Windows & 64Bit Windows 8 or 9 128Bit

[Poke]

This not a bad idea but the fact will always remain unless your running a application that is written for 64bit or 128bit you really don't gain any advantage. That being said I plan on building a new PC next month and I will get Windows 7 64bit mainly due to it see more memory. I do know that Office 2010 will have a 64bit version but we will see what other software manufactures do. Right now most are only in 32bit platforms.

Windows 7: 64 Bit. Windows 8? Try 128 Bit - Windows 8 - Gizmodo

 

[BuddyBoy]

This not a bad idea but the fact will always remain unless your running a application that is written for 64bit or 128bit you really don't gain any advantage.

That's not a fact. The fact is, there are a couple really big advantages to running a 64-bit Windows operating system even if all of your applications are 32-bit, which are pretty obvious to anyone with a technical background.

1) Under 64-bit Windows, a 32-bit application has access to a full 4GB of virtual address space in user mode. Under 32-bit Windows, a 32-bit application's virtual address space is normally split 2GB user space/2GB kernel space, or 3GB/1GB if you link your executable with /LARGEADDRESSAWARE and boot your system with the /3GB option. If your app needs a lot of memory, but hasn't been made to run as a 64-bit application yet, this is huge.

2) Much larger working set when running multiple applications. All the applications I run are 32-bit, but when I'm running multiple big apps at the same time, the fact that I can utilize a lot more memory with 64-bit Windows means it pages a lot less, and therefore performs much better.

 

[diogen]

Color me skeptic.

Proper 64-bit implementation is in its infancy.
VMWare vSphere is the first 64-bit only app from the company - although this is the type of software that could use the advantages of 64 bit for years.
Native 64-bit support in the memory-hungry apps - AutoCAD, Photoshop, Vegas, NVivo, ArcGIS, etc. - is a year or so old at best.
Most of the time it is "support 64-bit OS"...

Anybody remembers the promises of a new filesystem... for Vista with great new features? 128-bitness will have the same fate, IMHO...

Diogen.

 

[Ilya]

the fact will always remain unless your running a application that is written for 64bit or 128bit you really don't gain any advantage.

I am not sure if that's totally true. What if you are running several memory-constrained applications at the same time? If you are running a 32-bit program on 32-bit Windows, that application can theoretically address 4 GB of memory. However, 32-bit Windows will only give it a maximum of 3GB or even less, because it needs some memory for other programs and Windows itself, all sharing the same 4GB address space. 64-bit Windows is capable of allocating full 4 GB of memory to each 32-bit application!

Edit: Ooops. BuddyBoy posted that already!

 

[Ilya]

Color me skeptic.

Proper 64-bit implementation is in its infancy.

For desktops - perhaps.
For servers - 32-bit is history!

 

[TheForce]

Ilya and Buddyboy- Thanks for the explanation. I knew it was true but not knowing all the details couldn't explain it the way you did. My 64 bit quad system with 8BG often shows ram upwardsto 7.5Gb in use with 32 bit apps according to the task manager monitor. I do alot of transcoding of video and the 64 bit system with 8Gb of ram sure makes a difference ( processing time) over my 32 bit OS and 4gb ram installed. When I load 64 bit Vegas for rendering, I often see the meter indicate 5.6- 5.8 Gb ram in use.

 

[diogen]

For desktops - perhaps.
For servers - 32-bit is history!

Correct, I was talking about desktop.
And 32-bit should be history on both. But why 128-bit?

When talking about servers: a loaded Dell R900 box (4x4, 128GB RAM, etc.) paired with an iSCSI box can run 20+ servers today under vSphere.
4-5 of them can run a university network for 20,000 students + staff without breaking a sweat; HA, redundancy, the works...

Assuming 128-bit is ready and as good as 64-bit in support - why would I be tempted to switch? To run all universities on one box?

Diogen.

 

[Ilya]

Assuming 128-bit is ready and as good as 64-bit in support - why would I be tempted to switch? To run all universities on one box?

That's what I was asking myself when I got my first PC with 256K of RAM and a 10MB hard drive: What am I going to do with all that disk space and processing power?! I was able to fill up half of that hard drive, but couldn't figure out what to do with the other 5 Megabytes of it !

 

[jbernardi]

I'd like to have more RAM. I understand the Win 7 disks will contain both 32 and 64 bit versions. I currently have Vista 32 bit. My CPU is a 3.00 gigahertz Intel Core2 Duo.

Would I have any problem running a clean install of 64 bit Win 7?

 

[diogen]

That's what I was asking myself when I got my first PC with 256K of RAM and a 10MB hard drive: What am I going to do with all that disk space and processing power?! I was able to fill up half of that hard drive, but couldn't figure out what to do with the other 5 Megabytes of it !

I know what you mean. Add the "640K should be enough for everybody"...

Seriously, though - we've come a long way since the 90s when loading Photoshop could bring to its knees any PC money could buy and 1MB cache Intel CPU was over $10K. I think for the last 3-4 years the hardware is just "good enough" and flourishing virtualization market is the best proof of it. IIRC a recent study of server CPU utilization claimed the number to be in single digit % nationwide (I think it was UK, don't have a link).

Same with desktop PCs.
Video manipulation was one of the very few that until very recently required multi-thousand $$ machines. And that is hardly the case anymore thanks to Moore's law, CPU/GPU competition, SATAII and competition in the OS space (i.e. better quality code).

Bottom line, a $999 desktop does today 99.9% of tasks one would do on it. And I can't see where apps requiring much more and desirable by everybody could come from...

Diogen.

 

[Ilya]

I'd like to have more RAM. I understand the Win 7 disks will contain both 32 and 64 bit versions. I currently have Vista 32 bit. My CPU is a 3.00 gigahertz Intel Core2 Duo.

Would I have any problem running a clean install of 64 bit Win 7?

Most likely not. But to be certain run Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor and it will tell you.

 

[Ilya]

Bottom line, a $999 desktop does today 99.9% of tasks one would do on it. And I can't see where apps requiring much more and desirable by everybody could come from...

Diogen.

If the move to 64-bit processing was primarily driven by the 4GB memory limitation, I am guessing the move to 128-bit processing will be for a very different reason: the need for 128-bit calculations. Even today a lot of calculations operate with 128-bit values and could definitly benifit from a 128-bit CPU. Here are some typical applications that require 128-bit calculations:

- high-end graphics processing

- encryption

- the new IPv6 Internet protocol

 

[diogen]

Here are some typical applications that require 128-bit calculations:

- high-end graphics processing
- encryption
- the new IPv6 Internet protocol

I don't think the last two are that much of a burden on a modern system to justify going 128-bit. Breaking encryption would certainly be a candidate. Voice recognition, artificial intelligence, etc. - there are tasks that can even today choke any system. But in all those there is a consensus today, I believe, that the modelling part needs a breakthrough first.

Diogen.

 

[Ilya]

The Moore’s law is an amazing thing. Just when you thought it reached its limit it suddenly finds another way.

Take modems for example. Initially modem speed followed the Moore’s law precisely: the speed doubled every 2 years or so. Then at 56K it finally reached the limit of phone lines. And the exponential growth in modem speed has suddenly stopped. Not for long though: DSL and Cable modems came about and the Moore’s Law took over again.

The same with CPU horsepower: for years the processing power grew with the clock rate. But it now reached the limit at which higher clock rate is too difficult to achieve. So what happened? The progress didn’t stop, it just took another route: adding more cores and using more bits per clock cycle.

 

[jbernardi]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbernardi
I'd like to have more RAM. I understand the Win 7 disks will contain both 32 and 64 bit versions. I currently have Vista 32 bit. My CPU is a 3.00 gigahertz Intel Core2 Duo.

Would I have any problem running a clean install of 64 bit Win 7?


Most likely not. But to be certain run Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor and it will tell you.

I ran it. It said "You can do an in-place upgrade to 32-bit Windows 7 Ultimate. If you choose to upgrade to a different edition, you will need to perform a clean installation."

It found no significant problems. But it didn't address 32-bit vs 64-bit clean install.

Any other advice about whether a 64-bit clean install would cause any problems?
I'd really like to move from 4GB to 8GB RAM.

 

[Ilya]

I ran it. It said "You can do an in-place upgrade to 32-bit Windows 7 Ultimate. If you choose to upgrade to a different edition, you will need to perform a clean installation."

I thought it would tell you. Sorry if I was wrong. Try this then:

1.Open Performance Information and Tools by clicking the Start button , clicking Control Panel, clicking System and Maintenance, and then clicking Performance Information and Tools.

2.Click View and print details.

3.In the System section, you can see what type of operating system you're currently running under System type, and, under 64-bit capable, whether you can run a 64-bit version of Windows. (If your computer is already running a 64-bit version of Windows, you won't see the 64-bit capable listing.)

 

[FunkyBoss]

Any other advice about whether a 64-bit clean install would cause any problems?
I'd really like to move from 4GB to 8GB RAM.

If anything, my experience has been that "upgrades" of an OS causes problems. Clean installs are always the way to go when possible. I just clean installed Windows 7 64-bit on my 2 year old Q6600 PC with 4GB RAM. It runs great.

Just curious of what you'll be using your machine for that you need the extra 4GB of RAM for?

 

[Poke]

It don't matter if the application is 32bit only it's only going to be able to do things at that level. Now if the application has a 64bit version then thats a different story.

 

[Poke]

That's not a fact. The fact is, there are a couple really big advantages to running a 64-bit Windows operating system even if all of your applications are 32-bit, which are pretty obvious to anyone with a technical background.

1) Under 64-bit Windows, a 32-bit application has access to a full 4GB of virtual address space in user mode. Under 32-bit Windows, a 32-bit application's virtual address space is normally split 2GB user space/2GB kernel space, or 3GB/1GB if you link your executable with /LARGEADDRESSAWARE and boot your system with the /3GB option. If your app needs a lot of memory, but hasn't been made to run as a 64-bit application yet, this is huge.

2) Much larger working set when running multiple applications. All the applications I run are 32-bit, but when I'm running multiple big apps at the same time, the fact that I can utilize a lot more memory with 64-bit Windows means it pages a lot less, and therefore performs much better.

I understand all of that but if the applications have a 64bit version your better off. Reality is most applications folks use don't have a 64bit version but thats not to say that more software companies will in the future will start writing a 64bit version.

 

[jbernardi]

If anything, my experience has been that "upgrades" of an OS causes problems. Clean installs are always the way to go when possible. I just clean installed Windows 7 64-bit on my 2 year old Q6600 PC with 4GB RAM. It runs great.

Just curious of what you'll be using your machine for that you need the extra 4GB of RAM for?

I do some graphics and video editing at home for a very small noprofit group, sometimes using the 720p video from my flip mino HD video camera.