so it will not assist to drive the development of 64-bit CPUs!
There is also the ability of the CPU to do more accurate floating point mathematics. This, as well as the need to work with very big numbers, play a role only in engineering and science applications, and to a smaller degree in games.
Therefore the need for 64-bit processing is driven more by the need for addressing more memory than by the need for faster processing of very big or very small numbers.
We need 64-bit processing where the data width inherent in the problem exceeds the (32-bit) processor's registers' width. (Actually this is true for database memory requirements and for games' number crunching and engineering and scientific applications too
It is not generally possible to recompile or even rewrite an existing problem to "require" bigger registers or memory space. However if a problem already requires big numbers to be processed and had been "optimised" to fit into 32-bit world, then the program can be (un/re)"optimised" to utilise the full 64-bit processing capability by removing these initial optimisations, such as where 64-bit operations have been broken into multiple 32-bit operations.
In fact, someone (Adrian Cockroft) very aptly said http://www.sun.com/sun-on-net/itworld/UIR951101per f.html [sun.com] 64-bit CPUs increase application performance despite the 64-bit nature of these CPUs . 64-bit instructions and, in particular, 64-bit memory address pointers imposes a big additional load on memory, caching and the CPU, so if you're not using those extra bits, compiling to 64-bit actually makes the application execute slower!
To test this, take your favourite compiler and compile your favourite utility program to both 32 and 64-bit executables and run both and compare the timings on your trusted Althlon64 or Sun ULTRA 5 workstation.
Unless the program either processes lots of large numbers or utilise more than 4GB ram, the 32-bit version will run faster.
A program which does not process huge numbers and which does not process numbers bigger than 32-bits will run faster when compiled to a 32-bit executable, even on a 64-bit CPU. There is also the bigger 64-bit executable to load and instructions to move between memory and CPU.
Let me add something to this - as a pojnt in case, all the general purpose utils on Solaris 7, 8, 9 and 10 come as 32-bit executables by default (Some 64-bit utils are available, but not in your path by default). This is probably because the memory bandwidth overhead (read: Wasted memory bandwidth) due to 64-bit executables needing to transfer double the amount of bits from memory to find out where pointers point, even if it is just to point to next next memory address! (Eg pointers are bigger because they can address more memory, even if you don't need it)
A very simple comparisson will prove this, eg
timex
Re:Applications? (Score:5, Insightful)
Widespread 32-bit support was long overdue, and the applications were generally more stable and functional than 16-bit apps that had to manage segmented memory. (Plus you had fancy new UIs, long filenames, etc).
I just don't see any real compelling advantage to 64-bit that would make users demand an upgrade to their word processors and MP3 players. Maybe only for high-end video/image editing apps, CAD and the like.
Again, the keywords are: IN ONE BLOCK (Score:3, Insightful)
So does Photoshop allocate a single array of more than 4 GB? I seriously doubt that.
At 4 bytes per pixel (32 bit colour) you'd need more than 1 _billion_ pixels in a photo. I.e., you'd need to work on a picture larger than 32768 pixel tall and and 32768 wide.
Even if you print it in 300 dpi (m
Re:Applications? (Score:5, Informative)
Newtek just announced a 64-bit version of Lightwave. Okay, this isn't a must-have product for the masses, but 3d artists tend to be the ones to make the most of their new found bits and hertz.
Re:FTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Uh ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Uh ... (Score:2, Insightful)
(Exception would be if you bought the $300 retail version and transfered it to your x64 machine.)
Re:Uh ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike Linux, which also had no drivers and apps? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometime during th last half of last year, i.e., after more than a year of "Linux is 64 bit already" bullshit, I actually gave it a try. Gentoo, to be precise. Let me tell you how it worked:
There were almost no drivers for anything. Not for the hard drive, not for AGP, not for anything. And that was on a Via K8T800 chipset, i.e., the chipset the A64 was launched with.
Which is just as well, because ATI also had no 64 bit drivers for my 9800 XT. I ended up staring into a 60 Hz VESA Framebuffer display for about a week before I uninstalled it.
And you know how slow that framebuffer was? Let's just say it's the first time I saw DSL downloads being braked by the speed of updating the progress bar.
But maybe it had 64 bit applications? Nope, guess again. No 64 bit OpenOffice, no 64 bit Eclipse, not one goddamn app I needed to use was ported yet. Just for a lark I tried emerging Pingus. (God knows the framebuffer speed didn't promise to be good for a game.) Guess what? That one wasn't 64 bit ready, either.
So you folks are telling me... what? That a freakin' useless system with no apps and no drivers counts as being ahead of MS? Yeah, right. That MS sucks for not loading 32 bit drivers... just like Linux didn't load ATI's 32 bit drivers? That MS's marketting is more guilty than the bleating zealots promoting a Linux system without drivers or apps as a finished and production-ready solution?
Sometimes this kind of zealotry strikes me like doing more harm than good. I can tell you that _I_ am not looking forward to trying 64 bit Linux again. (And I'm writing this in Konqueror in 32 bit mode Gentoo linux right now, so you can spare the "Redmond fanboy" wisecracks.) I think other people who got tricked by that zealotry would be even less inclined to give it another try, ever.
It may not be obvious, but _some_ truth in advertising can go a long way. Yes, we're all nerds, we're all outraged as the "creative puffering" that marketting does. But one-upping them via outright lies and outright promoting an unfinished product where only the kernel and GCC is anywhere near 64 bit ready, well, is just a way to shoot the whole Linux community in the foot.
It may not be obvious, but the _only_ use and reason to live of a computer or an OS is to run an apps, and of those is to solve a problem the user has. Same as a tool. You don't buy a microwave oven as an ideological statement against gas ovens, you buy them to actually heat some stuff in them. Same with computers.
And there a tool which sorta is imperfect beats a tool which is completely useless any day.
That's the problem with the mindless zealotry: you sold someone a solution based on _your_ ideology, rather than his needs, you've lost him as a customer for good. That tool from MS is very very imperfect, yes, but it does run Paintshop, some games, etc. It does what Joe Average wants. If your big ideology win is selling Joe a tool which doesn't do that, you haven't converted him, you've just gained someone who'll tell all his friends to stay off that Linux crap.
Just food for thought.
Re:Unlike Linux, which also had no drivers and app (Score:4, Insightful)
OK there's no 64 bit openoffice yet, but the 32 bit binary version works perfectly.
You're talking utter rubbish. Everything works, including IDE, SATA, Gigabit Ethernet, 8x AGP and accelerated graphics. It plays Doom 3 like a dream.
WTF did you do wrong?!!
Re:Unlike Linux, which also had no drivers and app (Score:5, Insightful)
i have been running linux on a dual Opteron for 4 months now with NO problems. granted I went Nvidia, and they care about releasing drives for linux people so I had no problems there... UT2004 in 64 bit (yup the 64 bit version of the linux app is on the install CD's) is screaming fast. All drivers are there in 64 bit goodness, SATA is happy as well as my u320 Scsi raid.
Care to actually list the hardware you claim that there was no support for? Myself and several others in the LUG have no problems with 64bit linux. Also anyone having a shit fit over an office app running in 32 bit mode really needs to get a life. We have been using Suse 9.2 and it runs all the 32 bit apps happily on the 64 bit system. If you were a real gentoo user you would have known how to get 32 bit emulation turned on.
here, waht help? this obscure website [gentoo.org]
Suse has it set up for you already, but as a Gentoo user you must be an advanced linux pro to choose it over a newbie distro like Suse that configures everything for you already.
this is NOT a dig on Gentoo users, you guys typically are levels above the "I hate text files" crowd, I just know that the parent is lying and am trying to make a point about it.
if the parent is actually truthful i strongly suggest he choose a distro that has more automatic configurations and is ready for 64 bit like Suse.
Re:Unlike Linux, which also had no drivers and app (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm, I've had a completely different experience with 64 bit Gentoo... I'm currently running 64 bit Gentoo Linux on an FX-55 chip. I dual booted into WinXP 64 bit for a little while, but found the lack of native 64 bit applications (and especially drivers) to be irritating (I'm not a big fan of Windows to begin with either). I've found the biggest speed increases have nothing to do with 64 bit code though. In fact memory access seems to be way, way, way faster. There is also no more "bigmem" option, which
Re:Uh ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were Microsoft, would you like to deal with the long line of tech support calls explaining why the new version of Windows doesn't work on a Pentium Pro.
For the market they are targetting, their sales strategy makes perfect sense.
ERM (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Uh ... (Score:5, Informative)
The OS is there for whoever needs it. Microsoft is just making sure that people don't start upgrading without understanding the limitations.
Re:PR (Score:5, Insightful)
(B) Tiger isn't fully 64-bit, so there's no dicksize race with Apple here.
(C) The crossover between OS X and Win64 customers is tiny anyway
(D) Windows x64 went "gold" before Apple even announced Tigers release date, so it's entirely a coincidence the dates are so close.
(E) Probably 80% of Windows sales is through OEMs, so this ain't "limted availabiity" in the slightest.
(F) Destroying every aspect of your post is getting boring.
Re:Uh ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sweet. (Score:2, Funny)
Slashdot has changed... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slashdot has changed... (Score:3, Interesting)
When they games start coming as standard as dual format AMD64/x86, I'll think about switching. In the meantime, don't care (and if more games start gett
Re:Slashdot has changed... (Score:4, Informative)
After doing this the web server was up and running and I didn't need to do anything other than apt-get the packages (such as php, it had a quite readable list just by searching for apache) that I wanted the server to run and it just worked ((tm), apparently). It told me it was set up in
I was surprised how easy it was because I had tried not long before to run a web server on Windows XP Pro and it took me a very very long time to get it up and running, and even then didn't have things like a database (you need to pay for that).
Perhaps it's just been a long time since you've tried this. Linux has made huge leaps in just the past couple of years in usability, and should this trend continue it will most definitely eclipse Longhorn before its release.
Ya but it means AMD won (Score:4, Interesting)
Free call? (Score:5, Interesting)
Although, x64 users will get one free support call to Microsoft.
What on earth does that mean? Does a call to MS support cost so much that one free call is worth mentioning in the summary?
Or do they know that anyone using W64 will need to call MS support, or what?
I hate this kind of posts... (Score:2)
It means just what it says.
Does a call to MS support cost so much that one free call is worth mentioning in the summary?
Read the sentence which is before the one you quoted.
Or do they know that anyone using W64 will need to call MS support, or what?
Not necessarily
Re:Free call? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Free call? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Free call? (Score:5, Funny)
MS_Help: How may I help you?
Caller: Is it true that I only get one free support call?
MS_Help: Yes it is.
Caller: oh...
Caller:
Caller: right
Caller: thanks.
I don't get the point of no retail but... (Score:3, Interesting)
There is still going to be the lack of 64-bit programs for a while, but it's a start.
And in my opinion, the $12 trade sounds like a nice deal.
Cheers
P.S. No, I am not a Linux hater or w/e. I like linux, I like windows. I just use them for what each does best.
System builders beware (Score:5, Informative)
The $12 trade in deal is only valid if you purchased a PC with WinXP preinstalled. If you built your own system and installed a retail WinXP the offer doesn't apply.
I hope your right... (Score:5, Informative)
If you built your PC yourself [snip] the link to the right.
The link to the right being the same link given in the
Funny. When you click that link on the right (or the one in the slashdot summary) you're taken to a page that says otherwise:
Technology Advancement Program Eligibility
In order to be eligible to receive Windows® XP Professional x64 Edition, your computer must have been ordered between March 31, 2003 and July 31, 2005 with Microsoft Windows® XP Pro (32 Bit) preinstalled. (Emphasis mine)
In addition, you must read and agree to the following:
Right now, I click the link but can't agree to the terms on their form, so 64bit for $12 is impossible for me--I installed WinXP on my own from a copy I bought from NewEgg. Maybe it's a catch-22, or maybe the webdev team just screwed up. I sure hope it's the second and your right.
Re:I don't get the point of no retail but... (Score:2)
Personally, I'd wait before making the jump.
Re:I don't get the point of no retail but... (Score:4, Insightful)
- Gentoo Linux for AMD64 has been out for well over a year. Plenty of other distros have too.
- Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, and other Unices have been 64-bit for years (not in the x86 architecture, but still, it's there).
- No drivers for my video card, wireless card, DVD+/-RW drive(!), etc., in Windows. If I upgrade Windows on this box (a brand new notebook) to the 64-bit edition, no games, networking, or burning for me. Wheee! But hey, "this is Windows" so I should be happy! Office should be enough for anybody.
:) - You ain't putting your CPU to "good use" until your apps are rebuilt as 64-bit binaries, and really only math-intensive apps (and less so for memory and system bandwidth intensive apps) are going to benefit. Photoshop might benefit a little, but not much. Games, again, maybe, but not much.
- Switching from 32-bit to 64-bit just for the fun of it will just cripple what you can currently do on the Windows platform right now. In Linux land, it all "just works" (with very few exceptions).
I'm no fan of Windows, but for once I can honestly say "64-bit Windows is the wrong tool for most every job right now."Re:I don't get the point of no retail but... (Score:5, Insightful)
To further belabor the point and repeatedly kick a dead horse, the general gaming experience on Linux blows compared to what is available for Windows. This is not due to a technical fault in Linux. It is also not due some technical superiority in Windows. It is simply a description of the current market experience.
There was no BS in gp's statement. I don't like Microsoft either, but I like knee-jerk, unthinking FUD even less.
As a vendor and a consultant.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is a good step forward. The actual performance improvements will likely be quite marginal until there are native 64-bit applications. Currently Windows XP and 2003 64-bit editions run 32-bit applications perfectly, but under an emulation layer called WoW (no not World of Warcraft, but Windows on Windows [microsoft.com]).
I'm not sure how many people remember this, but back when Digital Equipment Corporation's famed Alpha processor was "supported" by Windows NT, the 64-bit environment was infact not much more than a cheap hack. Microsoft designed Windows NT to not actually execute 64-bit instructions, but 32-bit instructions in parallel. I'm glad to see Microsoft is doing a better job supporting the AMD and Intel 64-bit processor lines.Re:As a vendor and a consultant.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Informative +5 (Score:5, Insightful)
My question... (Score:2)
My dream workstation would include dual processor, dual core Opterons. Will Microsoft charge me more for Windows XP Professional that supports 4 processors even though it's achieved by dual core technology?
NX On by Default? (Score:5, Interesting)
But since all 64 bit programs must be reengineered anyway (ranging from a simple recompile to a partial rewrite depending on the code), is NX on by default for 64 bit programs (an off for Windows On Windows 32 (the layer that runs Win32 programs on Win64))? Seems like the opportune time to make that switch.
If companies can get drivers out soon for it, should be a relativly nice OS. Of course since this is just a different architecture in many ways this is less than a service pack (since nothing has changed featurewise except under the hood). Comparing it to Tiger wouldn't really be fair for that reason.
But going forward, it should be interesting to see performance differences as drivers mature. I'd love to see a performance comparaison in 6 months or so when things should be relativly good. And now that Windows is out, we should see more 64-bit programs which means better benchmarks for the difference between 32 and 64 bits in everyday tasks. The last big excuse for avoid 64 bits is gone (first it was processors, but AMD and Intel both sell 'em now, then it was Windows, but MS sells THAT now, what's left?).
Re:NX On by Default? (Score:3, Informative)
And that's certainly what appears on my laptop (32-bit Windows).
Re:Drivers in XP64 (Score:3, Funny)
x64? (Score:2, Insightful)
You sluts (Score:5, Insightful)
Athlon 64 users rejoice! Today at WinHEC 2005 in Seattle, Microsoft announced availability of the 64-bit editions of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.
You spout off about the joys of linux. But,when Microsoft comes crawling with a 64-bit OS, you fall over like a bitch in heat. Sadness
Re:You sluts (Score:4, Funny)
What is this, the annual Sarcasm Hiaku competition?
J.
The CNet review is a joke. (Score:4, Informative)
Watch Bill's keynote. [microsoft.com] He doesn't claim random desktop bench marks will run faster.
He does state that for very specific scenarios (where you need lots of memory) like Active Directory and SQL, x64 is a huge improvement...with numbers to back it up.
Only for XP Pro (Score:3, Informative)
In order to be eligible to receive Windows® XP Professional x64 Edition, your computer must have been ordered between March 31, 2003 and July 31, 2005 with Microsoft Windows® XP Pro (32 Bit) preinstalled.
So, it seems from that, if your computer came preinstalled with Windows XP Home Edition (like me), you're out of luck.
Makes sense it's not in stores (Score:5, Insightful)
The poster implied their reason was lack of support. I think it's lack of interest.
Alpha Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
What the heck did they do to Windows to make the port take so long? AMD64 support should have taken a year at most. And why in the Hell do I still have to thunk down to 32bits (Go lookup 64bit Windows and thunking)? Not that I need it, but I'm just curious.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?u
Enjoy,
Re:Alpha Windows (Score:3, Informative)
Development Tools (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Development Tools (Score:3, Interesting)
To put it this way, changing int's would be troublesome, be a performance hit and not give any advantages (since anyone needing a 64 bit word knows where to look already). Changing the size of the regular long int wou
Voided warranty?! (Score:4, Funny)
: March 31, 2003, can trade in their copy
: for the 64-bit version at a cost of $12
: and a voided warranty.
Voided warranty? Blimey! This system is dangerous, and Microsoft knows it!
Rejoice, more like cry (Score:4, Interesting)
I started a new job about a couple years ago. Didn't take me long to notice the following line all over:
struct devive_info = (struct device_info *)a_ulDeviceHandle.
I told the chief programer we need to fix this fast as 64 bits are coming, and was told not to worry about it.
For those who can't read hungarian, this function was passed in a parameter as a int, and it was promptly cast (old style C cast too) to a pointer. This works on 32 bit platforms (normally), but will never work on 64 bit platforms.
This is the guy who decided that since GCC is a terrible C++ compiler (it is, but we were still using compilers from 1995 for the windows stuff, and working around bugs in it), he would standardize on Gcc 2.95 even though gcc 3 is much better. I never did figure out that logic. (this was a decision made late last year) Sometimes I'm glad he doesn't work there anymore.
Not that it matters much to me, I'm a UNIX guy. The last version of Windows I ever had on my machines was 3.1, and I installed OS/2 as soon as it arrived.
Re:Rejoice, more like cry (Score:4, Insightful)
If you need a variable to store a pointer, but don't know what type it'll be pointing to yet, use void * and cast it to the appropriate pointer type once you do know.
On a 32 bit system, a pointer will be 32 bits, on a 64 bit system, and pointer will be 64 bits.
However, there is no gaurantee that on a 64 bit system an int will be 64 bits - it could quite easily be 32.
int only _has_ to be at least 16 bits. It's usually the word size, which is usually the size of a pointer, but it doesn't have to be.
char = at least 8 bits.
short int = at least 16 bits
int = at least 16 bits
long int = at least 32 bits
> also wouldn't he need to do:
> struct device_info foo=*((struct device_info*)&a_ulDeviceHandle);
No, I suspect what he meant wasYour version wouldn't work because you can't assign a struct to another struct, you can only assign a pointer to a struct to another pointer to a struct.
In C, variables only contain numbers, not objects, as there is no concept of object - only a vague illusion every now and then via pointers - so assigning a struct makes no sense.
In that sense, C is very weakly typed, and type checking is only done at compile time. That makes casting values of different precision very dangerous, because the cast eliminates the only way through which you would detect these errors.
The official 64 bit extension thread (Score:4, Funny)
a 32 bit extension and a graphical shell for
a 16 bit patch to
an 8 bit operating system originally coded for
a 4 bit microprocessor, written by
a 2 bit company, that can't stand
1 bit of competition.
My only (very lame) suggestion is:
"a 64 bit recompilation of"
Other suggestions are welcome.
How about... (Score:3, Funny)
a 32 bit wrapper for
a 16 bit api to
an 8 bit kernel for
a 4 bit microprocessor by
a 2 bit company that can't stand
1 bit of competition.
Justin.
Are there any 64-bit games? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Are there any 64-bit games? (Score:3, Informative)
No Warrenty??? (Score:5, Funny)
actual numbers (Score:5, Informative)
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/64-bits/index .x?pg=1 [techreport.com]
Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Already in japan? (Score:4, Interesting)
Torrents? (Score:3, Funny)
Feeding the Warez (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets face it, many people already have bought Athlon 64-systems, or want to build them themselves. Those people CANT get Windows XP64 on their machines legally, if I understand this correctly.
Of course people could get an MSDN-subscription...
Why force people into warez?
Why justifying warez?
Why not sell it when people want it?
Most people wont buy a Dell just to get XP64 for their home-built system.
Power of Open Source (Score:4, Interesting)
(Browser) plugins are the other issue, if you need flash or proprietary format video playing using windows dll's you'll still want to use a 32-bit browser or video player. Konqueror, I believe, runs plugins as a separate process, so it's unaffected by this (it's not a bad design choice either, Firefox/mozilla/IE should do this too
So, do you need a 64-bit OS? Like mentioned in other comments, you probably don't need 64-bitness that much (unless running code processing lots of big numbers), but those extra registers you get in 64-bit mode give you a nice speed boost. And people already have enough memory in their boxes to see a benefit today (> 1GB is enough since you avoid all those TLB flushes and all that, this applies to Windows and Linux, >= 4GB for a big boost since you don't need that PAE crap)
Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
a: not strange
b: nothing to do with drivers:
1: makes people upgrade to faster machine anyway - wow this runs faster (more ram etc)
2: bouys IT industry with another round of upgrades
delta: microsoft often make people upgrade thier os to have a new media plyer, browser or web server, if they made it.
So not suprising.
Re:Intel (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Intel (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, Intel's "Extended Memory 64 Technology" (EM64T [intel.com]) is compatible tech. They have Pentium 4 w/ EM64T and Xeon w/ EM64T processors that will run Win XP x64 Edition (and the Server 2003 x64 Editions) just fine.
Re:Twice the Carnage (Score:3, Funny)
XP 64 ships! And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DO NOT USE THAT LINK (Score:3, Funny)
Re:DO NOT USE THAT LINK (Score:2)
Zomax mostly serves customers in the computer hardware manufacturing and software publishing industries. It provides replication, telemarketing, and fulfillment services to software giant Microsoft, which accounts for about 22% of the company's sales. Another 19% come from Dell. Zomax operates through facilities in North America and Europe.
Seems legit, although aren't they breaking the law by not supplying a legitimate pho
The link is Fine (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DO NOT USE THAT LINK (Score:3, Informative)
Re:OS X? (Score:2)
but it is also conveniently about 18 months since x86_64 linux distributions began appearing; so it could also just be laziness and/or incompetence
Re:Is it tru 64-bit? (Score:2)
I'm curious if this will mean that 32bit apps will need to run through a WOW* type interface
*Windows on Windows: the 16 & 8 bit transparent emulator that allows backwards compatibility on WinNT systems. Wow.exe or Wow32.exe, depending on your version.
Re:Is it tru 64-bit? (Score:4, Interesting)
I should note, that AMD made that decision. When running a 64 bit OS, the x86-64 architecture can run 64-bit programs, or 32-bit programs. There is no mode (AFAIK) that will let you execute 16 or 8-bit programs. In 32-bit mode on i386 you can still drop down and run 16-bit and 8-bit tasks, but not x86-64. So MS would have to build Virtual PC into Windows to allow that.
Re:Is it tru 64-bit? (Score:5, Informative)
A 64-bit application has to be broken into two executables, a 32-bit GUI front-end and a 64-bit engine.
Re:Is it tru 64-bit? (Score:4, Informative)
Technically, yes, but the way OS X handles executable packages, both executables can be bound together, so that the user sees only one "application." If done well, both executables will look like one, unless you run top.
Re:Is it tru 64-bit? (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea here is that the bulk of the OS is still 32-bits. Applications run in 32-bit space, but unix tools (Apple lingo for CLI apps) can reside in 64-bit space, as does the bulk of the underlying OS that requires it (memory, kernel, some drivers, one-button mouse etc) and that only if the hardware is 64-bits (so the OS is a FAT build for some components).
If you user-space (UI) application requires 64-bits (PhotoShop to name the proverbial example), then it's image processing threads can be 64-bits and loaded from the 32-bit UI application.
As time move on and Tiger gets more update and eventually reach MegaPussy (not the actual name but whatever 10.5 will be), more components will be 64-bits.
There is some criticism for this adoption strategy but it has a goal. This way, Tiger apps can run on either 32 or 64-bits machines. if you app requires (or uses) 64-bits components, then it will be a more concious design decision and there are less chance some dweeb ends up trying to launch a 64-bit application on it's Rev B iMac.
Such transitions to new hardware is not new to Apple (wich I consider the kings in that field, considering what the hardware platform went through). It only means less broken apps for now.
(And I was kidding about the 64-bit one-button mouse drivers.)
Re:Is it tru 64-bit? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The real question is now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect to see plenty of patching and continued development moving forward.
Re:Thanks, Slashdot editors! (Score:2, Insightful)
That Microsoft actually shipped something when they said they would is also newsworthy.
Re:Here's a question ... (Score:3, Informative)
What you can do to make the transition much more seamless is to use the File & Settings Transfer Wizard that is included on the x64 CD (it is a newer version than what shipped with 32-bit XP, so make sure you use this updated one). It wi
Re:Windows 64BIT Versions. (Score:3, Insightful)