32 bit is no longer valid

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: apoppin
http://www.comodo.com/products/free_products.html

i notice some of you are complaining about 64Bit Win and Firewalls
... the above was recommended to me

Nice link!

Have you used any of that software? I'm curious to know how well it works.

Avast AV is another good 64-bit security software package, but it requires (free) registration.

EDIT: The Comodo backup and antivirus software do not support Vista? When I run these setup programs, I get an error about my operating system not being supported.

 

[Cheex]

I've seen people talking about a 64-Bit version of Firefox. Can someone provide me a link to it?
32-Bit works fine but I read that the 64-Bit version is a lot faster.


Note: I have sold 1GB from my kit to help fund my upgrade to 4GB (will sell other stick the the 4GB gets here). I've noticed that with 1GB of RAM, Vista x64 is still more responsive than my usual XP x86. Strange but true.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
It might be 64-bit aware, making all 4GB of RAM "visible".

But the range between ~3 - 4GB is still not available to applications - and again, it will probably never be.

Of course the RAM that /would/ end up located there is perfectly available to applications - if the RAM controller can relocate this area to above-4G addresses, and then if the CPU can reach up there. In other words, you need a 64-bit CPU and, if it's Intel not AMD, either a server chipset or a recent desktop chipset.
BIOS provides a RAM area enumeration to the OS. This lets the OS figure out where to find RAM, even if it is discontiguous with however many "I/O holes" in it.

The "obvious" other way round, leave the RAM in one piece and relocate all that I/O and peripheral stuff to higher addresses, won't work for several reasons:

* No 32-bit operating system would be able to boot anymore
* Many many PCI devices do not even support being mapped to above-4G locations at all
* Various system core devices are located on fixed addresses in that below-4G window; moving them would break the x86 architecture.

Pretty much the exact same set of reasons why we "got" to keep the peripheral I/O window between 640K and 1M when the PC-AT superseded the XT in 1984.

 

[her34]

why does hardware mapping start at upper limit and then work downward?

why not just start at 0, map all hardware stuff, then leave OS gets rest?

 

[Peter]

A brief history of time ...

Historically, in x86 architecture computers starting with the very first IBM PC, RAM grew from the bottom up and I/O grew from the top down. This model is imposed by the processor, which fetches its first instruction from the very top of its address space - which means that as a system designer, you need to put the firmware ROM up there, else the thing won't start.

The IBM PC had 20-bit addressing, which gave 1 MByte. I/O occupied the space from 640K-1M with the ROM at the top and some space for expansion cards below it, and as we all know, this meant you could have 640K of RAM.

The next generation, the PC-AT, with the new 286 processor that added four address bits to give 16 MBytes of address space. This was exclusively used for "extended RAM", while the I/O hole was not relocated to below-16M to keep the PC-AT software compatible with its predecessors. [Insert mandatory GateA20 rant here]. The 286 was special in that it fetched its first instruction still from 1M-16, not from 16M-16, so there was no I/O hole below 16M (until "linear mode" ISA VGA cards made their brief appearance, but let's skip that for now).

Then came the 386, with 32-bit addressing. This one did fetch its first instruction from 4G-16, and thus required the BIOS ROM to map to the top of 4G address space - and thus the 2nd I/O hole was born. Of course, at the time, nobody in their right mind anticipated the platform to last until gigabytes of RAM in a personal computer would be possible - and once again, the architecture didn't get a complete makover to keep things compatible with existing operating systems.

The 486 and Pentium generations gradually added more 32-bit capable I/O devices (VESA local bus graphics, PCI peripherals, as well as chipset-integrated PCI-like peripherals and new system hardware for exclusive use with 32-bit capable operating systems). With the BIOS ROM at the top of address space a given, all that stuff got mapped to right below it. The architecture wasn't changed, for compatibility ... you know the deal.

As we all know by now, RAM sizes started to grow like mad in the Pentium days, and it was quickly anticipated that 32-bit address space wouldn't last long. Intel developed an "extended" processor mode, PAE, that allowed 36 bit addressing, albeit with a rather ugly paged programming model. Once again, the architecture didn't get changed, all the I/O remained where it always was, and the extra RAM appeared on top of it, between the upper bound of the 2nd I/O window at 4G and the end of 36-bit space at 64G.

AMD then added the 64-bit mode to their processors, with 40-bit physical addressing, and Intel followed (but stayed at 36 bits to stay compatible with their existing PAE chipsets). This is where we are now, and the address map is the same as in PAE mode - only with non-paged, linear addressing capability.

 

[taltamir]

that is all nice and neat as far as implementation ideas go... but it is unnecessary as 0 space is wasted due to the fact that some is from the top and some is from the bottom... its the total amount of address that are the issue. As mapping allows anything to be address no matter how many "holes" the map needs to have.

 

[Peter]

You haven't listened, have you? Things are the way they are because the underlying architecture (and its history) dictates so.

If you want to build a new processor architecture and the chipsets to go with them, redefine a handful of key specs in PCI and PCI Express, and then port your favorite operating system to this new architecture, then go ahead.

There's no point in doing that though. The physical address map matters next to nothing to the applications, simply because the OS uses the processor's Memory Management Unit (MMU) to abstract the physical memory map and provide the applications a totally different world view.

And if you're running out of space, extend the space. This has already happened four times, and the current 40-bit map at AMD will last a while (it's one Terabyte) ... besides, it can be extended to 48 or even 64 bits physical address space without changing the programming model again.

Very much like in the old days, when later PC-AT machines physically had 1MB of RAM but 384K of it was obscured by I/O, the only thing that matters is that if you mind this loss, you need to use a hardware/software combination that remaps this bit of RAM and makes use of it. Remember NEAT chipsets and HIMEM.SYS?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus

Originally posted by: apoppin
http://www.comodo.com/products/free_products.html

i notice some of you are complaining about 64Bit Win and Firewalls
... the above was recommended to me

Nice link!

Have you used any of that software? I'm curious to know how well it works.

Avast AV is another good 64-bit security software package, but it requires (free) registration.

EDIT: The Comodo backup and antivirus software do not support Vista? When I run these setup programs, I get an error about my operating system not being supported.

No ... i am a happy Win Vista-32 user


it got sent to me by a cyber-friend who swears by their Firewall for both XP 64 bit and Vista 64 bit ... he says he has been using their free products since 2005 ... but i have no personal experience with them

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Cheex
I've seen people talking about a 64-Bit version of Firefox. Can someone provide me a link to it?
32-Bit works fine but I read that the 64-Bit version is a lot faster.


Note: I have sold 1GB from my kit to help fund my upgrade to 4GB (will sell other stick the the 4GB gets here). I've noticed that with 1GB of RAM, Vista x64 is still more responsive than my usual XP x86. Strange but true.

Flash does not work with it. That alone makes it a no go for me.

 

[Crassus]

@justageek... one of my biggest gripes about 64bit is lack of applications, but there are a few and they make it worthwhile because they are so much faster...
1. 64bit IE7 - several times faster
2. 64bit firefox - several times faster
3. 64bit 7zip compression program (I just tried a file in both the 64 and 32 bit versions and the 64bit one was 19% faster)
4. Windows itself... vista 32bit is much slower in doing normal operations compared tovista64bit.
5. RealVNC - several times faster loading.

These are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head... probably the only ones I use. But its still nice to have them.

What no one seems to remember is that AMD64 doubled the number of available General Purpose and SSE(2) registers for processors, which is only accessible in the processor's Long Mode (64 bit prog running on a 64 bit OS). If I remember correctly this is the reason why 64 bit progs run faster, regardless if you have 2 GB or 8 GB RAM installed, because it (somewhat) alleviates register pressure.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Crassus

@justageek... one of my biggest gripes about 64bit is lack of applications, but there are a few and they make it worthwhile because they are so much faster...
1. 64bit IE7 - several times faster
2. 64bit firefox - several times faster
3. 64bit 7zip compression program (I just tried a file in both the 64 and 32 bit versions and the 64bit one was 19% faster)
4. Windows itself... vista 32bit is much slower in doing normal operations compared tovista64bit.
5. RealVNC - several times faster loading.

These are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head... probably the only ones I use. But its still nice to have them.

What no one seems to remember is that AMD64 doubled the number of available General Purpose and SSE(2) registers for processors, which is only accessible in the processor's Long Mode (64 bit prog running on a 64 bit OS). If I remember correctly this is the reason why 64 bit progs run faster, regardless if you have 2 GB or 8 GB RAM installed, because it (somewhat) alleviates register pressure.

I never saw anyone take ram amounts into accounts when discussing speed because the comparison was always done with the same amounts of ram... Actually these comparison are all done on the exact same computer running vista64bit, only some programs are running in 32bit mode and some in 64bit.

Anyways I was under the impression that the improvement to speed comes from being able to perform calculations using 64bit datasets rather than 32bit datasets... I guess the registers would help too, but isn't it primarily the direct calculations that benefit?

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: Peter
A brief history of time ...

One of the most concise and informative posts I have ever seen...

Very impressive.

Thank you, Peter.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Cheex
I've seen people talking about a 64-Bit version of Firefox. Can someone provide me a link to it?
32-Bit works fine but I read that the 64-Bit version is a lot faster.


Note: I have sold 1GB from my kit to help fund my upgrade to 4GB (will sell other stick the the 4GB gets here). I've noticed that with 1GB of RAM, Vista x64 is still more responsive than my usual XP x86. Strange but true.

Flash does not work with it. That alone makes it a no go for me.

Can you give me a link for it so I can try it out please?

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Peter
Remember NEAT chipsets and HIMEM.SYS?

That was a very informative post, but please don't even joke about HIMEM.SYS. I still have post-traumatic stress disorder from HIMEM.SYS, XMS and EMS. :Q If we have to relive those days, I'm moving in to a cave.

 

[jzodda]

Running 64 bit Vista here and running flawless

Now thats not including the miserable time I spent in April with Vista before I went back to XP. When crappy creative labs released the first viable driver for vista 64 in early November Vista 64 turned the corner for me. I now hardly ever boot to XP, but before that I spent weeks at a time without even booting into Vista. So the horror stories were accurate from my point of view, its just that they are now out of date.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

I just built a new rig last month, and had a decision to make. Do I stick with 2 GB of RAM and go with the old 32-bit dinosaur, or do I spend $50 (FIFTY DOLLARS) to double my RAM and go with Vista 64-bit and the future? The choice was pretty easy.

I have been surprised by Vista 64. It runs smooth as butter. The only thing that crashes are poorly written games/programs. Windows itself is very smooth and stable. Driver support has been fine. I've found 64-bit drivers for all my gear, and have been able to find 64-bit programs of many of the programs I use. If there isn't a 64-bit version available, 32-bit apps work (9 out of 10 times) just fine on Vista 64. As someone mentioned before, I have yet to find a 64-bit firewall, but I use Windows Firewall + router + Firefox + safe browsing habits, so I should be fine. Flash Player works fine, just not in IE7 64-bit STILL, a year later (because Adobe is bloated and sucks). I did have a problem with the new Ad-aware 2007 hanging up every time I tried to do a Quick Scan. I don't know what the deal is with that, but I just use Windows Defender...it seems to work just fine.

All in all, I am very happy with my 4 GB Vista 64-bit setup. XP feels like Windows 3.11 to me now. It's 7 years old, the tech is ancient and it needs to go away.

FYI, for all those saying "XP IS THE MOST STABLE OS EVAR", you probably didn't adopt XP back when it first came out. It took AT LEAST a year or two before XP was even usable. I worked in a dev house, and we refused to support XP until the first service pack. It was that bad. So please don't spout that silliness. Vista in the first year is 10x more stable than XP was in its first year.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

^ Comodo works in Vista x64 as a Firewall, and it's actually a very nice one.

Does anyone run Firefox x64 (aka Minefield?). I tried to install it but got startup errors. Oh well, guess I'll just have to wait a bit longer for that.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: jzodda
Running 64 bit Vista here and running flawless

Now thats not including the miserable time I spent in April with Vista before I went back to XP. When crappy creative labs released the first viable driver for vista 64 in early November Vista 64 turned the corner for me. I now hardly ever boot to XP, but before that I spent weeks at a time without even booting into Vista. So the horror stories were accurate from my point of view, its just that they are now out of date.

If you read some of the previous comments, especially some by Peter, you'd know that not all of the fault lies with Creative. Sure they eventually fixed the problem (probably by forcing a physical memory address re-map), but that could've easily been resolved before it got to the drivers through a chipset/BIOS update or an OS work-around (further evidenced by the fact X-Fi worked fine in 32-bit OS before it hit I/O addresses in the 3GB+ range). Still, happy to see it got fixed, as that was certainly one of the lingering problems I had with Vista.

And also, as mentioned earlier, I was pretty sure I read AT was moving to 64-bit and they are. They just need to make the move sooner and stop running $5000+ worth of hardware with a bum wing, as they did in the Tri-SLI review. But here's the quote from the 8800GT review:

Derek Wilson in 8800GT Review:

For this test, we are using a high end CPU configured with 4GB of DDR2 in an NVIDIA 680i motherboard. While we are unable to make full use of the 4GB of RAM due to the fact that we're running 32-bit Vista, we will be switching to 64-bit within the next few months for graphics. Before we do so we'll have a final article on how performance stacks up between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista, as well as a final look at Windows XP performance.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
I just built a new rig last month, and had a decision to make. Do I stick with 2 GB of RAM and go with the old 32-bit dinosaur, or do I spend $50 (FIFTY DOLLARS) to double my RAM and go with Vista 64-bit and the future? The choice was pretty easy.

I have been surprised by Vista 64. It runs smooth as butter. The only thing that crashes are poorly written games/programs. Windows itself is very smooth and stable. Driver support has been fine. I've found 64-bit drivers for all my gear, and have been able to find 64-bit programs of many of the programs I use. If there isn't a 64-bit version available, 32-bit apps work (9 out of 10 times) just fine on Vista 64. As someone mentioned before, I have yet to find a 64-bit firewall, but I use Windows Firewall + router + Firefox + safe browsing habits, so I should be fine. Flash Player works fine, just not in IE7 64-bit STILL, a year later (because Adobe is bloated and sucks). I did have a problem with the new Ad-aware 2007 hanging up every time I tried to do a Quick Scan. I don't know what the deal is with that, but I just use Windows Defender...it seems to work just fine.

All in all, I am very happy with my 4 GB Vista 64-bit setup. XP feels like Windows 3.11 to me now. It's 7 years old, the tech is ancient and it needs to go away.

FYI, for all those saying "XP IS THE MOST STABLE OS EVAR", you probably didn't adopt XP back when it first came out. It took AT LEAST a year or two before XP was even usable. I worked in a dev house, and we refused to support XP until the first service pack. It was that bad. So please don't spout that silliness. Vista in the first year is 10x more stable than XP was in its first year.

Yes, XP today is the most stable Windows EVER.

I only highlighted the examples of instability of Vista 64 that you mention yourself, proving that it is not really ready for adoption by general public.

Just like the XP wasn't 7 years ago, when you decided to wait.

I still have not heard about the real advantages of going the 64 bit route today, as opposed to waiting a year or two. All you say is that you are "very happy", and that "it runs smooth as butter".

I will stick to my "dinosaur" until I don't have to worry about the "poorly written games/programs" crashing.

Another year or two.

Just like you did with the XP.

 

[taltamir]

ESET (makers of NOD32, the best antivirus ever made) have recently released a security suite... (they used to have just an antivirus)...

And ESET products have been 64bit from day one... it is even transperant to the user... you download the installer... it will automatically detect which OS you are running and install whichever version is appropriate.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
I still have not heard about the real advantages of going the 64 bit route today, as opposed to waiting a year or two. All you say is that you are "very happy", and that "it runs smooth as butter".

That's because you still refuse to acknowledge games today can use 2GB+ and that a lightly loaded system can exceed 3.25GB commit charge. There's really no point in arguing with someone who doesn't make the move themselves, they'll just continue to wonder why the game inexplicably crashes with some odd BSOD or they're seeing games stutter or their HDD is constantly thrashing etc.

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: Cheex
I've heard cases of people running Vista x64 flawlessly.

I'm one of them. Moved over to it from 32bit vista in september and never looked back. There are still many urban myths flying about anyway. I think the "omg vista64 sucks and is slow and yaddayadda" replaced the "omg XP is soooo much faster than vista" for the most part these days. :laugh:

The driver situation is also far from bad unless you use some exotic/EOL pieces from lazy companies who couldnt care less about their customers as soon as they got your money.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Because games or programs never crash or have stability problems on XP...

You cited my quote where I said Flash 64-bit (32-bit Flash works great in IE and Firefox) and a newly released freeware ad-ware scanner that doesn't work on my computer as "perfect" examples of why you're sticking with XP and Vista 64 isn't "ready for adoption by the general public".

Your post makes no sense. I have had, at most, minor issues with Vista 64. No more, probably less than an XP system would have. I can use all 4 Gigs of my RAM. I know I can stick with Vista 64 in the future because it's not based on 20 year old tech (32-bit).

I really, really don't get your logic, but to each their own I guess?

Oh, and I look at some of these poorly written programs not working as a plus, that way I can weed out the crap and only use stuff that works right and adheres to common-sense programming practices.

32-bit and XP are obsolete now...it's only going to get worse as the times keep moving forward and programs get bigger and more complex.

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
I just built a new rig last month, and had a decision to make. Do I stick with 2 GB of RAM and go with the old 32-bit dinosaur, or do I spend $50 (FIFTY DOLLARS) to double my RAM and go with Vista 64-bit and the future? The choice was pretty easy.

I have been surprised by Vista 64. It runs smooth as butter. The only thing that crashes are poorly written games/programs. Windows itself is very smooth and stable. Driver support has been fine. I've found 64-bit drivers for all my gear, and have been able to find 64-bit programs of many of the programs I use. If there isn't a 64-bit version available, 32-bit apps work (9 out of 10 times) just fine on Vista 64. As someone mentioned before, I have yet to find a 64-bit firewall, but I use Windows Firewall + router + Firefox + safe browsing habits, so I should be fine. Flash Player works fine, just not in IE7 64-bit STILL, a year later (because Adobe is bloated and sucks). I did have a problem with the new Ad-aware 2007 hanging up every time I tried to do a Quick Scan. I don't know what the deal is with that, but I just use Windows Defender...it seems to work just fine.

All in all, I am very happy with my 4 GB Vista 64-bit setup. XP feels like Windows 3.11 to me now. It's 7 years old, the tech is ancient and it needs to go away.

FYI, for all those saying "XP IS THE MOST STABLE OS EVAR", you probably didn't adopt XP back when it first came out. It took AT LEAST a year or two before XP was even usable. I worked in a dev house, and we refused to support XP until the first service pack. It was that bad. So please don't spout that silliness. Vista in the first year is 10x more stable than XP was in its first year.

Yes, XP today is the most stable Windows EVER.

I only highlighted the examples of instability of Vista 64 that you mention yourself, proving that it is not really ready for adoption by general public.

Just like the XP wasn't 7 years ago, when you decided to wait.

I still have not heard about the real advantages of going the 64 bit route today, as opposed to waiting a year or two. All you say is that you are "very happy", and that "it runs smooth as butter".

I will stick to my "dinosaur" until I don't have to worry about the "poorly written games/programs" crashing.

Another year or two.

Just like you did with the XP.

 

[JustaGeek]

Look, guys - if you are trying so hard to convince me, and perhaps the others, to spend ~$200+ (or ~$110 for OEM HP), you have to do a better job than that.

I use 3GB of RAM, and the only game that will push the memory beyond 2GB is Quake 4. I recorded 72% use of 3GB RAM with my obsolete 32-bit XP. Maybe STALKER comes close to 2GB, but even Crysis stays within 50%-60%.

No crashes here - perfectly stable for about 1 year, with a very quirky 650i chipset, mild OC, 4 RAM modules and recently acquired 8800GT.

Now - if I decided to build my system today, perhaps I would choose the 64-bit Vista, only because this is definitely the future of computing.

But I have yet to hear - WHY I should spend the money to "disrupt" my perfectly stable system, where I don't have to second guess "will this, or that, run on Vista 64?"

Tell me, what can you do now with Vista 64, that I can not do with my XP? Don't tell me about "seeing all the RAM", because very few people will need more than 3GB today.

Tell me: if you had Vista 64, you could, for example, run Crysis at 60 fpm, or do 1M SuperPi in 5 seconds flat...

Just give me a good reason... I have not heard a single one yet.

 

[taltamir]

Who exactly is trying to convince you to spend n dollars on a new os? For many people the choice between 64bit and 32bit costs nothing (for example, the retail version of ultimate allows you to install both with the same key)...
If you have XP on a current machine than keep it... the benefit hardly justifies the work and 200$ price tag. But if you make a new machine and can use which ever you want then get 64bit for the exact same price.

Furthermore, no you can't get 60fps on crysis or superpi in 5 seconds... but you do get realvnc, firefox, ie, 7zip, and a few other programs running at 64bit and much faster.
What kind of requirements are those anyways? you wouldn't upgrade unless you get 60fps in crises? reviewers couldn't get 60fps in crysis using 3 8800 Ultra cards running in triple SLI with the 1000$ quad core CPU.

If running a little bit faster on some programs isn't a good enough reason for you to use it, then don't use it.
The horror stories in vista, and the 64bit version especially were very real, but they are outdated. Currently anyone here who is actually using it is saying its a painless experience...