Win 98SE was what Win 95 should have been. There was a process called thunking this mediated between 16 and 32 bit processes and was a source of some problems. This seems to be going down a similar path.
Also as an early user of Win NT at 3.5 and that was quickly replaced by NT 3.51 there was always a scarcity of suitable drivers SCSI and scanners were such a problem. NT 4 saw the emergence of readily available drivers.
The majors (wooden crucifix time, IBM HP Compaq Dell etc ) have early access to the software and build "stable" systems for their restricted hardware for the major corporates. Until this happens and as you point out the manufacturers 64 bit will remain very on the sidelines. Bit like formula one racing many good developments for cars come out of it but a lot of water passes under the bridge before a viable tractable variant of the product arrives on the showroom floor.
More importantly any applications to gain a benefit from the improved software have to be rewritten to optimise them for the larger operating environment. Also the hardware is not yet able to use the vastly increased size of addressable RAM that becomes possible. Currently I think XP (32 bit) like NT4 can use 4GB of real memory. I forget the figgured quoted for 64 bit was significantly higher and I doubt many people would beable to afford a fully populated board of memory for such a system. Most systems at present are limited to 4GB and how many use that much RAM typicaly I reckon it would be about 1-2 GB
Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
I am disappointed but not surprised by Microsofts move. The 'upgrade' process is a major problem. Who, in their right mind would surrender their 32 bit versions product key to install an os that in all probability will not prove functional from day to day? I build and sell an aweful lot of AMD 64 bit processor based systems. I love the chip, and its just about bullet proof in 32 bit applications, not to mention one hell of a powerhouse in applications and multimedia tasks. For me it was never about upgrading to windows 64 bit to run this cpu, its what it can and does do in 32 bit applications NOW that matters. If I or my clients want to run 64 bit operating systems that work correctly the first time, Windows would be the last thing on my list. I have in the past used Fedora core 2 and 3 64bit, Mandrake 10.1 and now Suse 9.3. I totally recommend all three if the itch gets to anyone wanting to try 'true' 64 bit operating systems, but, truth be told, all three os's in 32 bit are superb too. Until chipset manufacturers get their respective act together, AND applications for Windows XP are written in 64 bit, I wont even consider the thought. I was a beta tester for both release candidates of XP 64 bit. What was it like? It was like Windows Xp 32 bit. Exactly like it. Was my test machine any faster? No. was it any more efficient? No. was it any different in any way? No, sorry, zip difference. It was Windows XP Pro with a 64 bit beta logo (version xyz or something....) in the bottom right corner of the screen. Every bit of software I ran was 32 bit, and,apart from some more 'beta' ATI 64 bit drivers, so were the chipset drivers. It was always a bit of a joke to me that even when installed, the beta versions still needed the 32 bit drivers to function at all. It still does. My advice? Please, dont bother.
No way am i going for that crap. Screw 64-bit if I have to make so many sacrifices and blind guesses on what will work to get one stupid upgrade. I hope Microsoft loses a lot of money, time, and effort over this, mainly cause i don't like microsoft... but that is just me... yes that implies that i don't like windows either ... and i don't. But linux isn't as compatible yet... i'll wait tho
I totally agree with Mal Prior. Being a beta tester as well, this OS is an absolute waste. Personally I think they should have taken the time invested in this OS and just incorporated it into Longhorn, and get that OS out the door, instead they choose this route. What a waste.
The only real true advantage of Windows 64 bit is large memory support, actually no one will ever need more than 4GB of ram, nor even 2GB, I even feel I fly with just 512 MB of RAM, but supposing you have a dual opteron with 8 dimm (4 for each processor) you can go to 8GB easily and Windows 64 will just run on that, and that is what Dreamworks and Lucasfilm actually do, they are not using the system in 32 bit mode... however I don't know what are actually using if Linux 64 or Windows 64...
Not only is XP-64 loaded with problems, it is yesterday's technology grafted onto yesterday's hardware. Afterall both AMD and Intel are offering only CISC X86 chips with 64-bit "extensions" - an overly mature architecture with a miriad of its own problems. So the result is limited utility with increased address space; and if you really think you need this you need to purchase new hardware.
Now think about that. As other posters have said, "Linux is not there - yet." More importanly, Linux is really a hardware play. That is, it is attractive [mainly] to people who want something better than Microsoft but are unwilling to give up their commodity WinTel boxes. Now those who believe they need 64 bit capability are faced with a choice that Microsoft and Intel have tried to avoid. You have to buy a new box.
If you really need 64 bit computing the best alternative is obvious - PowerPC. A relatively young architecture with lots of headroom and great untapped potential. Choose IBM or Apple. We have gone with Apple for desktops and servers and could not be happier. OS X already supports the 64 bit capability of the PPC and in Dual Processor machines takes care of optimizations that will have to be written into the individual applications. So on our DP G5s we get 4 GB memory space plus better performance out of our 32 bit applications.
If you want to get a sense of the potential take a look at genomics [BLAST] and protien folding applications on XServes of major pharma companies. More public are the results of 2 large XServe Clusters - COLSA + Virginia Tech - both on the Super Computer list at about 25% of the cost of similarly capable WinTel machines. As an example - COLSA reports that they are completing simulations in 24 to 36 hours that used to take 30 to 45 DAYS on their HP super computer. Which by the way cost them 3 or 4Xs what the XServe cost - including power + cooling infrastructure.
The tip of this iceberg is just starting to emerge.
Same ole discussion.. just 5 OS's later. Everyone debating wether or not it's worth it, I heard the same thing when we went from 16 Bit to 32 Bit.
To me "personally" it is worth it.. I'm running "Windows XP Pro x64 Bit" right now.. and I have XP 32 Bit installed on another Athlon64 processor PC with the same specs as the one with x64 Bit OS on it. I can tell you one thing.. alot of things "do run faster" on the x64 Bit OS .. disk cleaners, reg cleaners, virus software, and especially media type programs. Acrobat Reader and Adobe Photoshop load 5x faster for me on x64 Bit. My 3D Games load faster too.. they also run a little faster, not a "huge FPS difference", but depending on the game, I average about 6 to 15 FPS better, and considering there is a quality increase as well.. the overall performance is then faster.
But.. that's my experience with it, it has'nt gave me any problems and I love this OS, I've alrdy order a XP x64 Bit CD directly from Microsoft. It will be in stores in "OEM" and "Retail" versions in 2 to 6 weeks according to Microsoft.. so rumors of it not going retail is false!
If you have any doubts or wonders about this OS .. there is a "simple" solution to your questions and concerns .. if you have x64 Bit capable hardware (e.g: Athlon64 processor, etc..). Order the "FREE" 120 day trial CD of the "official version" of Windows XP Pro x64 Bit. It's all FREE except the shipping.. which cost anywhere from $4 to $7 depending on where you live. This way you can try it out for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. You people g0tta understand, everyone is going to have there own personal experience with this new OS.. some will love it, some may hate it. I still see people to this day that hate Windows XP 32 Bit and still use either Win9x or WinME .. and for the life of me I can't understand why, but apparently something turned them off about it.
I do know one thing.. it does increase performance and quality, the transition is not "huge" by any means, but a 10% to 20% performance increase is better than none at all. I personally think it worth it. But remember, just because one or two people says it sucks, does'nt mean it does .. usually incases like that, it's the "operator", not the OS or computer.
Oh yeah.. btw. In response to someone saying it's "loaded" with problems .. that is simply untrue, I've ran every single release of this OS and barely experienced any problems what so ever. The only issue I've had is finding a 3rd party defrag utility that runs on it .. wow, big prob? Also.. Diskeeper and OO SOftware are releasing x64 Bit defraggers in May.
I've had the latest build installed since it was released and have yet to experience one problem. I've g0t 7 different games installed and running on this OS, CD burning software (ezcd creator 6), adobe software, eTrust anti-virus software, futuremark benchmark software, nVidia nTune, and so many other things I can't name them all. So far I have only issue I really have isn't with the OS, it's with Logitech .. because they are so slow in releasing x64 Bit drivers for mice and keyboards .. they recently released it for joysticks and the mice and keyboards are next (sometime in May too).. other than that, it runs perfectly (for me).
Well first unless ATI released a new driver in the last week what nvidia driver where you using most of the ext 64 bit drivers are closer to finished drivers the 64bit ATI drivers. I've been using both the sever2003 ext 64 and the window XP 64 some of the services are cleaner but there are more bugs that pop up when you expect software to work. The biggest problems are with the compliers, yes I know they have to be rewritten to take advantage of the extra registers but the way the OS handles some the controls have been changed and it is not documented! So there will be programs written for XP and 2000 that will break. I love linux I have mandrake and when it comes to security web severs it's great but playing games on it just is not ready. Oh and the idiot with the mac get your blinder off and actully look at reality the Mac OS is slower and less flexible that is why it's founder is a PR person not a coder, if you don't belive me look at the work he did at atari.
funny as microsofts marketting policies may be, there is nothing wrong with their 64 bit OS... infact all the popular boards running Nforce chipsets are FULLY supported. THe only problem is with old hardware and the odd fancy hardware that has exclusive software support... for all these reasons, use a dual boot.. till Longhorn comes out.
Btw those of you who were thrilled by the graphics of longhorn, there is a longhorn GUI patch for 32 bit XP... havent tried it myself, but prolly worth a try?.
I don't understand where this stuff comes from. First off, if one reads Microsoft's web site about Windows XP Pro x64, they don't even recommend it unless you have a need. Secondly, this is an architectural change, which, means that it doesn't effect the average end user, at least for now. But the technology is here, and it will supplant 32bit technology, just as 32 bits replaced 16 bits. It just a matter of time, probably 3 years+.
However, there will be nich 64 bit markets coming soon for Windows, with PC games being a big one. I actually installed XP x64 on a Athlon 64 bit system, and it picked up the sound, nic and ATI 9800 video automatically. So far I've got most of the apps I use on it and so far not one problem.
Of course that won't be everyone's experience, and for most people, it doesn't mean anything, but the technology works, and if it meets your needs, then use it!
Yes, as a previous poster said, dual booting is the answer. I normally dual boot, just to have a sampler I run (gigastudio) have its own installation, since it runs better that way. But I've always dual booted for various reasons. If you have problems with one installation, run the other one. If you still need Win98 for some games or other software, dual boot with 2000/XP. Its easy to set up. Have your harddrive divided into two or more partitions, or have two or more hard drives. Just reinstall Windows from the CDrom and put the second/third/fourth installion in another partition. Windows sets up a boot manager for you, which pops up when you boot, and you can select the version/installation of the os you want to run. To modify, use msconfig from the run menu. One cavet, Windows 98 doesn't have a boot manager, so it must be installed first, if your going to use it.
When I move to xp64, I'm definitly going to dual boot. But I always do anyway.
Since my earlier post members have rasied a number of other issues.
Driver may be a problem at the beta stage obviously very patchy (no pun intented). XP and ME were probably the best implementations for driver support on their OEM/retail release (just the rest of ME was !@#$). Some of us can remember the rocky transistions for all of the releases. Just remeber while there are a limited number of underlying implementations we instal a mix of mobo graphics network cards etc. The number of software interface combinations is very large and the opportunities for conflicts are legion. However we buy a bunch of biits and they basically work. Then we implement the non generic drivers to improve the performance and this should remove the problems but not always yet M$ gets the !@#$. Some deserved some not.
Generational hardware change has previously occured nothing new here the 386 was released well before the first viable Windows Win 3.0 (I did see a Windows 1 implementation I'll say no more other than the folder icon has changed little). This provide protected mode and had 32 bit operation since M$ released Win NT 3.0 to run on th hardware. To be fair to the majors they have consistently sought to provide backwards compatability for all software. any major changes would require major rewrites, recompiles and the costs horrendous. It is unlikely the market at large would support such a major upheaval. While the move to XP represented a major shift in OS it used the underlying capacity in the hardware platforms with the necessary margins to absorb the growth that move required.
The comment that PowerPC is a younger technology is a marginal argument. the Power PC evolved from the Motorola 68000 series of grunty processors. Intel focussed on the corporate market and Motorola the military. the Power PC represented a bid for corporate share by Motorola in the early to mid 1990s. I have always wondered why the PowerPC developers never unleashed their product instaed hog tied it like Apple and restricted the market access to the platform. NT systems certainly up to Win2k supported a PowerPC HAL. Again the issue of suitable drivers becomes an issue. Some great peripherals out there but who will provide the drivers? I have not seen any PowerPC mobos widely advertised.
What I am try to point out is there is a huge hardware and software investment in the community. Just consider Bills personal slice of the return on investment $50Billion? Then there is all the hardware and the major investment is in the corporates and bureacracies they would really object to a radical rather than evolutionary change. A fact of life since the home segment is really a small percentage of the of the market and gets the crumbs.
An additional issue may be that with the move to automation "mission critical" and safety become significant issues. The suppliers have to provide guarantees and generally can only get insurance on known proven products such as M$ (I know ha ha).
I would be interested in an NT system on a PowerPC mobo. We need several hardware and OS competing to ensure we get a better deal even Apple has its place and has finally accepted to survive its prices have to be realistic. Better to sell more at a lower price than fewer at the highest the market will tolerate where money is no object. Bill an IBM proved that with the PC it was the Model T ford of the computer industry. The Apple at the time represented a ferrari but now is looking rather tired. They even have to rely on Bill to prop them up to ensure he avoided anti trust proceedings. When time permits I will take a longer look at Linux.
And that is the real issue... leave it up to OCGW to ask that.
yes, exactly what does this new version of windows, that has only rarely been tested recently, do that would provide any advantage for me? What kind of graphics card do you need, mobo, etc... Sounds like a waste of time and money right now. I don't see much use for this windows 64-bit. And I am certainly not going to risk it until I am sure that it will work properly with what hardware.
But I do think there is a spot for 64 bit in the near future... and I do think manufacturers of computer parts will like the whole 64 bit idea, mainly cause that gives them a new item to sell for a hefty price. I just don't see the overall achievement of a 64 bit windows.
Mod job comin along without too many hitches. I started working graveyard now, so now I kind of have to put it off until my days off, but that's life. I now have a couple more fan wholes cut out, and i came up with an idea... i think I will change out the steel interior chassis for my aluminum chassis that I have... make it WAY lighter. That will be a pain, but definitely a benefit... I will post pics within the next couple months, when I start to swap out the insides.
Anyways... I think you right about "letting the dust settle"... I would love to have a 64 bit windows... I love to upgrade, but this just don't seem worth it yet. I think I will wait till everything just kind of "fits" together. And of course till I can get all the products that will support 64 bit. But i definitely see 64bit as the future. Just not the future of today....
The question re what for? I think and I would stand corrected is that it will be that much better for larger files that require processing on the fly. We are getting to the stage that video streaming could become HDTV quality and that will require grunt if it is to be smooth etc. Other wise i would agree why go to 32.
I would recount here my experience of use a 386 and thinking it was quick however I installed some new fangle 486s and mine took on the persona of a crippled snail. its tasks like the rendering of print jobs the like that show up the lack grunt. faster apps will be better served by dual processors. network transfers may improve if the frame sizes can grow again.
>>Windows XP 64-bit, an actual minefield? Nothing virtual about it - Opinion
Slight problem with the Company's Ethics, before analysis of the company's products.
This is a Individual Tax Issue.
Problem with the Company's Ethics, before analysis of the company's products.
Do you realize microsoft is a subsidized arm of NASA and The Pentagon? In order to capture your portion of taxes YOU pay to microsoft each year without compensation, there are costs which must be calculated in order to properly analyze the financial functional utility of purchasing Microsoft. Namely the industrial cost of having a powerful quazi state entity acting unethicly against it's sponsoring country's citizens*.
*( of origination and registration.)
What rights does a citizen have to not pay taxes at his or her sole discretion?You have rights but you will be imprisoned after a while just the same.
Microsoft pays @ 5% taxes (after loopholes) at a stated 40% corp. tax rate which use to be closer to 75% in the 70's given the corporation's ability to command income from the totalitarian marketplace of the US. Economy.
The ability of the Corporation to demand income in a form of taxation called corporate subsidies from non-employee non-owner citizens, is taxation without representation, the crime of financial conversion (turning a public asset into a private one) and is defacto slavery (aka. totolitarianism of the state, over the People of the United States of America.
That cost to society and others makes purchasing Microsoft products it against one's own personal self interest to survive in a free nation.
I think I'll use Linux 64 with pride, rather than pollute myself and my own society by subsidizing my own country's dictatorship.
Microsoft has a backdoor for the NSA which allows the government to shut down personal computing at it's sole discretion.
Perhaps you want to use ANYTHING BUT mikerowzoft, and not be a total a**hole?