Why are they not pushing 64-bit more?

It has struck me as quite odd that 64-bit computing is not being pushed much.

Look at the current state of play. All Athlon 64's, Intel Core and a lot of the later Pentium 4 range are all 64 bit CPUs. And yet what OS is used on most of them? Either the 32-bit XP or the 32-bit Vista. Why?

I really though that, with the release of Vista, both the hardware manufacturers and Microsoft would want to push the move to full 64-bit computing as it is the ideal time and opportunity to do so.

But look at the problems if you were to buy the 64-bit version of Vista. Hardly any hardware driver support and dire graphics card driver development. Hardly any software has yet to be ported to 64-bit, even though the 64 bit version of XP has been available for a long time now.

Is the just me, or does it seem odd to everyone else too?

Sure, moving to 64-bit would mean a lot of current PC software might stop working or have a lot of problems, but that happens with all moves to new technology. Look at the problems when Apple moved from PowerPC to Intel, or even when they moved the OS9 to OSX.

And why now do what Apple did and just have XP installed alongside the 64-bit version of Vista for backwards compatibility. It would work very well. And would be great if they integrated this support into Vista as they did for the OSX classic mode.

This is definitely one area the Apple have managed to get right compared to Microsoft. Apple finally made the complete switch to 64-bit support with the release of Tiger (10.3) so why can't Microsoft? Could it be because they actually have a userbase and need to still support so many 32-bit end users!

At the moment, if you really wanted to get the most out of your 64-bit CPU you would need to opt for Linux and the 64-bit Distros and 64-bit compiled software. This shows such a huge advantage to using open source OS's and software, because it can easily be compiled for any distro or version.

Do you think we will see a move to 64-bit any time soon? What was really the point of the 64-bit processors if we don't!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrison

Do you think we will see a move to 64-bit any time soon? What was really the point of the 64-bit processors if we don't!

---

Manufacturers love to boast about having the bigger numbers. I remember the inital fuss and clamour over 64 bit XP, but it very quickly died down and I never heard any more about it. I too thought it would be more popular and eventually take over. I guess that 64-bit windows OS will eventually come to the fore, but slowly I suppose.

Once we see games and applications needing more than 4GB of ram to get the most out of them people will suddenly be taking an interest in 64-bit OSs, as 32-bit version of XP and Vista can only address 4GB of ram, compared to the 64-bit versions, which can address 128GB!

Quote:

---

Once we see games and applications needing more than 4GB of ram to get the most out of them people will suddenly be taking an interest in 64-bit OSs

---

I think that 4GB at the moment is still overkill, I mean for usual applications or games.

At the moment, yes, but a couple of years ago people would have said the same about 2GB, and now some games only run at their best when given this amount and many people have 2GB of ram in their computers.

Some applications can already benefit from 4GB+ of ram, such as 3D and video post production applications. But other than future games and applications that need a lot of ram for processing large volumes of data, I agree that most other applications shouldn't ever need so much ram though. If Microsoft Office ever has such a requirement something would seriously be wrong with its coders.

Although one other element is now a factor too. Multicore processors. The more cores you have running in a computer, the more ram you need so that each processor has enough of its own to get on with its processes without needing to wait for the others to free it up. Having 2GB in a 4 core system would only give each core an equal split if 512MB when all 4 are running at full speed processing different information. Obviously some processes would use more or less than this but it's just an example. So sticking 4GB in the same system would allow each to have 1GB all at the same time.

Oz has installed Cinema 4D on a PC at work which has only 1GB, and it really takes some time to render pictures. He did a movie of EVE Online which you can also see at YouTube.

3D is definitely one of the most intensive processing tasks and always takes time, especially when you increase the output resolution. It also depends how large texture maps are and how optimised the object geometry is. All takes up a lot of ram though when processing and the more the better.

In fact, even back in 2000 the design company I was working for at the time had a SGi workstation with 4GB of ram specifically designed for 3DSMAX. But one mad thing about that workstation was that they only included an 8GB HD! Mad.

Quote:

---

But one mad thing about that workstation was that they only included an 8GB HD! Mad.

---

Wasted money, they didn't really need the 4GB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrison

.... as 32-bit version of XP and Vista can only address 4GB of ram, compared to the 64-bit versions, which can address 128GB!

---

Ahh, the good ol' days of computer hardware: address lines, bus, data lines.....ahh, those were simpler times :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrison

At the moment, yes, but a couple of years ago people would have said the same about 2GB, and now some games only run at their best when given this amount and many people have 2GB of ram in their computers.

---

LMAO i still only have 256mb of ram on my pc lol and it runs ................really badly actually i should definitely prioritise my purchases.