64-bit Windows a waste of time?

[jdougher]

Was reading an article (64 bit nonsense) just now and the guy was saying basically don't bother. What do you folks think?

 

[sandorski]

I'm going to. I think some of his points are good, but he may leave the impression that 32bit software won't work, which isn't the case. It may not make much sense or someone to Upgrade from WinXP to Win 64 at this time, but if one is getting a new system with a 64bit processor, Win64 might be a good investment, since eventually the extra ram is going to be needed and software will be written for 64bit(not to say that 32bit versions won't be available). You just have to check to make sure all your carry over hardware will have 64 bit drivers or full functionality in Win64 first.

 

[willstay]

I had hell lot of trouble installing PixelView TV card on XP SP2. The installation CD works only for Windows 98 and Windows 2000. If this is the case with 32 bit XP, I won't even try installing TV card in 64 bit XP.

The day PixelView website list 64-bit driver for my TV card (I don't believe they will very soon) and Creative with 64-bit driver for not-in-production-anymore-Audigy, I will install 64-bit XP in my second partition (if it supports dual boot).

What I believe is - my next OS upgrade will directly be Windows Vista.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Right now, however, 64-bit computing is a mixed bag. In theory 64-bit computers can handle more memory and larger data files. Today's 32-bit Intel-based computers, for instance, can address only 4 gigabytes (GB) of memory, and that 4 GB is split between the operating system and applications.

Install 32-bit Windows 2003 Server and by using PAE (enabled by default) the OS can easily address more memory. Each _process_ is limited to 2GB virtual address space.

Reading further on is even more disappointing.

so the extra memory and resources addressable by a 64-bit computer will go wasted.

First this guy says 32-bit operating systems maxes out at 4GB memory, and then he concludes all that memory will go to waste when using a 64-bit OS? Strange conclusion, unless the guy only runs a single memory hungry app.

In any case, something interesting happens with 32-bit Windows apps under 64-bit Windows. Their virtual address space doubles (from 2GB to 4GB). So if you have a memory hungry 32-bit app like Photoshop, definitively go 64-bit now!

When running single applications without a great deal of multitasking, a high-end single-core processor will outrun a dual-core chip.

About the only thing the guy got right. But there are plenty of apps that do benefit from SMP. Seeing as the guy posted on "photocamel", I would guess Photoshop factors heavily into what kind of apps this cat run. RAW conversions and filters in PS will benefit a lot from more cores.

My advice is to do your own research.

 

[bsobel]

In any case, something interesting happens with 32-bit Windows apps under 64-bit Windows. Their virtual address space doubles (from 2GB to 4GB). So if you have a memory hungry 32-bit app like Photoshop, definitively go 64-bit now!

FYI, that is only true if the app was marked as large memory aware on 32bit Windows (e.g. marked so it could have 3gig of user memory and 1gig of kernel vs 2gig and 2gig)

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: willstay
I had hell lot of trouble installing PixelView TV card on XP SP2. The installation CD works only for Windows 98 and Windows 2000. If this is the case with 32 bit XP, I won't even try installing TV card in 64 bit XP.

The day PixelView website list 64-bit driver for my TV card (I don't believe they will very soon) and Creative with 64-bit driver for not-in-production-anymore-Audigy, I will install 64-bit XP in my second partition (if it supports dual boot).

What I believe is - my next OS upgrade will directly be Windows Vista.

There are 64bit drivers for the Audigy.

 

[SynthDude2001]

I probably won't upgrade to XP x64 even when I do finally get around to getting an A64 of some kind...There aren't 64-bit drivers available for my HDTV tuner card (and may never be), so I can wait.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: bsobel
FYI, that is only true if the app was marked as large memory aware on 32bit Windows (e.g. marked so it could have 3gig of user memory and 1gig of kernel vs 2gig and 2gig)

We've had this discussion before...

I'm well aware of the large address aware flag, but those apps who can utilise a big address space probably have this flag set already. Photoshop certainly does!

Seeing the source of the article (a discussion forum for photo enthusiasts), Photoshop is pretty much all that matters. Hence I didn't bother mentioning the flag. (last time I mentioned the flag you jumped on me still, so it wouldn't have mattered one iota I suspect, whether I had brought it up again or not)

And (as I said) under 64-bit Windows, that 32-bit process gains a full 4 GB virtual address space. (not limited to 3 as it would be under 32-bit Windows using the very dubious /3GB boot switch which really is of very limited use as it imposes serious restrictions on kernel memory) In the context of this discussion (PS usage), that's all that matters.

 

[camotec]

To be non-technical,
Not even all of Microsofts 'Current' Software Applications work on Windows x64 (so what hope have we got for alot of other software we use) and as an added annoyance the fact that so much frigging around to try and get hardware to work, when so many companies haven't got x64 drivers.

(I did get 5 extra Frames p/second in BF2 though, OMG! )

I am waiting for Vista because it will be a huge MS Release and everyone will follow.
(Windows x64 didn't really have a big introduction)

Anyways my 2 cents
Cheers
Ben