64 bit processors

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 1, 2005, 10:05 am

Why are people hyping 64 bit processors when it buys you nothing if your OS and application weren't compiled 64 bit? Even then, a direct port isn't always going to be more efficient. Marketing to stupid users?

You get penix jousting points anyway, that's about it...

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » March 1, 2005, 1:58 pm

The issues were the same back when processors shifted from 16 to 32 bit with the advent of the x386 (20 years ago!). You didn't buy the processor for what you were running that day, you bought it for what you were going to run tomorrow. When it came to OS and application options, we were still mostly a 16 bit world for years after widespread 32 bit processor deployments (well into the x586s life cycle). Options for OS and appliations that take full advantage of the processor's power will gradually come as market demand grows (i.e. as more units are deployed).

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » March 1, 2005, 2:09 pm

owned.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 1, 2005, 2:17 pm

not really.

i know my uncle has been administering some boxes w/ the Intel Merced prototypes for a couple of years, and some flavor of 64 bit Unix. i also think 64 bit Windows is deployed in certain beta environments as well(?). anyways, it probably wont be too long for the enterprise environment to see 64 bit platforms and applications.

not that i keep up with that stuff though.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 1, 2005, 2:19 pm

yup.. same was said about 32 bit back in the day... it has to happen in spurts and slowly before it takes over as the standard.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 1, 2005, 2:50 pm

Aabidano wrote:Why are people hyping 64 bit processors when it buys you nothing if your OS and application weren't compiled 64 bit? Even then, a direct port isn't always going to be more efficient. Marketing to stupid users?

You get penix jousting points anyway, that's about it...

Or.. Why would you buy an OS that supported 64-bit processors if you only have a 32 bit processor? It's called progress. Something has to come first whether it's the chicken or the egg. And of course the correct answer is 'chicken'.

Trias · Post by **Trias** » March 1, 2005, 3:08 pm

i scrapped my former plan of pc parts to buy, and just bought a new 775 chip and motherboard...can't wait to try it out...i'll post details in another thread once i have the system built to completion in a week or so

using the socket 478 3.4ghz that i have here to build a pc for my younger sister whom needs a new system for school...was a good excuse to give myself on pissing away money on new parts ^^

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 1, 2005, 3:08 pm

actually the egg came before the chicken

Reptiles evolved the amniotic egg allowing them to have their entire life cycle on land

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 1, 2005, 3:19 pm

Fash wrote:same was said about 32 bit back in the day

It took from 1982 (iirc) when the 386 came out, until Win2K was released before widespread 32 bit application support was available via an MS OS.

I was mainly wondering what the justification for the expense was for the early adopters.

*Edit - At a standard MS progress rate, we won't see widespread deplyment until 2007 or later.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 1, 2005, 3:21 pm

i thought the main 16->32 bit transition was pretty much done by Win95/98, not that it changes the point of your question.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » March 1, 2005, 3:40 pm

The i386 came out in '85, and was the driving force behind Microsoft and IBM's collaborative development of a 32 bit OS. The partnership failed, but it did eventually result in OS/2 and eventually Windows NT. SCO Unix and Novell Netware also were early supporters of the 32 bit architecture. It took several years, but the options gradually became available. The business world saw the first benefits 32 bit OSes, followed by applications, and the consumer world saw the first real beneifts with the release of Windows 95.

Support for 64 bit systems will come much faster than they did when transitioning from 16 to 32 bit. Many OSes and business apps (DB servers) that take advantage of 64 bit architecture are already available, and more will be soon. The business world has had 64 bit (non-intel) options for a long time now, and so the performance benefits are already known. Further, the computing world is much more performance oriented than it was in 1985, and so the demand for better and faster systems will drive faster adoption than with past technology shifts.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » March 1, 2005, 4:25 pm

Forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't MS developing a 64 bit version of Longhorn (the next version of Windows)? Also (IIRC) there are currently some Linux distros that are 64 bit capable as well.

noel · Post by **noel** » March 1, 2005, 4:35 pm

Tenuvil wrote:Forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't MS developing a 64 bit version of Longhorn (the next version of Windows)? Also (IIRC) there are currently some Linux distros that are 64 bit capable as well.

Correct. I also believe there is a version of 2k3 server that's 64-bit. Still there are very few applications written for a 64-bit processor.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 1, 2005, 4:38 pm

List of 11 software developers with native 64 bit applications for Winblows Server 2003:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2 ... tisvs.mspx

some big names here.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » March 1, 2005, 4:43 pm

There is also a Windows XP 64 bit version which I have installed on a couple of machines. The biggest problem I had was finding all the drivers. I had to contact the manufacturers for several of them.

On a side note, I just put together a new 64 bit machine. It is probably the most advanced I have done.

Asus A8N SLI Deluxe board
Athlon 64 3500
2GB RAM (bleh only took standard DDR and not DDR2)
2 Nvidia 6800 256MB SLI video cards (oh yes, this rocks. If only I can find the applications that will use it to its potential)
74GB 10K RPM Western Digital SATA drive

Llaffer · Post by **Llaffer** » March 1, 2005, 6:59 pm

I have a gentoo linux box tuned to my AMD64 3500+ processor.

Very fast.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 2, 2005, 9:34 am

Fash wrote:List of 11 software developers with native 64 bit applications for Winblows Server 2003:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2 ... tisvs.mspx.

Answers that question, didn't think that stuff would be out and functional for another year.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 2, 2005, 10:46 am

Voronwë wrote:actually the egg came before the chicken

Reptiles evolved the amniotic egg allowing them to have their entire life cycle on land

Biology isn't necessary to answer the question of which came first. First, we know that there are birds other than chickens. Second, we know that birds can lay eggs that have slightly different characteristics than themselves (slightly different colouring, etc). From here we can identify that there are certain number of prerequisites that must be met to declare a particular bird a chicken. Hypothetically, we know that they could be a mating pair of birds that each satisfy all but one or two of the requirements for being a chicken, and that this mating pair could produce an egg that met those requirements. Once maturity is met, we know that birds do not change from one type to another (ducks do not become pigeons). Therefore, the hypothetical solution of two birds that are "almost" chickens mating to produce a chicken egg is the only logical solution that results in a chicken that could have actually happened.

Therefore, the (chicken-) egg came first.

As Voronwe correctly pointed out, the egg predated the chicken, but that wasn't the spirit of the question.

Deneve · Post by **Deneve** » March 6, 2005, 2:12 pm

I did my reading and decided that my next computer was going to be 64 bit. But now i see this on newegg: AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 512k L2 Cache, The Only 64-bit Windows Compatible Processor Link: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDe ... 484&depa=1

So they're saying that this processor will not run windows 2k? http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDe ... 486&depa=1

I find it hard to believe that 64bit is generally not windows compatible...

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » March 6, 2005, 5:54 pm

Deneve wrote:I did my reading and decided that my next computer was going to be 64 bit. But now i see this on newegg: AMD Athlon 64 3400+, 512k L2 Cache, The Only 64-bit Windows Compatible Processor Link: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDe ... 484&depa=1

So they're saying that this processor will not run windows 2k? http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDe ... 486&depa=1

I find it hard to believe that 64bit is generally not windows compatible...

must be a misprint, any AMD 64 processor is Windows compatible.

Llaffer · Post by **Llaffer** » March 6, 2005, 9:01 pm

Might be the only one that Micro$oft stamped a seal of approval on, but any AMD64 chip should run any 64-bit OS.

Deneve · Post by **Deneve** » March 8, 2005, 12:43 am

I just talked with friend who is more tech-savy than myself and was informed that the 64bit processors run a beta version of windows XP that is free for download online. Does anyone have any experience with this OS?

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » March 8, 2005, 5:06 pm

Deneve wrote:I just talked with friend who is more tech-savy than myself and was informed that the 64bit processors run a beta version of windows XP that is free for download online. Does anyone have any experience with this OS?

Yes. it is just like normal XP. The biggest issue is getting all your drivers. You will most likely have to contact some of the manufacturers to get their super secret beta drivers. There isn't much that runs on this OS yet but its fun to play with.

Deneve · Post by **Deneve** » March 9, 2005, 12:31 am

Hrm, I'm thinking I'll stick with 32-bit...The 64 sounds nice, but it would be a considerable time investment to get it to work and from what I hear there are very few programs that I would use that would benefit from it. Plus I prefer 2k pro over XP...

Trias · Post by **Trias** » April 7, 2005, 4:02 pm

*update* new pc is stupid fast...from pushing power on till hitting desktop of xp pro it takes like 5 or 6 seconds

going to do some hl2 and d3 tests tonight!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 7, 2005, 4:08 pm

Trias wrote:*update* new pc is stupid fast...from pushing power on till hitting desktop of xp pro it takes like 5 or 6 seconds

going to do some hl2 and d3 tests tonight!

WTF! I can't have someone on this board with a faster boot time than me! (and I'm not talking about guild boots!)

masteen · Post by **masteen** » April 11, 2005, 1:10 pm

I bought an AMD 64 because it smokes the Intel processors at the same price point.

VeeshanVault

64 bit processors

64 bit processors

Re: 64 bit processors