Windows XP X64 Goes Gold

Kasracer writes "According to The Inquirer, 'Microsoft has released the final version of Windows XP 64 to manufacturing, meaning that those with machines that have 64-32 bit processors in from AMD and latterly Intel can now see what the extra addressing brings to the party.'"

Comments

If it went gold

[Anonymous Coward]

...why are they so afraid of pyrites?

Re:If it went gold

[Rosonowski]

Well, they're still trying to iron out all the bugs.

Re:If it went gold

[Everleet]

Steeling it should be easy, just watch out for coppers.

Re:If it went gold

[Anonymous Coward]

Steeling it should be easy, just watch out for coppers.

That's not what I've been lead to believe, but your statement gives me a silver of hope.

Re:If it went gold

[Kevin Khatchadourian]

A waste of a silver tongue but it lead to this you guys need a kick in the brass, that's what I zinc at least.

Re:If it went gold

[kclittle]

I think you guys are trying to be funny, but I'm not sure -- I have such a tin ear for puns.

Re:If it went gold

[subterfuge]

Enough of this - you people have lead me down the wrong path...

= ; ^ ) >

Re:If it went gold

[fyngyrz]

I thought I smelt an attempt at humor. I mean, generally I don't mine this kind of thing, but something more refined than all these digs is what shows your metal, don't you think? You're just giving people the shaft when you alloy yourself with earthy humor of this type. Crystalize your thoughts, you'll just lava the results. Puns are too mercurial to keep you golden; I suggest you forge something more lasting and fold in some edgy commentary, that'll cut a swath through the readership. Dig?

Thanks, I'll be here all week.

Re:If it went gold

[alder]

pyrites? Common mineral that consists of iron disulfide, has a pale brass-yellow color and metallic luster, and is burned in making sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid?? ;-)

Re:If it went gold

[zenneth]

To get this far with jokes like that you must have adamantium balls.

Re:If it went gold

[LilGuy]

Way to completely destroy any semblance of humor in that joke. Good job nerd.

Re:If it went gold

[Atmchicago]

I think you just alluminated the world of puns for the rest of /.

Re:If it went gold

[krayfx]

where's mine, where's mine.... err, where's the mine ? wanna dig some gold too. they say you need quicksilver to catch the gold. so, where are the cracks ? the pyrites, the coppers, tin...or just plain steel? i can see the gold diggers flocking for the booty, while uncle-gates is busy chasing them!

Re:If it went gold

[fyngyrz]

Curses, foiled again!

Re:If it went gold

[mepr]

Well, they're still trying to iron out all the bugs.

they're prolly still trying to work out all the extra bits, too.

Re:If it went gold

[Phoenixhunter]

Hmph, I was lead to believe this was supposed to be out some time ago...

Re:If it went gold

[dickrichardv8]

Congress needs to pass a law that MS has to make gold and silver cd's at a 16:1 ratio.

Re:If it went gold

[Junior J. Junior III]

If you mangle your English enough with metallic puns, are you in fact actually speaking manganese?

Re:If it went gold

[Anonymous Coward]

If you mangle your English enough with metallic puns, are you in fact actually speaking manganese?

No, that's the language used in Japanese comic books. I don't mean to be an astitine about it, but this is Americium.

Re:If it went gold

[sharkey]

Seymour Skinner reads Slashdot!!


*mutters* sexless freak

Re:If it went gold

[SanityInAnarchy]

To be more precise, you rocked our world.

Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[airjrdn]

Anyone aware of a list of Windows software (perhaps on MS's site) that'll benefit from it?

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[hhawk]

Probably mostly Windows itself but that's where it needs the most help.

I assume Adobe has a 64 bit vers. of Photoshop; not sure if they will port it.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[Glonoinha]

You can throw 2-3G of memory at 32-bit applications right now using regular XP Professional or 32-bit Windows 2003 Server. With the new 64-bit version of Windows 2003 Server Enterprise you can throw a full TeraByte of physical memory at a single application. Good luck getting that much physical memory in a box right now, but you can get 32G or maybe 64G in a single machine right now if you try real hard (and have a LOT of cash.)

Something tells me Duke Nukem Forever will take full advantage of the 64-bit platform.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[ergo98]

With the .NET Framework as "64-bit native", all .NET apps will immediately benefit, and the JIT compiler can take advantage of all of the goodness of x64.

In the binary world, an upcoming version of SQL Server 2005 x86 is promised.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[ergo98]

I should note that the 64-bit .NET Framework isn't actually out yet: I don't believe it was delivered with the 64-bit XP. That was more of a "future focused" comment about an upcoming variant of the .NET Framework 2.0 that will be 64-bit.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, for one thing, XP-64 isn't really XP. It's essentially a user version of Windows Server 2003. So pretty much everything should get some benefits.

Unfortunately, the Asus K8V SE SATA hard drive driver apparently identifies itself incorrectly or is in someway incompatible. It works fine under XP but XP-64 refuses to load it, saying that it's the wrong version, and XP-64 doesn't recognize the SATA ports out of the box. I have an IDE drive as my primary, so I can boot into XP-64 but I can't see either of my SATA drives when I do.

And no, I won't talk about how I have a copy of a program that just went gold, and no, I haven't seen a crack for the registration requirement yet. Hopefully, one will come out before my 30 days are up.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[northcat]

Don't programs need to be coded (compiled at least) specifically for x86-64 to use 64bit features?

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[nsasch]

But the 128-bit platform will definately be released in the next 25 years, well before Duke Nukem Forever comes out.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[DaHat]

IIRC, 2k and XP pro both are limited to 4 gigs of ram. Assuming you have that much, a single app is pretty much limited to 3 gigs of the system, that leaves just 1 gig for everything else. Move to a 64-bit machine with XP64 with say... 8 gigs, the same app still gets it's 3 gigs of ram (or more if it asks), leaving a full 5 gigs for the rest of the system and other apps.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[Darren Winsper]

By default, 32-bit XP gives user-mode applications 2GB of addressable space, leaving 2GB for the kernel's address space.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[DarkEdgeX]

No, wrong. Current .NET apps will run in the context of the 32-bit .NET runtime, meaning they won't benefit from the larger address space or the eight additional general purpose registers. In order to run in the context of the 64-bit .NET runtime the header of the executable needs to contain specific flags.

Also, .NET apps which thunk to external 32-bit DLL's for added functionality won't work with the 64-bit .NET runtime (e.g. - if you call out to kernel32.dll or any of the standard Win32 DLL's your code will, of course, not work with 64-bit DLL's).

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[gr3kgr33n]

as a person currently running XP-64 Beta, Here are the gripes I have: Drivers must be 64-bit == Most Drivers 'cept nVidia and a select few others are 32 .Net Framework 64 is "out" With the lack of driver support, running XP-64 is a hit or miss operation currently. Luckly my board has most things onboard and gigabyte was kind enough to give me 32-bit versions of all my drivers. Thank you gigabyte for giving me 32 bit drivers with a 64 bit board, shure these guys don't work for microsoft?

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[Surye]

A question I've wondered, is there any benifits to using a 32bit OS on a 64bit proc vs. 32bit on 32bit? If the answer is no, why has AMD seemed to discontinue it's 32bit proc? And the Sempron does not count, I'm not talking their discount line, I mean their real CPUs.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[ergo98]

No, wrong. Current .NET apps will run in the context of the 32-bit .NET runtime, meaning they won't benefit from the larger address space or the eight additional general purpose registers.

You have a reference for that? Every source I've seen indicate that neutral .NET apps will automatically run as a 64-bit app when copied over. However, on the flip side you can mark the app to only run in 32-bit, or 64-bit, but the default mode is neutral, with no specific bitness.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[ergo98]

Okay I apologize however apparently Visual Studio somewhat arbitrarily flags the 32-bit flag just as a "why not" measure. This is not actually a .NET thing, but was a choice of the Visual Studio team when building .NET apps. There are command line tools to neutralize truly neutral .NET apps (e.g. "pure" apps).

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[Webmonger]

AMD discontinued the pure x86 line because their x86-64 were just as good (or better) at x86 as their pure x86 line.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[x0n]

Aye, but there is a /3GB switch you can use in boot.ini:

"Increases the size of the user process address space from 2 GB to 3 GB (and therefore reduces the size of system space from 2 GB to 1 GB). Giving virtual-memory- intensive applications such as database servers a larger address space can improve their performance. For an application to take advantage of this feature, however, two additional conditions must be met: the system must be running Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows NT 4 Enterprise Edition, Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Datacenter Server and the application .exe must be flagged as a 3-GB-aware application. Applies to 32-bit systems only."

(take from sysinternals.com, a la Mark Russinovich)

- Oisin

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[dargon]

Maybe you should look into some 64bit drivers for your sata drives.

You can look here, they used to have 64bit Sata drivers for the K8V SE Deluxe.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[Glonoinha]

Yes - although Windows 2003 Server Enterprise has a maximum of 32 GB for x86-based PCs.

I have yet to fill the Dell 400sc servers I have with memory (most have 4x512M = 2G, but they can hold 4x1G = 4G) basically for lack of cash or actual need - so I really couldn't utilize it fully if I had it (or if I had the new 64-bit one either.) Good to know, though, if you wanted to get more than 4G into a single box but weren't ready to go fully 64-bit just yet.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[truesaer]

Here are the gripes I have: Drivers must be 64-bit == Most Drivers 'cept nVidia and a select few others are 32 .Net Framework 64 is "out" With the lack of driver support, running XP-64 is a hit or miss operation currently.

FYI, 64-bit drivers are required when running in 64-bit long mode on the processor. So it isn't an artificial limitation of Windows 64, but rather a requirement imposed by the processor.

For those who aren't real familiar with AMD64 architecture, it works basically like this: The processor starts in real mode, and at some point the operating system sets up the necessary mechanisms to support protection, paging, interrupts, etc. At the point it switches the processor into protected mode which is where all modern operating system and code run. There is also a virtual 8086 mode to run native DOS type applications, which is where the run dialog in windows executes. These three modes are known collectively as legacy mode.

From protected mode if you want to run 64-bit code you need to switch into long mode, which is a collective name for 64-bit mode and compatibility mode. 64-bit mode is a pure 64-bit environment. The operating system must run in this mode, and all drivers must be 64-bit. I believe this is because interrupts automatically switch the processor into 64-bit mode. On a code segment by code segment basis you can also run in compatibility mode, which allows 32-bit code to be run in long mode. That is how all the current 32-bit apps will be able to run even in long mode. so from protected mode the OS must switch into compatibility mode, then into 64-bit mode to run 64-bit code. Once in compatibility mode any interrupt will force a switch to 64-bit mode, which is why drivers need to be 64-bit.

Its also worth noting that switching from 64-bit mode to compatibility mode and back has been designed to have no performance penalty.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[Darren Winsper]

The /3GB switch does not expand the address space of all programs, though:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/08/ 12/213468.aspx

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[DanteLysin]

If you are running an RDBMS that needs to allocate more than 2GB of memory, you probably aren't using Windows XP. Is there a business requirement to have client apps allocate 64-bit memory addresses? Wait, isn't Microsoft releasing a new version of Internet Explorer? Uh oh. Guess I better buy more RAM.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[spectre_240sx]

iirc, Photoshop CS 2.0 (9.0) will pass the 2 gigabyte limit that it currently has.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[truesaer]

Yuck. Modes are a sign of bad design.

They are? How exactly would you propose to create a chip that can run 32-bit and 64-bit applications without having a mode for each? Compatibility mode and 64-bit mode can be switched between with not a single instruction to the processor. You just set a bit in the code segment descriptor to indicate what mode it should be run in and the processor does it. Not one waste cycle switching between modes.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[m_pll]

Also, .NET apps which thunk to external 32-bit DLL's for added functionality won't work with the 64-bit .NET runtime (e.g. - if you call out to kernel32.dll or any of the standard Win32 DLL's your code will, of course, not work with 64-bit DLL's).

As long as you use IntPtr for pointer types it will work just fine. 64 bit apps will use the 64 bit version of kernel32.dll.

Of course it's always possible to introduce bugs if you try to be too clever, e.g.:

http://blogs.msdn.com/joshwil/archive/2004/03/16/9 0612.aspx

But reasonably written code should work on 64 bit without any modifications.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[netdur]

imaging if Novell could release Mono for Windows 64-bit before Microsoft release .NET

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[riscthis]

If you are running an RDBMS that needs to allocate more than 2GB of memory, you probably aren't using Windows XP. Is there a business requirement to have client apps allocate 64-bit memory addresses?

The /3GB switch is common to the NT-based desktop and server OSes since Windows 2000.

Wait, isn't Microsoft releasing a new version of Internet Explorer? Uh oh. Guess I better buy more RAM.

Tried Firefox 1.0x lately? Huge memory leak issues, much more so than Internet Explorer.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[riscthis]

The /3GB switch is common to the NT-based desktop and server OSes since Windows 2000.

Uh, ignore that, I can't read and that's wrong :)

But with regard to client apps allocating >2GB RAM, why not if the hardware is there? Things like image/video processing I'm sure could take advantage of that. Seeing as Windows Media Center is based on XP, I can imagine future versions of that could well make use of extra RAM...

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[evilviper]

is there any benifits to using a 32bit OS on a 64bit proc vs. 32bit on 32bit?

In such general terms, no, the bit-ness doesn't help anything. What you really want to know is, if an Athlon 64 is a better choice, when only running 32-bit code, and the answer is a clear YES.

AMD64 processors have much faster memory access. AMD64 motherboards support ECC RAM (hard to find on 32-bit AMD mobos). AMD64 motherboards have Cool-n-Quiet, which significantly lowers the power/heat/noise when the CPU is not completely maxed-out continuously.

The last one is a big deal, IMHO. AMD got their reputation for producing hot CPUs because they required special motherboard support to allow their processors to idle, and even now, when 32-bit processors appear to be going extinct, no motherboard has yet had full S2K support in the BIOS. And the software programs which set the S2K bit support only a small number of chipsets, and still has negative side-effects on several of those.

why has AMD seemed to discontinue it's 32bit proc? And the Sempron does not count, I'm not talking their discount line, I mean their real CPUs.

If Semprons were the discount line, they'd be called Durons. Sempron was a name they dreamed up because they don't want to call anything but their top-of-the-line processors "Athlons", and the 64-bit processors are the top-of-the-line.

Semprons are set to replace Athlon XPs. Sure, they have less cache, but they perform pretty well anyhow. I'm sure AMD was strugling to keep the Duron line from cannablizing their Athlon sales, since the Durons performed so well, so they just combined the two lines, which should be a good thing.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[Trejkaz]

Actually, you don't need the physical memory to take advantage of the extra address space.

Memory mapping of enormous files for a massive performance boost is one major advantage of having so much memory... being limited to 32-bit just imposes unnecessary limitations on applications which have to deal with >4GB files.

Re:Is there a list of softare ready for it?

[DarkEdgeX]

Sure, read this--

http://blogs.msdn.com/joshwil/archive/2004/10/15/2 43019.aspx

Is it the season?

[Hephaestus]

It seems to be the season for OS updates, doesn't it? :-)

Re:Is it the season?

[Slack3r78]

Seriously, I'm going to be busy the next few weeks. Windows XP 64, OS 10.4 Tiger, and Ubuntu 5.04 all within a few weeks of each other. It's just about geek overload. :-)

Longhorn

[Daxx_61]

What I don't understand is why they didn't just pump the money and development time for 64 into Longhorn. Surely that would have brought down development times, and we could have it sooner?

Re:Longhorn

[caston]

Because 64 bit Linux has been around for a long time now and its making MS look very very outdated. This shows they are scrambleing to keep up now.

Re:Longhorn

[Anonymous Coward]

Shh... be quiet, vedy quiet...

Let them take all the time they want on implementing Longhorn. Meanwhile, we'll have X running on top of OpenGL with Cairo, plus Beagle on the desktop ;)

Re:Longhorn

[netrage_is_bad]

It for the Money. If everyone with a 64bit processor buys an essentially recompiled version of XP, and then buys longhorn when it comes out (whenever that is) they have successfully sold one more product than they would have.

Re:Longhorn

[MoonFog]

The XP version if available for free download and if you're talking about bundling XP-64 with pre-built computers, they would most likely come with Windows XP either way. I think it's more about the fear of losing customers rather than trying to trick people to buy two OS'. Besides, if MS where to go another full year without an OS with full 64 bit support, it could be bad for business.
I agree to with you to a certain degree, I just think you're maybe a little too paranoid.

Re:Longhorn

[js3]

It is not a recompiled version of XP. It is a recompiled version of windows 2003 in 64bits. It's called XP but it's different under the hood

Re:Longhorn

[northcat]

Longhorn (hopefully) has more than just 64-bit support. They are working on all of them. And they don't want their existing version of XP completely 64-bitless until Longhorn came out. 64-bit (x86-64) is catching up fast and if they don't release something fast, people might start switching to other OSes (like Linux). BTW, there was a 64-bit alpha of Longhorn, so it's not like they haven't started work on it at all.

Re:Longhorn

[scum-e-bag]

Besides, if MS where to go another full year without an OS with full 64 bit support, it could be bad for business.

How? MS is a monopoly, you will like what they give you, when they give it to you. It will not be bad for business because it will help you work faster when it arrives. It will be easier to work with and it will have more features. There is no serious competition or threat to the MS monopoly at the moment. Unless someone develops an easy to use (for joe six pack) OS that can run the current crop of MS apps, then MS has nothing to fear.

Leaving it to long would be a mistake, however, they have released it on schedule now that the intel have released their 64 bit processors. ahhh... the old wintel alliance.

Re:Longhorn

[Anonymous Coward]

That and since they eliminated most of the features that were supposadly going to be very cool..
Avalon,
WinFS,
and that other one that nobody cares about.. ... that the Longhorn OS is essentially going to be the same thing WinXP was to Win2k, which is a slightly updated version of the same operating system.

(notice how all the Avalon/Winfs crap has been 'backported' to WinXP?)

So by working on WinXP, they are working on Longhorn since they are basicly the same.

Cosmeticly they are going to be different, of course, and Longhorn will have more features and updated memory management scemes and such. but it is what it is.

'Blackcomb' was always suppose to be the next 'revolutionary' OS (as in not NT-based like Win2k/WinXP/Longhorn)

It is critical for Longhorn to be released soon.

Since Microsoft switched licensing scemes people are holding off on new contractual orders, while Microsoft keeps offering more and more steep discounts on large new contracts.

IBM even stated that a bank in Europe was offered a contract for 11million dollars from MS to upgrade the office/OS/server licenses, and they went and played the IBM webportal appliation/Linux card between 3-4 million dollars suddenlyh evaporated from the cost.

This June most of the contracts under the old licensing sceme are up and MS needs a new server and desktop OS to go along with a new Office version to rejuvinate intrest.

So basicly people are holding off buying large contracts until they either get bigger discounts, move to Linux servers (Windows desktops still of course), or until something more compelling comes along (longhorn).

And it will. MS will have more sales and Longhorn server/desktop will breath new life into the long term contracts.

Re:Longhorn

[MoonFog]

Does it help that they are seen as lagging behind? They're a monopoly yet Firefox has managed to grab more and more from IE. MS are not invulnerable even if the average Joe allows himself to be run over at any given occation. If anything, the given scenario would be bad for business, not good for business, hence my statement.

Re:Longhorn

[EnderWigginsXenocide]

They're a monopoly yet Firefox has managed to grab more and more from IE. IE vs Firefox is NOT about Operating Systems for the x86 platform.

Re:Longhorn

[dubbreak]

Surely that would have brought down development times, and we could have it sooner?

Obviously you haven't read The mythical Man Month.

Of course if you aren't a software engineer or you are a "pointy haired boss" then I'm not surprised you haven't read it and think throwing extra money and people at a project will make it faster.

Re:Longhorn

[guaigean]

But it's an example. It shows that although Microsoft is percieved as having an absolute economic advantage due to it's mammoth size and FUD, that it will carry over. In the case of IE vs Firefox, it was the first big decline MS has had in years, showing that they are not invincible. Now that it has happened, more and more people are starting to question if it can be done again, in different ways. Just because two comparisons are not identical, doesn't mean that they cannot be compared as models.

Re:Longhorn

[0racle]

MS being a monopoly has little to do with the fact that no one would care if they didn't ship a 64bit consumer OS before Longhorn. The general consumer has no idea what 64bit means, the little fanboys and kiddies think that simply having an Athalon64 makes them 1337 and people who actually know what a 64bit system brings to the table know that there is currently no reason to have support for it on the desktop anyway.

Re:Longhorn

[man_of_mr_e]

They haven't eliminated Avalong or Indigo or anything other than WinFS from Longhorn. They've just agreed to release an XP version of those subsystems as well. They will be in Longhorn, and WinFS will come shortly after (probably 6 months).

Re:Longhorn

[tenco]

What I don't understand is why they didn't just pump the money and development time for 64 into Longhorn

Perhaps they wanted to keep up with Unix?

Re:Longhorn

[scum-e-bag]

How true.

Historian Publishes!

[Spawn of CowboyNeal]

Ganymede's report on the CRAPPIEST 64-bit operating systems in the World

1: Windows XP X64

that is all.

Re:Historian Publishes!

[BinLadenMyHero]

Whoever modded this down missed the reference to the excelent Civilization game. It periodicaly lists the top richest/welthiest/militarized/advanced/largest nations of the World.

In fact, I've played only Freeciv (and not the original one) for a long time, but I'm pretty sure the Historian Publishes were on the original also.

Re:Historian Publishes!

[BinLadenMyHero]

Just started a new game of Freeciv, and got the first "Historian Publishes!", which I will transcript here for you to know how it looks like:

Toynbee's report on the RICHEST Civilizations in the World.

1: The Magnificent Greeks
2: The Glorious Egyptians
3: The Great Quebecois
4: The Decent Romans
5: The Mediocre Arabs
6: The Hilarious Americans
7: The Worthless Brazilians
8: The Pathetic Japonese
9: The Useless French

Re:Historian Publishes!

[igny]

Why did you choose to play French?

Re:Historian Publishes!

[BinLadenMyHero]

I can't play it, I don't have the required OS.

4/1

[Primal_theory]

Ok, is it still april fool's day somewhere?

Re:4/1

[Anonymous Coward]

4th of Jan?

And ...

[canwaf]

Bring on the 64 bit Viruses!

Heh

[strider44]

we can now say "finally Windows has caught up with Linux".

Cue the candid laughter everyone.

Re:Heh

[DaHat]

Really? Microsoft has had 64-bit editions of Windows for years, remember Itanium? Remember Alpha?

Re:Heh

[A beautiful mind]

"finally Windows has caught up with Linux"

Sorry i wasn't informed. When did this outstanding event happen.

</sarcasm>

Re:Heh

[alman]

NT For Alpha wasn't really 64 bit, it made high use of a 32-64bit emulator.

Re:Heh

[DaHat]

I think you've got that backwards, NT4 for Alpha was pure 64-bit, and DEC shipped an (32-bit) x86 emulator to help existing applications be able to run.

Re:Heh

[Waffle Iron]

NT4 for Alpha was pure 64-bit

It's highly debatable whether you could call it "pure 64-bit". A description of the implementation from here:

Also, the Windows NT implementation on the Alpha was not really true 64 bit, but used a less ambitious system called VLM to allow access to more memory than 32 bit system. Here's a quote from Microsoft about it:

"As you can see, the VLM APIs don't constitute true 64-bit computing. Sure, you can allocate and use this memory if it's physically present, meaning that virtual memory doesn't work with these addresses. But 99.44 percent of the Win32 API can't work with addresses above 4GB, so it's just you and your 64-bit pointers. Think of it as frontier territory with no newspapers, running water, or phone lines."

Re:Heh

[Tracy Reed]

You imply that this release has something to do with NT for Alpha. I doubt that it does. Linux was able to go 64 bit on many platforms comparatively easily but it took MS years. They probably had to redo very nearly the whole thing. So I think in this case it is probably quite fair to say MS finally caught up with Linux.

Re:Heh

[Darren Winsper]

Windows NT used the Alpha in 32-bit mode, not 64-bit.

Re:Heh

[pantherace]

Actually no, it's only caught up to Mac OS X (and actually exceeded, due to the way 64-bitness is in OS X so far.).

This is simply the OS that's running in 64-bit mode now. The programs are all still 32-bit. (Admittedly, this means a lot more for Windows vs Mac OS, as the underlying command set changes just a bit ia32->x86_64.)

Now, if they could catch up to Redhat 6.0 on alpha, that'd be impressive. ;)

(Note, that while NT was on Alpha, it was treated as a 32-bit arch, and the first fully 64-bit port of Windows was to ia64...the 2nd 64-bit arch it was on... All the sudden I get this feeling of impending doom for x86_64.)

Re:Heh

[fyngyrz]

Think of it as frontier territory with no newspapers, running water, or phone lines."

I prefer to think of it as frontier territory without resource and memory leaks, buggy system calls, and insanely bloated, sourcecode-free "objects" that are larger than most applications used to be but provide unique and special capabilities like "buttons" and "checkmarks."

But that's just me. :-) When I encounter something from Microsoft that is broken (like a file dialog ot the treeview control) then I write my own, make sure it works, fix it ASAP if and when anyone finds anything I missed... so memory where MS's OS fears to tread smells like freedom and clean air. There may not be any toilets, but then again, I don't have to have Microsoft's sewage running all over my applications.

Real conversation from about 2002:

CUSTOMER: Why, when I select more than 100 image files in the "load file" dialog, do the files come in in reverse order and missing any that were past about the 105th selected file?

US: Yeah. Those are problems in Microsoft's file dialog. According to MS, the 100 file limit problem has been in there since Windows 95. The files in reverse order happens because you selected the first file first, and shift-selected the last file, last. You can select the last file first and the first file last, and they'll come out they way you want them. As long as there are under 100 or so names. But you can just download the latest revision of our application and that problem is gone. Along with Microsoft's file dialog.

We gave them this, instead.

Re:Heh

[pilkul]

You really sound like you have an axe to grind against Microsoft. You do realize that Microsoft consists of hundreds of teams of developers of differing abilities, many of them bought out from smaller companies like yours? There are examples of poor MS software (Windows ME) as well as examples of solid, best-of-breed MS software (Visual C++). It's bizarre to leap from a bug in a file manager dialog to assuming that core memory management code is also bad.

You make me think of Phil Katz, the former boss of the company that made PKZIP. His software was dominant in the DOS days, but he distrusted Windows so much that he refused to port it to Windows 95 when it came out. Like you, he didn't trust Microsoft APIs and wanted to keep full control of what was going on. The result: PKZIP lost the market to WinZip. Don't let your loathing of MS get in the way of good business decisions.

Re:Heh

[Tim C]

insanely bloated, sourcecode-free "objects" that are larger than most applications used to be

Some of us remember when all applications *used* to fit in less than 1024 bytes of RAM. Things change; extra features and functionality require more resources.

If I've spent the money on a shedload of RAM, it'd be nice to know it's actually being used. (Being used sensibly is better than just being wasted, of course..)

Re:Heh

[fyngyrz]

You really sound like you have an axe to grind against Microsoft.

I hope that didn't take too much effort to uncover. :-) I'm no fan -- not an axe grinder, but not a fan. I've got a redhat six system that's still serving web pages after 4 years, no reboots, no nothing but log maintainance and it's still up, courtesy of a 100% online UPS. The Win98 testbed next to it from approximately the same era, plugged into the same UPS bank has to be rebooted every five days or so. You (we) can report bugs to MS until we're blue in the face and they still don't fix them. Explorer crashes with precise steps to cause them, bugs like file dialogs, memory leaks in word, printer failures in Access... I don't give a rats hindquarters how many developers there are or aren't, the fact is, they're not very good at fixing the stuff that's broken in the OS or their major apps even when they've got a fabulous roadmap to the problem. I compare that to other OS's and frankly, they come up lacking. I don't hate them for this; I just wish they did a better job. I do think they leave a great deal to be desired when it comes to how I would like to see an OS company operate, but it's not my business and so that's not a big deal.

As for Phil, it's a poor comparison. We've shipped versions that worked 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, NT Intel, PowerPC NT, Alpha NT and MIPS NT. We're one of the very few companies in the world who can say that about a major application (our stuff offers a significant superset of Photoshop's capabilites... this isn't a small undertaking.)

Just because they screw up doesn't mean we're going to abandon them. but when they do screw up, we've learned, definitely the hard way, not to wait for them to fix the problem. We just go around them. Font API's that rotate backwards and otherwise broken across versions of the OS? Write your own. File dialog broken? Write your own. Treeview broken? Write your own. There are three advantages. First, your version is maintainable and will live across many releases of the OS; MS's isn't. Secondly, you can add custom features easily. Third, MS, for reasons of its own, has taken to creating major bloatware (as have many Windows developers.) This can be avoided by simply staying away from MS's object oriented API. Again, using our own app as an example, it is about 4 megs in size. It is considerably more powerful and featureful than Photoshop is. And it is just a fraction of the executable size, much, much faster running, and endures far fewer software failures than does Photoshop. This is in no small part due to a whole raft of stuff from the OS that we re-wrote and internalized into the application. We'd be even smaller if we used the OS API's, but then again, we'd crash a whole lot more (and suffer from other problems, like the aforementioned font rotation issue.)

These are significant and worthwhile benefits. So there is no need to conjure up "axe grinding" to justify them. We just write better software than MS does. That's the boat that Phil missed against WinZip too, if you pay attention. WinZip is an awesome program. :-)

Re:Heh

[Slack3r78]

Again, using our own app as an example, it is about 4 megs in size. It is considerably more powerful and featureful than Photoshop is. And it is just a fraction of the executable size, much, much faster running, and endures far fewer software failures than does Photoshop. This is in no small part due to a whole raft of stuff from the OS that we re-wrote and internalized into the application.

Hyperbole aside, Photoshop runs on both Windows and OS X and behaves in a very similar manner on both specifically because Adobe did implement much of the UI with their own code.

The fact that it runs on both Windows and Mac would also suggest that any problems Photoshop has are not related to MS' new-fangled OOP APIs. But you certainly do an impressive job of talking your product up against an 800lbs competitor. :-P

Re:Heh

[fyngyrz]

Ah, well, I'd give them credit for jamming a GUI inside the application and so excuse the fact that they are many times our executable size, despite offering less functionality -- if we hadn't done pretty much the same thing. Our own toolbar API, our own button API, our own list API, our own dialog API, our own drawing API, our own selection API, our own memory API (which lives on top the most basic allocation functions in all the OS's, of course.) Our GUI stuff is a little more flexible in that it generally looks and acts more like (at least some version) of the host OS. I have some Photoshop versions where the mac-origin of the menus is pretty obvious. You can also tell our GUI code was based on older windows versions, if you look; we've got a distinctly "win95" look to the app, that's because we're using our own APIs for a lot of GUI things and no one has bothered to make them look "XP-ish" because, frankly, we don't really care much how it looks, we're focused on how well it works. But what you won't see is our Windows version looking like our Amiga version and so on. I'm not saying that's better, it's just a side-effect of how we did our internal GUI layers.

And, as it turns out, our software presently runs on Amiga, looking like Amigaware (naturally, as it started there), RH9 and Fedora Linux, where it looks "Gnomey", Windows (many versions) and we expect to release a Mac version in about 90 days. The Mac version has some new tricks in it, but I won't talk about those yet. I'll be mentioning it in the Apple section here, though, no doubt, when the time comes. The Mac version looks like the current Mac OS, since this is our first foray into it. It'll look older shortly, when they release the newest version of their OS.

There is another benefit of writing tight, smart C code instead of jumping on the object-ornamented / ornery / obituary bandwagon: With every generation of machines, our software consistently goes faster. In comparison, with every generation of object oriented OS-bloatware, there is tons more to do (often for little apparent benefit at the application to user level) and the applications run slower, and slower, and sloooower... Photoshop isn't the only self-mutilator here, all you have to do is use Google and Google Groups to check out the complaints of other graphics applications getting quite a bit slower as they version-up and people being told to "buy a modern machine" so they can just get back to the speed they had before. And, of course, you can see the OS itself requiring more and more horsepower to run the same apparent speed as it versions-up.

In my opinion, Photoshop isn't a 900 pound competitor. Adobe's marketing is the 900 pound competitor. A distinction with a difference. We don't market very hard; we just make a product that does a lot more. On the other hand, we don't have to market anywhere near as hard; we're a lot smaller and we don't have the infrastructure to support that Adobe does. For which I am quite grateful, as I own the company outright and it would be very annoying, to say the least.

Now, I really haven't done much talking-up here, other than to handwave about feature count and be moderately specific about executable size and speed (because it was relevant to the topic.) I could; I could talk about offering 70-odd layer blend modes as compared to PS's 20-odd (which our 70-odd include, of course); I could talk about a faster area selection paradigm (and a PS compatibility/go-slow mode) and then go on in that vein for many paragraphs instead of a couple of throwaway sentences without backup -- but I was really only talking about OS issues originally, and I'd just as soon not wander any further off that course. If you're really curious, there is more on speed issues here, and the site is very, very deep in program docs and higher level marketing material. About 100 megs worth, not counting animations. Please pursue any further interest you might have on the site, and any pr

Re:Heh

[Slack3r78]

Fair enough. FWIW, I wasn't accusing you of playing a shill, if anything, it was meant to be a somewhat oblique compliment on your salesmanship. :-P

That said, I've bookmarked your site, and I'll be taking a look at it some time that's *not* 3:30 in the morning, and likely end up dropping you a line with a few questions. :-)

At any rate, yeah, we have strayed a bit off-topic here, but I think it's largely a matter of differing philosophies, and I enjoy the discussion of it as well. That's really the only reason I brought up the comparison to Photoshop's widget set, just pointing out another approach to it, since, as I understand it, Photoshop's codebase is still largely made up of very old C code at this point, which certainly contributes to bloat. I just didn't see it as a particularly solid example of OOP bloat.

Anyway, like I said, it's getting late here, and I'd likely continue on, but my brain's having none of that. I'll take a closer look at your documentation and get back to you with any questions I might have.

Re:Heh

[fyngyrz]

I remember too. The first reasonable computer I actually owned (and built) had 2k of ram. I wrote tight code -- no other choice. In machine language, of course.

Something that small, tight, fast graphics applications can leverage is using ram for images, which I think you'll probably agree is a good use of ram. You'll probably also agree that such use is compromised by using that ram for a 10 megabyte implementation of a method which gathers in a whole bunch of unused or overcomplicated ancillary code when that same method could have been implemented in a few K of specialized code.

For a concrete example of this kind of mess, generate an empty sample application using MFC and Windows OO interface. It'll have a menu, a window and some sample text. It'll also run you many, many megabytes.

Then grab a copy of (Charles Petzold's) "programming windows" and write the same bare-bones menu/window/text demo it starts with using the win32 API. Observe the resulting 11k executable. You have what you need, no more, no less, and to the enduser, the functionality is exactly the same. Or, you can write it in assembler, if you have the skills, and you can probably get it down to 1k if you're careful about how you link it. Linux is really good at "tricky linking" to get tiny apps, I've never actually tried that in Windows, but I wouldn't be in the least surprised if you could do something similar there. Funny stuff, these leaps of technology. Size bloat isn't really about features; it is about abstraction, but man, oh man do you ever pay for it. Abstraction does make some things easier, and hence, it can certainly engender more features... but again, the price is high. Personally, I don't want to get any more abstract that I have to for production software I intend for people to use to improve their productivity.

Hypothetical: If an application (any kind) "improves" from 90 features, 50 megs and 50 seconds to 100 features, 100 megs, and 100 seconds; then a competing application comes to your attention which takes 5 megs, gives you 200 features (which include the above 100 features) and takes only 20 seconds to run... then it is clear that the reason that things have changed in the former application is not what you are assuming it is. :-)

These ratios aren't exactly hypothetical, as I'm sure you have gathered. :-)

What I am saying, or at least trying to say, is that the much-lauded OO technology that is so prevalant in modern apps and modern OS's is carrying a very heavy, and unnecessary, penalty for the end user. I've seen it argued that it doesn't have to, and I accept that argument, but I've yet to see an example of a big application that proves the point. It appears to me that when OO apps reach middle size and larger, they get (sometimes considerably) slower and they get very, very large. And in the case of an OS, I don't have to generalize -- this has been an almost 100% uniform result.

April Fool ?

[zbeeble]

Yesterday's stories where more convincing.

Re:April Fool ?

[js3]

They were? I pity the fool. A good april fools is not only hard to spot but funny as well, I can't say that happened yesterday.

Now only a few more years.....

[Laurance]

Now only a few more years and we might have 64 bit applications

Re:Is this Longhorn?

[MoonFog]

What? This is just a new version of Windows XP, afaik it has nothing to do with Longhorn which is a totally new OS.

can now?

[Anonymous Coward]

that those with machines that have 64-32 bit processors in from AMD and latterly Intel

(1) The opteron is a true 64-bit architecture. The em64t (intel thing) is a bit of a bodge (still basically a xeon core, with shades of 32-bit-ness in odd places like memory mapping for devices), but still appears 64 bit.

(2) Linux people have been running x86-64 Linux for _ages_ now. It's a cheap and cheerful server platform without some of the worst cruddiness of x86, and a cheap, extremely cost effective, and generally excellent scientific workstation and compute cluster platform, and is selling like wild here (euro) anyway.

Re:can now?

[Anonymous Coward]

t's a cheap and cheerful server platform without some of the worst cruddiness of x86...

I keep trying emerge -uD cheerful but it never compiles. I have to use the gloomy default.

Re:can now?

[trons]

If you consider AMD64 to be "true 64 bits", then so is EMT64. They are both just an extension of the 32-bit instruction set and processing units with 64-bit equivalents. Don't think AMD is so moch more innovative than Intel, they just grabbed good ole K7, stuck some goodies on there and called it K8. In other words, they both need a good smacking.

Re:can now?

[northcat]

EMT64T and AMD64 are the same thing (technically at least). Collectively they're called x86-64.

Re:can now?

[mrbcs]

But it's fast. I have the 64 bit 3000+ running windows 98. Screaming fast. The best though had to be ubuntu 64 bit. That freaked me out how fast it was.. almost as much as thinking I lost my windows partition :-). (Thought it would dual boot like the other 25 distros I've tried)

I'm gonna try the latest when it comes out nest week but I'll be sure to have a sepa

ate drive for it.

Re:can now?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> (1) The opteron is a true 64-bit architecture. The em64t (intel thing) is a bit of a bodge
>> (2) Linux people have been running x86-64 Linux for _ages_ now

Parent is trolling fanboy. I pay the bills as a developer on a major x86-64 application.
1) x86-64 is the same on both Intel and AMD. If they were really different, we would target Intel because Intel is shipping 10x the x86-64 volume AMD does.
2) We have been DEVELOPING for what seems like ages. Wide spread deployment of x86-64 production envrionments is still a few quarters out. Fact is it is not quite ready for prime time.

Re:can now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look around for the implications of EM64T not having an IOMMU like AMD64 does. This is what the guy was talking about.

With EM64T you can't do DMA from devices to addresses above 32bit. This means that the transfers have to be done into a buffer below 4Gb and then copied over to the application buffer (above 4Gb). This implies a serious performance penalty and puts EM64T out of the "true 64bit" bag.

Re:can now?

[TheGratefulNet]

Collectively they're called x86-64.

that may be true. but for some, it will always be known as amd64. amd got there first, they really do deserve the credit. they added significant value to the aged x86 line.

Re:can now?

[trons]

And do you think end users installing a Xeon will give a rats ass that it uses 36 bits addressing? Opteron uses 40 bits for the record ;) Those major improvements you are seeing are more likely related to the extra registers and other tweaks AMD provides in 64 bits mode. I'm not an Intel fanboy, I'm just trying to get you people to understand that there is no magic going on here ;) 64 bits means mostly bigger address space, and do they deliver? Yes they do. Intel slams on some extra hardware, so does AMD, end of story.

Re:can now?

[l3v1]

1) x86-64 is the same on both Intel and AMD. If they were really different, we would target Intel because Intel is shipping 10x the x86-64 volume AMD does.

As also one of the responses to this point out, you're not entirely right here. As I know it - and I'm not trolling here, just not having too much hands-on experience, so I could be somewhat wrong - they may "seem" equal, that is you can code almost exactly the same on them, but internally Opterons give you a 64bit architecture with all the benefits (and hypetransport being the chocolate on the cake) with 32bit compatibility, while 64bit-extended Xeons seem to be just as the name suggests.

Re:can now?

[trons]

The IOMMU is part of the memory controller, of course it's not in the CPU...

Re:can now?

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"1) x86-64 is the same on both Intel and AMD. If they were really different, we would target Intel because Intel is shipping 10x the x86-64 volume AMD does."

That's just plain wrong. All Athlon 64 CPUs and Opteron CPUs have AMD64 ("x86-64") technology.

Only Intel's "600 series" Pentium 4s (which were just introduced) and newer Xeon CPUs (which are much lower volume than P4 or A64) have EMT64 ("x86-64").

There's no way that Intel is shipping "10x" more x86-64 parts than AMD. Hell, even if everything they sold had x86-64, they still only have 5x more volume than AMD.

Re:can now?

[Slack3r78]

Warty apparently had some dual boot issues. I ran it fine on its own on several PCs, but when I tried to set up dual boot on this Powerbook, it thrashed the partition map something unbelievably fierce. We tried 5 or 6 data recovery programs on it and nothing would find *any* files on the drive.

That said, I installed the Hoary preview on here and it seemed to take fine. I'm really looking forward to April 6. :-)

Re:can now?

[mrbcs]

Thanks. Me too.

Re:can now?

[trons]

And since the MMU with Intel is still in the Northbridge, you have no point as to why it's not integrated into the CPU.

Don't get *too* excited yet...

[pla]

meaning that those with machines that have 64-32 bit processors in from AMD and latterly Intel can now see what the extra addressing brings to the party.

...Unless you want to run hardware not built into a mainstream motherboard with support included in XP.

...Unless you want to run software using a legacy 16-bit installer (far more common than you might expect, even for programs that don't have a drop of 16-bit code themselves).

XP for x64 has NO 32-bit hardware driver support. Very very few manufacturers have x64 drivers available yet. Thus, don't feel surprised when you literally can't use any of your fancy toys. On the bright side, NVidia does have beta 64-bit drivers available, so you might luck out. Of course, considering the stability of final-release NVidia drivers, do you really want to use a beta?

XP x64 has also completely dropped 16bit support. No more old DOS programs. No more Win3.1 programs. More importantly (as I mentioned above), no more installers that used 16 bit code, even for purely 32-bit programs.

I too look forward to running XP x64 on my Athlon64. But for the moment, the average Joe just doesn't have that as a realistic option. In another six months, perhaps. But not yet.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[Lisandro]

XP x64 has also completely dropped 16bit support. No more old DOS programs. No more Win3.1 programs. More importantly (as I mentioned above), no more installers that used 16 bit code, even for purely 32-bit programs.

Ditto, there's still a lot of those out there. I would expect Microsoft to drop atleast a 16-bit VM of some sort - specially for a desktop oriented OS.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

XP x64 has also completely dropped 16bit support. No more old DOS programs. No more Win3.1 programs. More importantly (as I mentioned above), no more installers that used 16 bit code, even for purely 32-bit programs.

I say good riddence.

I too look forward to running XP x64 on my Athlon64. But for the moment, the average Joe just doesn't have that as a realistic option. In another six months, perhaps. But not yet.

Your average Joe probably isn't using a 64 bit x86 chip either.

The transition has to start sometime. If not now, when?

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so let's bury our heads in the sand, cry "it sucks" and go about our merry way.

I remember this same argument circa 1994/1995 with the OS/2 & Win95 battles, and on the fence were the DOS/Desqview and Win 3.1 users crying foul and raising all sorts of bloody hell.

Instead of bitching about what it doesn't support, why not embrace the technology and be a part of helping it move forward?

Slashdot poster in 2020 " Windows 128Bit sucks because it doesn't support my 32 bit WidgetApp from 2002".

Sheesh!

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[pla]

Excuse me but if you are still running a 16-bit application, then you are in a very special situation. And you are keenly aware of that fact.

The application itself, probably. But you apparently missed the point about the installer... If you can't install your 32 or 64 bit program, you can't use it.

It might also suprise you just how many programs do still use 16-bit code. A lot of command-line utils, for one. A lot of low-end games (card and puzzle-type), for another. Now, you might say that you never use the command line or play Chips Challenge, in which case, good for you. But most of us just expect our computers to do what we want them to.


Now, with the 32-bit hardware driver problem, I can understand that. But Microsoft already ran 16-bit apps under emulation since the earliest days of NT (via NTVDM or WOW - If you ever see either of those in yout task manager, you still use 16-bit code for something) - I see absolutely no reason whythey would have discontinued that.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[js3]

I say it's something to be excited about! No 16bit drivers, no 16bit applications, what more could you ask for :)

XP64 will not run on 32bit hardware. So if Average joe is still on his tiny duron this OS is not for him anyways. For us who have the 64bit hardware it is nice to have an OS that use all of its features.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[indros]

On the bright side, NVidia does have beta 64-bit drivers available, so you might luck out. Of course, considering the stability of final-release NVidia drivers, do you really want to use a beta?

Of course they're beta. Why would nvidia release final drivers for a beta product, when the possibility exists that x64 could change in a heartbeat, and render the drivers useless?

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[imsabbel]

INstallers arent a problem.
There are traps that intercept them and run an installshield/ect emulation.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[Karma Farmer]

Now, you might say that you never use the command line or play Chips Challenge, in which case, good for you. But most of us just expect our computers to do what we want them to.

There are two types of people running 10+ year old windows programs: the first type are IT professionals who are running legacy programs for business reasons. These people are used to negotiating difficult compatibility requirements all the time, and will not even blink at these problems. If Microsoft loses these people as customers, 16 bit support in 64 bit windows will having nothing to do with it.

The second type are folks who are running $5 games they buy at Home Depot on their eMachine from Wal*Mart. Microsoft might lose these people as customers because they dropped 16 bit support in 64 bit Windows. Maybe they'll all go by Macs! Or, maybe they'll just re-install Windows Me.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[10101001 10101001]

I remember this same argument circa 1994/1995 with the OS/2 & Win95 battles, and on the fence were the DOS/Desqview and Win 3.1 users crying foul and raising all sorts of bloody hell.

And if you don't think it was Win95 offering cheaper, and better, DOS [Game] support along with Win 3.1 support that was a major deciding factor in why Win95 was chosen over OS/2...then I'd guess you'd have to believe that it was all the Win95 lock-in. In that case, it's only a question of MS pushing OEMs to stop selling 32-bit machines by greatly jacking up the price of Win XP while dropping the price of Win XP X64 low enough to compensate for the price difference of the hardware. Of course with that, all MS really has to do is not piss off too many people.

Instead of bitching about what it doesn't support, why not embrace the technology and be a part of helping it move forward?

For all of MS's history of being behind maintaining backwards compatibility to keep people hooked on their products, to now act like they can arbitrarily drop support and we should not be upset about how this is degradation in quality because of advances in technology sounds like an argument that MS can do whatever they want and we should bow to their wishes solely on the basis that technology improves. That argument is silly because technology always improves. We should be allowed to judge components, both hardware and software, for their quality alone. If one component, Windows, happens to interfere with the quality of the product as a whole, we sure as hell can just buy another OS. I hear Linux has good support for x86_64.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[AceCaseOR]

The second type are folks who are running $5 games they buy at Home Depot on their eMachine from Wal*Mart. Microsoft might lose these people as customers because they dropped 16 bit support in 64 bit Windows. Maybe they'll all go by Macs! Or, maybe they'll just re-install Windows Me.

And then there's the third type - people who have a large library of older games that they still want to play (for instance "Gabriel Knight - Sins of the Fathers", etc.)

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[Bastian]

The second type are folks who are running $5 games they buy at Home Depot on their eMachine from Wal*Mart. Microsoft might lose these people as customers because they dropped 16 bit support in 64 bit Windows. Maybe they'll all go by Macs! Or, maybe they'll just re-install Windows Me.

Or maybe they don't have 64-bit CPUs in the first place. And even if they did, they wouldn't be shelling out a few hundred bucks for a new OS unless they had to.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[Jedi Alec]

Your average Joe probably isn't using a 64 bit x86 chip either.

The supermarket around the corner seems to have a knack for selling Athlon 64 machines lately though. Nforce3, budget nvidia card, reasonable price, the kinda thing the average Joe would go for.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[ruiner5000]

driver support has increased vastly. driver support was the main reason the os had not shipped. it will include more drivers than have been released to date. of course, what do i know? i post every damn 64 bit driver for linux or windows or freebsd that comes out, and you can search for them here.

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name =News&file=index&catid=&topic=13

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[Kymermosst]

XP x64 has also completely dropped 16bit support. No more old DOS programs. No more Win3.1 programs.

If you are really running 16-bit applications (isn't it about time you perform a fscking upgrade?), just use Bochs. It'll be plenty fast on an AMD 64-bit processor.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[mixmasta]

Don't they have the Virtual PC available for that now?

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[Script_God]

Now, with the 32-bit hardware driver problem, I can understand that. But Microsoft already ran 16-bit apps under emulation since the earliest days of NT (via NTVDM or WOW - If you ever see either of those in yout task manager, you still use 16-bit code for something) - I see absolutely no reason whythey would have discontinued that.

The Athlon64 runs 16-bit code extremely slowly. Also, MS would have to WoW32 inside the WoW64, which I'm sure would cause a lot of headaches.

Frankly, I never run any 16-bit apps, and there's always VMWare if I would want to.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[updatelee]

I use DOS apps on a regular basis for work, many people cant just stop using apps because their outdated. If its all thats avalible, then you dont really have much choice. I dont have the money to pay someone out of pocket to rewrite software into 32bit when the exsisting 16bit software works 100%.

Im not a big fan of lack of 16bit support in XP-64, dual boot its going to be I guess, its kinda lame though.

Re:Don't get *too* excited yet...

[Karma Farmer]

16 bit games have been a pain in the ass to get working from the moment there was more than one model of IBM PC. If you play 16 bit games, you have always had special boot disks for some games, and have gone through hoops with others. Win XP X64 isn't going to change that.

It's all fun and games...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anyone aware of a list of Windows software (perhaps on MS's site) that'll benefit from it?"

Solitaire.

Re:Is this Longhorn?

[grumpygrodyguy]

ok, thanks for clarifying. Can anyone go into more detail?

I thought longhorn was XP + 64-bit.

Is it worth upgrading?

[AGTiny]

I run XP on an AMD64 laptop. Would I gain anything by upgrading to this or not?

Re:Is it worth upgrading?

[KidHash]

It depends, what do you use your laptop for? Unless you're doing scientific work, or playing a game which is 64-bit optimized, then no.

And even if you are doing those things, only if the drivers are available.

Basically, hold off unless you have no choice

Re:Is it worth upgrading?

[AGTiny]

OK yeah, you're probably right. It's just used for web surfing, email, development, etc.

Re:Is it worth upgrading?

[BinLadenMyHero]

Grab a pirated copy and test it.
If you think it's worth, go ahead and pay for your legitimate copy.

Re:Is it worth upgrading?

[antdude]

I would wait. How about driver support if you do use it? Wait a bit! See if the 64-bit OS is really worth it in a few months.

Re:Is it worth upgrading?

[Skuld-Chan]

On my desktop with the XP 64 beta I was incredibly impressed by its performance. Applications didn't run faster per se, but the whole os booted nearly instantly, and programs (even 32 bit apps like office) loaded nearly instantly. IO performance was much better.

Re:Is it worth upgrading?

[Kurt Gray]

I would advise waiting on Win64 until software and hardware publishers catch up with their own Win64 releases.

In my case I use Lightwave in Windows XP to produce CG animations. Rendering a detailed CG scene can sometimes take an hour per frame, 20 seconds of video = 600 frames = 600 hours of rendering... I am looking forward to using Lightwave for Win64 which is in beta now.

Re:Is this Longhorn?

[MoonFog]

No, Longhorn is the (code) name for the next version of Windows. XP-64 is just an upgrade, adding the 64 bit addressing possibilities to the Windows XP OS.

Longhorn will not be out until next year at the earliest.

Re:Is this Longhorn?

[wpmegee]

No. This is just Windows XP. Games and other apps will have to be recompiled to take advantage of it - UT2004 has a beta out, don't know of any others available.

Wow, another Microsoft public Beta!

[farrellj]

Wow, another Microsoft public Beta!

Great, the people who sold me the Gigabyte AMD64 motherboard will possibly admit there is a 64 bit operating system now...I had a Gigabyte motherboard that as soon as it got out of the bootloader and went 64 Bit, it would reboot! I should have stuck to ASUS originally.

I swapped out the Gigbyte MB, put in an ASUS...same CPU, Memory, everything and I pass the 64 bit transition, and away I went to load 64Bit Linux! Cool.

ttyl
Farrell

Re:Wow, another Microsoft public Beta!

[Luscious868]

Wow, another Microsoft public Beta!

I'm no Microsoft apologist, but let's be fair here. Any operating system released by Microsoft is essentially going to be a public beta. There is simply no way, even with a huge beta test group, that they can test against every combination of software and hardware out there. It's simply not possible. There isn't a company in the world that could do it. Hell, look at all the problems with the first release of OS X. Apple only had to support a limited set of hardware, and there was still a lot of issue with the first release of that operating system.

My contribution to the list:

[Anonymous Coward]

LightWave 3D, by NewTek.

Oh good...

[Seraphnote]

...now I get to have twice as many problems than I have now with XP 32? :)

Think they improved the wait to display "My Computer" while it has a connection to a remote share, that is either slow or unreachable?

With XP, 512MB ram, and Pentium 4, I get to wait a good minute or two, just to SEE, let alone access, the drives that are still ON or CONNECTED to the machine.

Of course this is the DEFAULT settings, I've not taken the time to research how to "reconfigure" or "tweak" it.

You think they would have optimized such an ancient and basic behavior, OUT OF THE BOX!

Oh wait, it must be one of those "innovative" things...

Re:Oh good...

[ahains]

My Computer takes about ~1 second to open on my XP box - (1) floppy (2) cd-rom drives, (3) physical drives, (2) mapped network drives. I typically disable persistent network mappings, since I bounce off of many share points briefly: c:\>net use /persist:no

Re:Oh good...

[kayak334]

With XP, 512MB ram, and Pentium 4, I get to wait a good minute or two, just to SEE, let alone access, the drives that are still ON or CONNECTED to the machine.

That's funny, it takes about 1 second on a P3 800MHz with 256MB RAM. Yes, with the default settings.

Of course this is the DEFAULT settings, I've not taken the time to research how to "reconfigure" or "tweak" it.

Research, yeah... not really sure what you're talking about. Maybe try changing the way the window displays the view?

Re:Oh good...

[l3v1]

Research, yeah... not really sure what you're talking about.

Not that it's my businness, but I just thought to suggest you try browsing through the dozens*dozens^2 of wintweaking-related sites with tons of registry setting descriptions, many of which are undiscovered territories for average joe6packs, who can - if they wish, why would they - spend literally hours to even find out that there are some ways to improve whatever.

Then, the guy also said while it has a connection to a remote share, that is either slow or unreachable which is quite an important issue which really _can_ cause what he was talking about.

Re:Oh good...

[man_of_mr_e]

I always find it humorous how some people will spend days tweaking their desktop themes, but not spend a few minutes researching ways to fix things that they like to complain about.

It can't bother you that much, or you would have at least looked into how to fix it.

Re:Oh good...

[kayak334]

Then, the guy also said while it has a connection to a remote share, that is either slow or unreachable which is quite an important issue which really _can_ cause what he was talking about.

I currently have two remote shares mapped as network drives on this laptop. Both of which are currently unreachable because they are at work. It takes 1-2 seconds for everything to show up, even the disconnected shares, and it is all due to the hard drive reading.

Trust me, I like linux. My job title has "Linux Clustering" in it. But making up weird "problems" with WindowsXP (a very usable OS with many nice features) isn't going to help anyone.

As for the registry tweaking, yes, of course there are tons of sites with that information. What I was saying was that I'm not sure what exactly he is looking to "research" about the file browser in XP. There is absolutly no need to "tweak" it to make it perform well.

Re:Oh good...

[bhiestand]

Why don't you try downloading hijack this. You could be blaming microsoft for spyware you downloaded. I fixed a computer just the other day that was exhibiting the same problems... it had AITwoUpdater loaded on it. You can see a forum posting of a similar situation here.

The scientific discovery of the decade....

[carlmenezes]

MS Gold can actually rust

Old News

[huwnet]

This was posted on The Inquirer on the 31st March. Slashdot is really behind!

Re:Old News

[Johan Veenstra]

And when The Inquirer posted the article, was it the 1st of April *anywhere* in the world?

Re:Old News

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Of course they are behind,

They were too busy making stories that link to every single damn article in this months Wired magazine.

Gold Plating

[turgid]

Microsoft was well aware of the old saying, "You can't polish a turd," so not to be defeated, they gold-plated it instead.

/me ducks.

Re:Gold Plating

[LiquidCoooled]

Actually, your wrong. You can polish a turd, but a polished turd is still crap.

Re:Gold Plating

[stor]

You can polish a turd

How? Coat it in resin first?

Cheers
Stor

"Can now see"

[m50d]

Or they could have used SUSE and have seen what it does, what, 5 months ago?

Re:"Can now see"

[rsax]

Or they could have used NetBSD which was ported to the AMD 64 bit processor before it was even released..... in 2001.

Booya!

Re:"Can now see"

[m_pll]

From the link:

For now, it is only known to work on the Virtutech simulator, since no x86-64 hardware is available yet.

x64 XP was developed the same way:

From: David Cutler
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 7:27 PM
Subject: A day in history

Today at 3pm we received the first AMD64 K8 based hardware system from AMD.

Today at 5pm we booted and are running the 64-bit versions of Windows XP on the AMD64 K8 system.

This basically means the port was already done on an emulator by the time the actual hardware arrived.

I tested this

[Anonymous Coward]

I tested the betas now and then and submitted a lot of bug reports. The thing is I am happy dual-booting Windows Media Center 2005 and Gentoo AMD64. I don't really find a need to run this for desktop use yet. As everything I use still runs in 32 bit emulated mode. It's just not worth it. Now when Longhorn comes out by that time all processors for high end desktops should already be x86_64. That's great, Microsoft is just using this release as a testing bed for upcoming OSs. I'll stick with Windows MC 2005 and Gentoo for now.

Good luck to them, but I don't feel like paying to beta test future Longhorn kernels. They should be paying me.

Re:Oh good... -- No, you are incorrect

[Ada_Rules]

...now I get to have twice as many problems than I have now with XP 32? :)

This is a common misconception. 64 bit computing does not give you twice as many problems as 32 bit computing. Each time you add a bit you double the problems so in fact you will have 2**32 more problems. The only issue I see is that many of the problems do not really show any increase at 64 bits yet so we will have to wait a while for all of the vendors to port them. I hope this clears things up ;)

Re:Is this Longhorn?

[Jugalator]

I thought longhorn was XP + 64-bit.

I don't know where all misinformation about Longhorn being aimed for 64-bit processors come from. I keep seeing it everywhere on forums.

Longhorn will be released just like Windows XP; in 32- and 64-bit editions.

The biggest challenge for Windows...

[Illserve]

As processor speed, memory and disk space continue to spiral to ever larger values, Microsoft is really going to be put to task in finding ways to make Windows sluggish.

Their task is made more difficult by advances in compiler design which find an eliminate trivial solutions that simply chew up CPU time by computing huging cosine tables and then overwriting them.

New innovation may come from recent advances in polling network devices unnecessarily and hanging various threads until a reply is received. In the case of pulling a device off the network that Windows Explorer had browsed in the last 15 weeks, a given thread can hang for minutes, chewing up processor time in loops that scan network traffic.

The Windows Development team seems optimistic that they can produce the same crippled user interface on new 64 bit architectures that customers have become familiar with, a valuable marketing strategy in teaching consumers to become suspicious of computers with more responsive interfaces.

Re:The biggest challenge for Windows...

[Anonymous Coward]

While parent is funny it should be noted being sluggish on old hardware is a bigger problem for Linux.

Dual boot Redhat/Gnome and Xp and some old hardware. I do this on a 128MB Celeron333Mhz. XP is less sluggish than Linux.

Re:The biggest challenge for Windows...

[Illserve]

*dives into a bunker*

FIRE IN THE HOLE!

Re:The biggest challenge for Windows...

[fimbulvetr]

Quit using gnome, try xfce.

here

Re:The biggest challenge for Windows...

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Quit driving a car. Bicycles are much more efficent.

Oh, you wanted to take your kids to school? Bummer.

Re:The biggest challenge for Windows...

[evilviper]

That's nonsense. Using GNOME as your Window manager does not offer any more real functionality than XFce (or most others). It offers more eye-candy, but not real functionality.

Just as a small, lightweight, fuel-effecient car can do just as much as an expensive, fuel guzzling car.

Re:The biggest challenge for Windows...

[fonky]

sleep 1

works the same on all environments ;)

Microsoft complaining

[Anonymous Coward]

about the bittorrent version in 5... 4... 3...

Re:Microsoft complaining

[game kid]

in 5... 4... 3...

What? People still wait more than a half-second for torrents? Aren't we Slashdot, the place that brings down Web sites and inspires new torrents before the stories even show?

"extra addressing...."

[Anonymous Coward]

The advantages of the AMD-64 archetecture go far beyond the additional address space. The number of general purpose registers is doubled (and, of course made 64 bits wide). This is far more important than the increased address space and, for most code more important than being 64 versus 32 bit.

Translation: If you've never heard of a register, what this means is that there are twice as many internal storage locations in the processor. moving data between internal registers suffers from no delay, while accesses to memory (ram) is slow and processing cycles can be lost to wait states - basically the processor must pause and wait for the memory access to get done.

This is why most code when recompiled for the new architecture will see an immediate performance improvement. Some code will see gains from the 64 bit width of these registers - but not as much. Virtually no one will see a benefit from being able to use more than 4gb of ram.

Re:"extra addressing...."

[BrittanyGites]

You may not see the gains expected by just recompling. I remember very well the problems with DEC Alpha 64 alignment issues. Unaligned data caused software traps and slowed execution very seriously.

If someone is diddling around moving bytes to save space they could suffer a performance penalty.

Re:"extra addressing...."

[argent]

The advantages of the AMD-64 archetecture go far beyond the additional address space.

I would absolutely say that the biggest advantage has nothing to do with the address space. The biggest advantage tha Alpha gave us, for the decade where it maintained its performance lead despite benign and not-so-benign neglect, wasn't the larger address space (there were only a few people who actually needed 64 bits), but the huge register bank and celever instruction set (especially the memory barrier instructions, which provided the same capabilities as the IA64 bundles without locking the architecture down to things like counts of function units).

If 64 bits is the gimmick ittakes to shake off even a bit of the dust of the Intel experience, I'm all for it... but for most people that's all it is... a gimmick.

Re:"extra addressing...."

[argent]

I remember very well the problems with DEC Alpha 64 alignment issues.

I remember the problems caused by the Intel architecture's neglect of alignment, so that when programs were moved to platforms where alignment matters (even chips as old as the 68000 and 68020) they would crash or (on later versions, where Motorola decided to coddle bad programmers) run like snails.

See, these weren't "Alpha alignment issues", they were "bad programmer issues" that just became obvious when moving to the Alpha. The response is to set the computer to trap and crash on alignment errors and fix them.

Re:"extra addressing...."

[FidelCatsro]

Not forgetting the massive advantage its on-chip memory controler gives it in some areas

Re:"extra addressing...."

[Mechcozmo]

But the x86-64 chips still don't have as many registers as the PowerPCs....

Re:"extra addressing...."

[bob zee]

"Virtually no one will see a benefit from being able to use more than 4gb of ram."

i will! i use solidworks...

http://www.solidworks.com/

Re:"extra addressing...."

[plover]

I think what he meant was "4gb ought to be enough for anyone." :-)

April Fool's Day Was Yesterday

[Pensacola Tiger]

Just like Microsoft - one day too late.

Coincidence

[ozmanjusri]

Maybe it's my tinfoil hat speaking, but isn't it strange that Microsoft release a 64bit OS just a few weeks after Intel releases their 64bit x86 cpu http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/ 22/0235246&tid=118&tid=137 even though AMD have had their processor out for more than eighteen months?

Re:Coincidence

[Tony Hoyle]

Not at all.. they were clearly planning it. Most of us had this worked out 6 months ago... The betas haven't changed significantly in that time.

Come again?

[WalterGR]

...meaning that those with machines that have 64-32 bit processors in from AMD and latterly Intel can now see what the extra addressing brings to the party.

Wha???

Let's see... 64 minus 32 is 32... so I don't get extra addressing, right?

Oh, I see... you meant if you have sixty-four processors which are all 32-bit. Your hyphen was in the wrong place: that should be written "64 32-bit processors".

No, wait. Did you mean "64-32 bit processors" as in "some number of 'bit' processors between 64 and 32"? Typically you put the smaller value first... Hold on: do AMD or Intel even make 1-bit processors?

Oooohhhh.... you must mean x86-64!

;)

Re:Come again?

[Tony Hoyle]

Oooohhhh.... you must mean x86-64!

But 86 minus 64 is only 22.

That's 10 bits less than my current processor!!!

Re:Come again?

[No Such Agency]

I see your non-Natalie Portman, non-Soviet Russia based humour has not resonated with the fine minds here...

Free upgrade (or downgrade ;) ?

[DoofusOfDeath]

There's been a rumour that owners (oops... licensees) of XP Pro will get a free upgrade to the 64-bit version.

Anyone know if this will happen?

(I'm keenly interested in this, since I own XP Pro and would like to see my video capture card stop working for lack of an XP-64 driver. Thank goodness for Linux support.)

So has anyone TRIED it yet?

[Grey Ninja]

I know the article says it just went gold, but I know damn well that there's some people here who've tried it. I am just curious... how useable is it?

I tried 64 bit Ubuntu briefly, but I went back to 32 bit after failing to acquire such things as my favorite XMMS plugins (which I never could get compiled and working properly, even in 32 bit, so was forced to get binaries), and 32codecs, and of course, browser plugins.

I would imagine that the video codecs work a lot better in Windows XP, but I would imagine that it would be much similar to Linux in that I would have to run in 32 bit mode in order to actually use most stuff.

I am aware that there's a way of running a 32 bit mode in Linux as well... but it seemed far too complex to actually go through with, and I am too much of a newbie to actually get it working properly.

Re:So has anyone TRIED it yet?

[Grey Ninja]

I see. Thanks for the tip. :) I might just go out and give it a try then on my box.

Re:So has anyone TRIED it yet?

[thebagel]

I'm running it as we speak - all of my programs run perfectly. So far, the only problems I've experienced are:
1) Visual Studio Express Edition doesn't target AMD64.
2) For some odd reason, I have to change my resolution when I reboot or I lose 3D acceleration support. Pretty sure it's a problem with ATI's drivers.
3) There are not really any 64-bit applications yet, so no performance boost is really experienced yet (except in, say, notepad or Internet Explorer. and SOLITAIRE!). It's about time for developers to start working on it though. (I'd love to see Half-Life 2 ported :D)

The really nice part? I haven't gotten a virus or worm yet.

And as for video codecs, Windows Media Player is still 32-bit.

Re:So has anyone TRIED it yet?

[Tony Hoyle]

I'm running it. Since the last beta there's more drivers (my wireless works now).

There's a realtec AC97 driver but it bluescreened the first time I installed it.. be careful with it.

I had to edit the inf file of the ATI driver install to support my 1280x800 display, and my 9700 Mobility chipset... Luckily this is relatively easy but ATI really should get this right.

I still have two devices on my laptop that don't work - the PCI Modem and a 'System Device' that I believe to be the SD connector. I don't really care about either of them.

On that note Fujitsu have officially stated that they will *not* be writing drivers for or supporting in any way installation of 64 bit XP or 2003 on their 64bit laptops. What the F**K they think they're playing at I've no idea.. I got a 64bit laptop precisely to run a 64bit OS on it. Do not buy Fujitsu. They suck.

Re:So has anyone TRIED it yet?

[Tony Hoyle]

btw. The .NET 64bit beta takes about half an hour to install as it compiles itself via the installer.

Not tried to get VS.NET on there yet - last time it failed due to lack of .NET (couldn't install the prerequisites) but I'm more hopeful now...

The Horse's Mouth

[PizzaFace]

Microsoft has a website for Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. The site has a pseudo-technical overview of the product, and more detailed information for developers.

There is more to x86-64 than addressing...

[InvalidError]

I find it somewhat irritating that Intel is promoting only the addressing part of x86-64's benefits.

Extended addressing might sound nice but in the real world, it translates to no performance improvement unless you have >4GB in your PC while gains from recompiling to use the extra registers (and some rewriting to combine high/low parts into int64s, reducing initial register usage) are often in the 20%-40% range - though this can vary wildly depending on GCC options and across GCC versions.

Well, it is all marketing so Intel's EMT64 campaign does not need to make any technical sense as long as it sells.

Re:There is more to x86-64 than addressing...

[jcupitt65]

Absolutely right. I've been benchmarking this week and on one of our apps (smart sharpening done in plain integer C code, no MMX/whatever) I see:

32-bit P4 Xeon, 2.5 Ghz == 16.4s
64-bit P4 Xeon, 3.6 GHz == 5.7s
64-bit Opteron 850, 2.4 Ghz == 5.2s

So 64-bitness is worth about a factor of two (very roughly). This is all linux, but I imagine XP would be similar. I can post details if anyone is interested.

Re:There is more to x86-64 than addressing...

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

So what you are saying is that the only thing you use a computer for is sending email using MS Office - Outlook? ... and that you are a 2 finger typer who's favourite game is freecell?

The GIS mapping applications I serve may process faster with 64 bit, allowing my server to send out web pages sooner to those who request them.

The GIS and CAD software I use will benefit from the greater amount of RAM I'll be able to use, even with the current 2GB limit that any single program can use. Complex calculations that take hours may just get done sooner. I may be able to store terabytes of GIS raster data within a single partition if I choose (once the drives of that size exist).

Not to mention all the proof that 64bit will be a boost to everything, as seen by all the athlon64's out there already using 64bit linux or XP64 beta.

Re:There is more to x86-64 than addressing...

[InvalidError]

Only when you have an AMD64 chip though - in most benchmarks I have seen so far, AMD64 usually at least as fast and often indecently faster than EMT64, I guess Intel deserves that for somewhat half-heartedly implementing it as a "me too" feature to avoid losing too much market share.

I used to be an Intel-only kind of person... but when Intel started doing last-minute half-baked moves to preserve their marked share, I pretty much lost all respect I had for them. (The fact that fully-featured A64 laptops cost almost the same as mid-range Celeron-based models also helped me break my 'tradidion'... and getting a castrated P4 would not bring me any new capabilities anyway.)

Re:correction

[Tony Hoyle]

I've got a solaris machine that runs 64bit and it was made in 1999. I believe it ran 64bit even earlier than that.

MS are a little late...

Bah! Still late!

[A beautiful mind]

You should have listened when i told that Neumann guy about how to make a proper computer around 50 years ago!

Re:True, but doesnt it have built in drivers?

[Bastian]

I'm sure for some stuff where you assume no drivers are needed, this is the case, so your USB keys and external hard drives would still work.

But once you get to stuff that isn't incredibly standardized, like network cards and non-postscript printers, checking a hardware compatibility list would be key. Microsoft has no need to waste their time and money writing drivers for all sorts of random bits of hardware on this platform for myriad reasons, not the least of which is that general consumers who would most benefit from having Microsoft write all those drivers aren't going to be the big purchasers of 64-bit Windows.
Even if you have an x86-64 CPU, why buy 64-bit Windows for your computer with 1 gig of RAM and no 64-bit apps?

Re:Free upgrade (or downgrade ;) ?

[Tony Hoyle]

It's still got the whole WPA thing built in, and uses different keys to the XP Retail... sounds like they're set up for selling it. If it was going to be a free upgrade they'd have allowed you to use your 32bit key.

OTOH there is a 'Windows XP 64 Bit (Extended Systems)' key that's non-WPA... I can't match that to a product (it's not XP x64 or XP IA64).

Amusing...

[alex_ware]

that the high end 64-bit machine has such a small moniter.

Going to be great

[MHobbit]

Wow, this is going to be great. We can actually take more advantage of our 64-bit processors and see what they can offer!

I want an AMD 64 FX-55. :-(

Anyways, isn't this Windows 64 bit edition supposed to sport the new user interface changes, namely, the 3D Desktop? (I know there's the 3D-Desktop SF.net project that runs only on Linux.)

Flash Plugin

[xdancergirlx]

Wow, maybe now Macromedia will get to releasing a 64-bit flash plug-in.

Re:Flash Plugin

[Tsugumi]

Funny... I was just thinking that maybe we'd be getting 64 bit win codecs for mplayer ;)

nope

[flithm]

You've got it backwards... they're the same thing functionally. Technically they're completely different.

Re:nope

[Daniel Phillips]

"You've got it backwards... they're the same thing functionally. Technically they're completely different."

Not quite the same technically either. Intel cloned EMT-64 from a non-final version of AMD64, with a result that a couple of the EMT-64 instructions are from the pre-Alpha AMD instruction set.

True, but...

[flithm]

That doesn't mean you don't immediately benefit from having a 64 bit OS running 32 bit applications.

For example, each 32 bit process can be allotted the total 32 bit address space (4GB). This is a vast improvement over 32 bit windows where each process can only have 2GB (despite the 32 bit address range).

Also, continuing with that... you can then have x number of 4GB 32-bit processes all running concurrently up to the 64 bit address range (16EB).

While this may not seem significant to most users, there are some who can't wait for this, especially heavy photoshop users who work with multi gigabyte images.

Slashdot bias showing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows XP X64 went gold on March 31 and we see it on /. two days later?
Tiger went gold on April 1 and no time was wasted in posting that news.
Both are closed source operating systems.
Explain.

Re:Slashdot bias showing?

[Detritus]

It's the International Big-Endian Conspiracy. Move along, citizen.

Re:If it went gold.. duhh

[mepr]

You are all a bunch of punny borons

Get 64-bit applications now.

[Inoshiro]

Grab a 64-bit Linux distribution. Yet another benefit of opensource is that people can freely recompile to 64-bit. I'm running 64-bit KDE 3.4.0 on my 64-bit Linux 2.6.11 on my Opteron 3000+. It runs WoW under 32-bit Cedega nicely as well (in addition to Starcraft/Diablo, etc). No need to chain yourself to a legacy OS for a few applications you can easily run in Linux :)

I run Slamd64, the x86-64 Slackware.

Re:Get 64-bit applications now.

[slayer99]

What's an "Opteron 3000+" ?

Re:Get 64-bit applications now.

[Laurance]

or you can get a G5. which is my plan

Re:Get 64-bit applications now.

[shadowbearer]

I tried XP64 (the 1280 build) and the system was horribly unstable. Video artifacts and lockups, sound lockups... ran thru the usual troubleshooting procedures, different drivers, lots of internet fixes - nothing worked. The way the system behaved reminded me of some of the Sis boards and win98 back when. Mobo is a Epox 8kda series, crucial ram and good components.

To be fair I had some major problems with Gentoo, also - that seem to arise from conflicts between the newest xorg and nvidia's drivers. I eventually solved that one, but not after a lot of head-banging.

Installed Fedora Core 3, made a few minor fixes, and have a very stable, very fast system. I've had a few kernel lockups, but some tweaking seems to have solved that (the only real problem I have right now is that Xorg loses mouse/keyboard at times, but that's easily dealt with)

I wish I had more time to fiddle with the others, but I need this system up and stable, and FC3 worked and worked well.

Just my 0.02

SB

Behind Schedule release

[mepr]

April Fools! Due to unexpected engineering delays, Microsoft has been forced to release this joke 1 day late.

Clean install?

[Avada Kedavra]

Does installing Win XP X64 require a clean install or can users upgrade from Win XP Pro?

Re:Clean install?

[EricTheMad]

Does installing Win XP X64 require a clean install or can users upgrade from Win XP Pro?

It requires a clean install.

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 insightful

Re:Free upgrade (or downgrade ;) ?

[l3v1]

This is nothing new, we do this for ages. If you want to buy an oem windows version you just need to buy it together with some hardware (hdd, cd/dvd drive, sometimes even a mouse). That usually means getting a legal windows copy for about half the price of the boxed version plus the price of the hardware, which is usually no problem.

Re:latterly? & EM64T = AMD's coffin nails?

[l3v1]

I can smell it now! Intel talks developers into porting based on EMT63T. These aps will not utilize full capabilities of the AMD product. This is good for Intel because it will get a gigantic breather

That was exactly what I thought when Intel came out with the reworked xeons to handle 64b. Thing is, Intel cpus have a so large market coverage (and will have) that if most people code for em64t then their code will probably not produce significant speed pushes when recompiled on opterons/fx's. And - so that others also get it clearer - em64t is _not_ a total full amd64 re-implementation. I for one would much more gladly see specifically opteron-coded stuff, because I firmly believe the opterons' architecture is a very good one: _very_ speedy and very low power. Even in this thread a few posts above someone posted some performance data where 3.4ghz xeon64 ran a code slower than an opteron 2.4ghz. Well, nothing new here, same good old amd way of doing cpus. Just what many of us like so much.

Anything to dilute the release of

[alfredo]

OSX 10.4 Tiger. They have tried in the past to steal the limelight from big Apple releases, but they cannot match the buzz that The Steve can generate.

I remember when the released XP. It was greeted with a big, So What. I wonder if they have cut corners to get this out at this time?

Re:Anything to dilute the release of

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Where have you been?

On time? - 64bit processors have been available for what 2 years now? MS was warned long before that they should prepare for the release of 64bit processors, but choose not to act.

Steal the limelight from apple? - yes, lets release it now so that the 5% of computer users that have Apples will somehow miss a minor update to their own OS. Yes, lets all be in awe of the buzz that has only kept a tiny portion of computer users using apples, ... computers that would no longer exist if the iPod wasn't propping up the company.

I remember when MS stepped in and saved apple from iminent bankrupcy. It was greeted with a big So What, since it was obviously done because MS needed it to appear like there is some competition for them.

Re:Anything to dilute the release of

[man_of_mr_e]

Actually, I think it's the other way around. MS has been running XP-64 in the release candidate stage for well over 6 months. It's been waiting for device drivers to be available from major vendors.

I think Apple released Tiger at the same time to jump on the bandwagon. Ever notice that OS releases usually come around April or August/Sept?

Re:Anything to dilute the release of

[Mechcozmo]

It's been well known that Tiger will be coming out in the first half of 2005 and well reported as Tiger has made the trek from Alpha to Beta to Final Candidate to Gold Master.

Interesting note: the PowerPC chips used in Macs were the first 64-bit chips in personal computers... but they were only used in a 32-bit mode because, at the time, 64-bit computing would be too hard to implement. Going from 24-bits to 64-bits was too large of a jump.

Re:If it went gold.. duhh

[prostetnic]

you're a genuine berylium of laughs

Re:Is this Longhorn?

[mike260]

There's a 64bit version of FarCry, I think.

Note that 64bit addressing won't itself benefit many games; what x86-64 really brings to the party is that AMD also beefed up the ISA a little with x86-64, most notably by doubling the size of the previously pitifully small x86 register-file. This will give a nice performance boost to any app moving from x86 to x86-64.

Re:64 bits?

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Have you actually seen a BSOD in the last 3 or 4 years?

I haven't. I have not had to do any reinstall of XP, I have not had any significant problems, I have not had a virus, I've had a smooth running computer hosting web pages, running CAD and GIS software, and playing games.

I call for an 'overrated' mod for the parent.

Re:Well...

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Yes, If MS makes a technological advance it can in no way be a good thing ever. Even when its been an obvious benefit to other companies.

We must keep MS in the dark ages. they should not be allowed to advance!

We must keep MS mired in their old problems, with no chance of ever improving so that we may continue to suffer!

Re:All of you on XP still have 16-bit applications

[Karma Farmer]

You're telling me than Win XP X64 comes with a version of edit.com that won't run on Win XP X64?

Wow. Mod the parent up! Those guys at Microsoft sure are dumb!

Re:64 bits?

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

No, you are overly critical because it is 'in' to hate MS and you'd rather not think for yourself when you can follow the crowd.

It is 'in' to hate such a major employer of people around the world, it is 'in' to hate the richest man in the world simply because he's rich and you aren't, regardless of him being the largest charitible benefactor EVER.

Want to hate a truly evil entity? One who has murdered 150,000 innocent people in Iraq? One who has intentionally destabilized world oil markets by invading Iraq for no just reason, simply so his oil friends can profit from higher prices? Hate Bush.

Re:64 bits?

[Game Genie]

I'm glad you are able to explain to me my motives, because clearly I am not sufficiently inteligent to figure it out myself. Bill Gates giving to charity does not in any way change Microsoft's anticonpetitive and illegal business prctices, but I must give special credit to Mr. Gate for offering to donate Windows licentces to schools as penace for his crimes and shore up his monopoly further.

Bush, of course, has absolutly nothing to do with this discussion, but I can certainly agree with you that he is a horible and evil person. It is interesting though that you talk about how wonderful capitolist corporations are for employing people and at the same time criticize Bush is one of the largest benefactors to gigantic corporations. Perhaps you hate him because it is popular too?

Re:64 bits?

[zakezuke]

Have you actually seen a BSOD in the last 3 or 4 years?

I just saw one the last time I was trying to reply to this message. No really, this isn't a flame or troll. But yes I've seen tons of BSsOD on 2k and XP mostly due to some crappy driver, specificly the out of the box sound blaster live drivers. If not crappy drivers, then some codec conflicting with another codec, or my favorite Roxio.

Things are better, but they are far from perfect.

You miss the point

[haraldm]

x86-64 is the same on both Intel and AMD.

Not. As an application developer, you simply don't notice the DMA issue as far as app development goes. Yet the customer may notice a performance tradeoff sooner of later.

... Intel is shipping 10x the x86-64 volume AMD does.

The question is, are all these Intel CPUs actually used with 64 bit applications. See, people buying Opteron boxes buy them because they want to explicitly run 64 bit apps on Linux, e.g. for compute clusters where Opteron rack servers sell like sliced bread. Intel EM64T boxes are bought although most people still run 32 bit OSes and apps on them, mainly because very few windows applications are available in x86_64 versions right now.

So Intel may claim to be the market leader as far as shipping volumes but not as far as uses. The main reason Intel can claim to be the market leader here is that most customers always tend to buy the fastest GHz CPUs that are available, and these happen to be EM64T in machines like the IBM x346 or the HP DL380G4, which are pretty much the mainstream in data center applications.

Wide spread deployment of x86-64 production envrionments is still a few quarters out. Fact is it is not quite ready for prime time.

Uh - what the heck am I missing here? Check this page and this page and tell me for which OS x86_64 support is available, and give me a rough guess for which OS not. Sure as hell, Oracle 10g does not run on EM64T CPUs on Microsoft Windoze in 64 bit mode. For now, you need to buy an Itanium box to do that (and Itanium sales in 2004 is an entirely different story). What a pity. What did you say about prime time?

addressing?

[pbjones]

I thought that 64bit meant a potential DATA bus was 64bits wide, but I am obviously wrong....

Troll?

[ImaLamer]

I guess you should never try to write a joke when you've been up all night.

Re:64 bits?

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

So it's MS's fault when some other hardware maker gives you crappy drivers?

And why do you bring in 2K when the discussion is about XP? No one is arguing about 2K being full of BSOD triggers.

Lets start blaming MS for rainy days and dead goldfish!

Re:Is this Longhorn?

[celeritas_2]

there IS a 64bit edition of FarCry (I got it free when I bought some parts) and on another note, I've have 64 bit windows for quite a while now, they gave the beta away free for a long time now.

Re:64 bits?

[zakezuke]

So it's MS's fault when some other hardware maker gives you crappy drivers?

I didn't say it was MS's fault, only that BSOD is not unheard of. I know mine *will* crash out of the box. Whether or not it's their fault is a debate for another time. Oddly enough I found 2k to be less prone to BSOD and still have it installed to help resolve issues with XP.

Everyone I know that has XP has had to reinstall it at least once. If not for virus, spyware, or other odd 3rd party software problems it was due to their own service packs.

Lets start blaming MS for rainy days and dead goldfish!

Well they are a Redmond based company, and it does rain a fair bit, they could be exporting it. As far as dead gold fish, I imagine when they order Indian food, pick out the meat and dump the sauce they *might* be killing gold fish. But these are your conspircy theories and not mine.

Windows ME 2005

[mike518]

if the gold is anything like the beta (and it is, since im talking about the beta from last month) this OS should be well worth using! (in about a year.)

Wow

[IntergalacticWalrus]

You got modded Troll for bashing Windows. You don't see THAT everyday...

JFGI!

[Inoshiro]

Well, first:
http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/

Then:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/athlon64-3000 /index.x?pg=1

HTH. HAND.

Re:JFGI!

[mikis]

That is Athlon 64 3000+. This is Opteron:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2003q3/opteron-146/i ndex.x?pg=1

See the difference? Hint: there is no such thing as "Opteron 3000+".

Re:Or run Solaris on UltraSparcs a decade ago

[m50d]

Or winNT on an Alpha before that. I just assumed we were talking specifically x86-64.

Benchmarks

[obeythefist]

From the benchmarks of the Beta's, the performance for Windows XP-64 was worse than that of XP-32 for the most important MS benchmark, gaming. (I say that simply because gaming is the only thing I can do better on Windows than Linux).

Hopefully Microsoft fixed that before they went gold, otherwise this OS will prove a bit of a dog and it won't get very wide acceptance from the marketplace. Also, it's lacking more legacy support than you usually get from Microsoft, so again that will decrease the adoption rate.

Re:64 bits?

[Beolach]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

This is honestly the funniest post I've read on /. in a long, long time. I'm just sad it ended up burning Game Genie's karma.

For all you people who modded him down as a troll, why? Even if BSODs aren't as common as they were formerly (and I can still atest that they do occur), that's completely beside the point. Not all blondes are dumb airheads - in fact most blondes I know (myself included) are often the opposite. But guess what? I still laugh at blonde jokes (well, good ones, anyway). I see Game Genie's post as along the same lines - not necessarily strictly true, but still @#$% funny.

Re:64 bits?

[Beolach]

Heh, I have hardware in my boxen that has two drivers - one from the hardware manufacturer, the other from Microsoft. When I install the manufacturer's driver, I have to say yes, I do know what I'm doing & I do want to install this driver, even though it's not M$ certified, and even though M$ has another driver that they say is certified and I should use instead. If I didn't know what I was doing, I would most likely be scared out of installing the manufacturer's driver, and would install Microsoft's instead.

Guess which one causes a blue screen 100% of the time? Not the manufacturer's.

And why do you bring in 2K when the discussion is about XP? No one is arguing about 2K being full of BSOD triggers.

Are you really unaware that Windows XP's core code is based off of Windows 2000? Their code overlaps much more than not.

Re:64 bits?

[Game Genie]

Thanks for the good word Beolach, I'm glad some body understands it was a joke. This thread took really slammed my karma (I'm still in the black at least). I don't like posting as AC; I stand by my words.

I am getting really sick of /., but there just dosen't seem to be any viable alternative (I read k5 in passing, but it really is not the same).