64 bit OS

[Driftwood]

Anyone got any experience with running DW on a 64 bit OS (i.e. XP Pro 64)? Just curious if it will or not.

[Driftwood]

Judging by the response I've received so far I guess our "crowd" here at SubSim doesn't have any 64 bit experience...........:cry:

[ASWnut101]

I don't know about that kind of stuff, so sorry.....wish i could help.

[goldorak]

Judging by the response I've received so far I guess our "crowd" here at SubSim doesn't have any 64 bit experience...........:cry:


Windows xp 64 was never released in retail and very little in oem.
Plus the number of drivers just isn't there, and you need a 64bit processor.
If I'm not mistaken Intel doesn't make yet 64 bit processor for the consumer desktop market, only AMD does.
Put those 3 factors together and you'll see why not many have experience with windows xp 64.

[Driftwood]

Judging by the response I've received so far I guess our "crowd" here at SubSim doesn't have any 64 bit experience...........:cry:


Windows xp 64 was never released in retail and very little in oem.
Plus the number of drivers just isn't there, and you need a 64bit processor.
If I'm not mistaken Intel doesn't make yet 64 bit processor for the consumer desktop market, only AMD does.
Put those 3 factors together and you'll see why not many have experience with windows xp 64.

Good point Goldy........Intel does now make a few 64 bit processors but they certainly aren't as common as the AMD's. But it's still nice to get an answer......even it's "I don't know." :lol: Thanks to you and ASWnut!

[swimsalot]

I have an AMD64 proc, but the lack of support for 64bit is what's holding me back. Drivers for just about everything from graphics to printers just aren't out there yet. A whole new crop of dual-core chips is flooding the market,all will run either 64 or 32. So hopefully everyone will start to get onboard with it. (my AMD64 X2 5000 is on the way from Newegg now)

[Driftwood]

I have an AMD64 proc, but the lack of support for 64bit is what's holding me back. Drivers for just about everything from graphics to printers just aren't out there yet. A whole new crop of dual-core chips is flooding the market,all will run either 64 or 32. So hopefully everyone will start to get onboard with it. (my AMD64 X2 5000 is on the way from Newegg now)

YEEHAAA Swims! Congrats! I've been running an AMD64 FX-62 since July and love it!

[kage]

"AMD64" is x86 (32-bit) compatible, while the intel 64bit chip is not backward compatible with our current 32-bit code.

That means all software has to be recompiled for it.
If you're using open source, that has very few problems.
If you can force your software providers to do it, or successfully beg them for it, then you're ok, it's just the hassle of getting it done.
Otherwise, such as the software provider in question being defunct, you're screwed.

Consumers won't do that dance, and intel knows it; therefore they do not market it to consumers.

Even in a 32-bit os, however, applications can use some 64-bit features if compiled to do so. There's also the NX-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-Execute_bit) which is included only on the 64-bit versions of amd cpus.


The biggest thing in the move to 64-bit, however, is that the memory barrier at 4Gb gets broken. A 32-bit CPU cannot address memory beyond 4Gb, and therefore cannot use it. It does need an OS that can handle it too, though.

I have only used 32-bit windows, but my other box which also has a amd64 runs linux, where everything is compiled for the 64-bit cpu.


To the average user the use of 64-bit cpu/os should have no immediate impact.

[sonar732]

Wow! You run linux on a 64bit CPU? I bet that thing is blazin' fast. What flavor of linux by the way? I've got old versions of Mandrake, Red Hat and the new 6.06 Ubuntu myself.

:rock::rock::rock::rock::rock::up::up::up:

[kage]

Wow! You run linux on a 64bit CPU? I bet that thing is blazin' fast. What flavor of linux by the way? I've got old versions of Mandrake, Red Hat and the new 6.06 Ubuntu myself.

It's my server box. Using Gentoo; the portage system for downloading software works really well, and everything can get custom-compiled as I want it... It is command line heavy though, which repels a lot of people.

But it's not as if 64-bit itself gives much of a speed boost. As I wrote above, the max amount of ram is the biggest difference. And I don't have more than 4Gb in that box.

[Driftwood]

Nice to be getting some feedback here from you guys! Looks like I'll be sticking with the 32 bit version of Vista when it comes out in Jan 07.

[SUBMAN1]

I'd suggest you stick with 32 bit XP and 32 Vista. 64 bit starts MS's drive for signed drivers (The very reason so many drivers are lacking) which is how MS plans to piggyback DRM (Digital Rights Management) onto your PC to make the RIAA and MPAA happy. I have friends even at MS that are not happy about this plan.

-S

PS. I have both running on a couple systems and I can't tell the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit anyway. Both are smooth. Its probably lack of apps in 64 bit which is why I don't notice much.

[Driftwood]

Thanks for info subman! Once again MS is getting deeper into our lives.....:down:

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Thanks for info subman! Once again MS is getting deeper into our lives.....:down:

It is not Microsoft but MPAA and RIAA that are getting into your life. DRM is being mandated by these companies and if MS does NOT put them into the product they make they can be held liable for anything done with their software.

By bending over backwards for MPAA & RIAA they can say that they are trying their best and thus avoid most litigation.

DRM makes programming a PAIN. Things would be much easier without that and the other digital signatures that they have to program in for tracking purposes.