XP=64bit capatible?

[Yomama21]

😕

Is WinXP 64 bit capatible for use with the AMD Clawhammer?

 

[meson2000]

Well, the 64bit version that is out there right now is for Itanium only. I think it
is only a 'special addition' OS from microsoft too. I don't think it is completely finished
yet. Of course I remember hearing that last year, so things could be a lot different now. Microsoft has
announced at 64bit flavour of XP for Hammer. It should be available
by the time AMD starts shipping the hammer at the end of this year.

 

[Nothinman]

If you mean "Can I buy a Hammer and boom my copy of XP is 64-bit", no You'll have to re-buy XP for it to run in 64-bit mode.

And even then 99.9% of your apps will be 32-bit anyway. The only things MS is porting is Exchange, SQL and maybe IIS. You'll probably see some things like Mozilla recompiled quickly (because it already runs on other 64-bit platforms) but really there's no gain in using the 64-bit versions over the 32-bit ones.

The only thing gained from using a 64-bit processor is a bigger address space, and I doubt you've got many apps that need more than 2G of memory for just themselves. Current IA32 processors can already do math on 64-bit integers and floats with SSE and the like.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
If you mean "Can I buy a Hammer and boom my copy of XP is 64-bit", no You'll have to re-buy XP for it to run in 64-bit mode.

And even then 99.9% of your apps will be 32-bit anyway. The only things MS is porting is Exchange, SQL and maybe IIS. You'll probably see some things like Mozilla recompiled quickly (because it already runs on other 64-bit platforms) but really there's no gain in using the 64-bit versions over the 32-bit ones.

The only thing gained from using a 64-bit processor is a bigger address space, and I doubt you've got many apps that need more than 2G of memory for just themselves. Current IA32 processors can already do math on 64-bit integers and floats with SSE and the like.

Yes but as more programs are built for it there will be more reasons to run it.

That and it's some pretty cool bragging rights to say you run a 64-b processor for your desktop...

-Spy

 

[spyordie007]

Link

 

[Nothinman]

Yes but as more programs are built for it there will be more reasons to run it.

Even if programs are compiled for it the very large majority will see no benefits.

That and it's some pretty cool bragging rights to say you run a 64-b processor for your desktop...

I already own an Alpha and an UltraSparc, the Alpha would be my desktop if it ran q3.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Even if programs are compiled for it the very large majority will see no benefits.

This is true, but in years to come it will open the door for much more complex software applications that require all the extra addresses.

We all know the differances in computer hardware and software from only 10 years ago, for software to continue in complexity and capabilities over the course of the next 10 years developers will eventually require the 64-bit processing simply because their programs will need to be more and more complex to carry out the tasks laid before them. This is stil mostly Sci-Fi though 😀

-Spy

 

[Nothinman]

developers will eventually require the 64-bit processing simply because their programs will need to be more and more complex to carry out the tasks laid before them.

I don't know about complexity, I forsee a lot of laziness though =)

 

[spyordie007]

maybe I should rephrase that to "Sci-Fi and Wishfull thinking".... 😀

-Spy

 

[vash]

I don't know about complexity, I forsee a lot of laziness though =)

That similar laziness is what dragged the adoption of NT4, I'm sure the 64-bit transition will take some time too, but lets hope its not as painful. I want the Hammer too -- to run 32bit faster than anything else on the market AND to run 64bit. Can't do that with any other chip that is known to be coming out this year.

vash

 

[Nothinman]

That similar laziness is what dragged the adoption of NT4, I'm sure the 64-bit transition will take some time too, but lets hope its not as painful. I want the Hammer too -- to run 32bit faster than anything else on the market AND to run 64bit. Can't do that with any other chip that is known to be coming out this year.

Unless MS changes their story very soon you won't be doing a whole helluva lot on that shiny new 64-bit chip this year.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

That similar laziness is what dragged the adoption of NT4, I'm sure the 64-bit transition will take some time too, but lets hope its not as painful. I want the Hammer too -- to run 32bit faster than anything else on the market AND to run 64bit. Can't do that with any other chip that is known to be coming out this year.

Unless MS changes their story very soon you won't be doing a whole helluva lot on that shiny new 64-bit chip this year.

If that holds to be true, AMD's Hammer is SCREWED.

Viper GTS

 

[Sivar]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Nothinman

That similar laziness is what dragged the adoption of NT4, I'm sure the 64-bit transition will take some time too, but lets hope its not as painful. I want the Hammer too -- to run 32bit faster than anything else on the market AND to run 64bit. Can't do that with any other chip that is known to be coming out this year.

Unless MS changes their story very soon you won't be doing a whole helluva lot on that shiny new 64-bit chip this year.

If that holds to be true, AMD's Hammer is SCREWED.

You and Nothinman may want to read that URL more carefully.
From the overview:

Overview of Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Windows XP 64-Bit Edition supports the latest class of Intel Itanium processors designed for users who need to create and manipulate large amounts of complex data.

The Itanium is a server-only CPU. This is not about the AMD 64-bit version.

Servers generally do not have soundcards, are not used to play DVDs, and generally do not run DOS apps, OS/2 apps, etc.
Ergo, it would be a waste of time for Microsoft to port these to the Itanium, just as it would be a waste of Microsoft's time to port XP to the Clawhammer if it did not include those features.

If that holds to be true, AMD's Hammer is SCREWED.

Even if that Itanium XP info were true for the Hammer as well, it would certainly not be screwed. It's not like Windows XP is the only operating system on earth. Linux, FreeBSD, and NetBSD will all release Hammer versions. For desktop users, simply install the regular 32-bit version of XP on the hammer. It may not use 64-bit registers or support >4GB of RAM, but it will still get the performance benefit of the Hammer's integrated memory controller and Hypertransport bus.

 

[Nothinman]

The Itanium is a server-only CPU. This is not about the AMD 64-bit version.

Most of the codebase is the same, they'll both be affected by a lot of what's on that list. And anyway some of the apps will be fine running in 32-bit mode (hell 99% of apps available are fine with 32-bits of address space) but there's drivers and kernel-mode things on that list too. I really wouldn't want to try running a 32-bit driver on an OS running in 64-bit mode.

 

[Sivar]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

The Itanium is a server-only CPU. This is not about the AMD 64-bit version.

Most of the codebase is the same, they'll both be affected by a lot of what's on that list. And anyway some of the apps will be fine running in 32-bit mode (hell 99% of apps available are fine with 32-bits of address space) but there's drivers and kernel-mode things on that list too. I really wouldn't want to try running a 32-bit driver on an OS running in 64-bit mode.

Hmm. Good point. Drivers may be a problem for a while after the initial release--There are a lot of 32-bit drivers out there to port. Most of them can probably simply be recompiled, but then it's an issue of whether the vendor will do that.

 

[staijo]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Yes but as more programs are built for it there will be more reasons to run it.

Even if programs are compiled for it the very large majority will see no benefits.

That and it's some pretty cool bragging rights to say you run a 64-b processor for your desktop...

I already own an Alpha and an UltraSparc, the Alpha would be my desktop if it ran q3.

Many years ago, I remember Oracle came out with a 64 bit version of their database product for the Alpha using digital unix(OSF1 or whatever). The idea was to run the ENTIRE DATABASE in memory(while still using Oracle's standard backup/recovery/failsafe systems.(redo logs and the such)

It kicked butt!!!! But died because of lack of support/need.

There are some things that are screaming for 64 bit or better OSes. But you are right, they won't take off until they can run Q3... Sad but true....

jd

 

[Nothinman]

Dude, Oracle on Alpha or Sun 64-bit boxes is very popular, my company alone has several. The idea of running the entire database in memory seems far fetched, especially since you want it on disk for reliability purposes.

There are some things that are screaming for 64 bit or better OSes

And 99% of them have it already. Anyone who isn't buying a 64-bit processor when they truly need it because it doesn't run Windows should be fired. Why would anyone buy an Itanium box for mission critical data when the chip has virtually no real world testing, that would be stupid.

 

[Sivar]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

There are some things that are screaming for 64 bit or better OSes

And 99% of them have it already. Anyone who isn't buying a 64-bit processor when they truly need it because it doesn't run Windows should be fired. Why would anyone buy an Itanium box for mission critical data when the chip has virtually no real world testing, that would be stupid.

Well said. I think that AMD is on the right track though. I started computing when 4MB of RAM was the norm, and "high end" systems had 8MB. Insane people with bottomless pockets would get 16MB, but never really used it.
Not soon after, 32MB was the norm, and 64MB, and 128MB. Now 256MB is starting to become the norm. It seems like having >4GB of RAM is rediculous now, but I imagine that KDE7 and Windows 2008 will be more than happy to occupy that much memory. The Even if it takes a very long time to occur, the Hammer is likely to be a great 32-bit chip as well. The integrated memory controller and HT bus alone will make for a substantial performance increase, and the native apps compiled for it that do not benefit from the wide ints will still benefit from having twice the number of general purpose registers available.

 

[ultimatebob]

It seems like having >4GB of RAM is rediculous now, but I imagine that KDE7 and Windows 2008 will be more than happy to occupy that much memory.

I already have some servers at work with 4GB of RAM, and most of it isn't going to waste. Java application servers can swill memory like a fat guy eating at an all you can eat buffet 🙂

Anyway, I'm sure that Windows XP will run fine on the Hammer in 32-bit mode until they release a compatible 64-bit version.

 

[mastertech01]

With all the peeps who weep about the price of WinXP Pro, I have a feeling there wont be many running 64bit Advanced server.

 

[Nothinman]

t seems like having >4GB of RAM is rediculous now, but I imagine that KDE7 and Windows 2008 will be more than happy to occupy that much memory.

Linux and Win2K will do it happily now, up to 64G on a box with PAE.

I already have some servers at work with 4GB of RAM, and most of it isn't going to waste. Java application servers can swill memory like a fat guy eating at an all you can eat buffet

Servers are a different story, you can buy 64-bit servers with 100s of Gigs of memory already. An Alpha GS160 will go 128G and a GS320 will do 256G.