Microsoft to Launch 64-bit Windows on Monday

maotx writes "Several news outlets are reporting that Microsoft will officially roll out 64-bit versions of its Windows operating systems on Monday. As compared with existing 32-bit versions: 64-bit Windows will handle 16 terabytes of virtual memory, as compared to 4 GB for 32-bit Windows. System cache size jumps from 1 GB to 1 TB, and paging-file size increases from 16 TB to 512 TB."

Comments

I don't know abou this...

[Aruthra]

640k ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:I don't know abou this...

[Gentlewhisper]

"Perhaps someday the world will have 3 computers..."

Re:I don't know abou this...

[JoeCommodore]

Umm, It was a misquote, he actually said 640 gigabytes is enough memory for anyone... or was that terabytes...

(Yeah, I know, it's an urban legend.)

Re:I don't know abou this...

[FidelCatsro]

I think Mr Gates was misquoted .He was at the time talking about the expected Critical vunerabilities in Windows XP

Re:I don't know abou this...

[sznupi]

I wonder if people will ever stop this...he never said that (see wikipedia)

Re:I don't know abou this...

[Anonymous Coward]

i wonder how many things bill/ms have said about linux that aren't true, and where I can apply to get a nickel for each one.

I know, two wrongs don't make a right...

Re:I don't know abou this...

[Anonymous Coward]

The original poster never said who said it. They just made a statement.

Re:I don't know abou this...

[sznupi]

Neither did I.

Re:I don't know abou this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actualy , He did say it .I should know I was present at the time .

Jack X-

Re:I don't know abou this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but three lefts do.

Re:I don't know abou this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about 640k but I'd be happy with a 64 bit driver for the Promise PDC 20378 SATA controller. I have the Asus K8V SE Deluxe mobo. I can't run XP-64 on it because there are no drivers to support the SATA controller in non-RAID mode. There are 64 bit drivers out there, but they only support RAID. If you have SATA hds, and they aren't configured in an array, XP-64 can't see them.

Re:I don't know abou this...

[kabz]

"Hello ... CompUSA, I'd like a copy of the new 64 bit Windows and a 64 Gig memory SIMM please.

"What ?!?!? I can't get that.

"Well, can I have a Western Digital 64 Terrabyte hard drive please.

"Oh ??!?! I can't have that either."

Wake me up in a few years when there is some point to all this.

Re:I don't know abou this...

[Simonetta]

What to do with the new, seemingly-incredible increase in computer power is always the second question asked when Moore's law makes a new level of technology possible. The first question is always "How do we get it work?".
So let's look back at the unexpected developments with previous jumps in microprocessor power:

1973 - 1976 -- 4040 - CPU chips enter geek consciousness. Public discovers interactive television as 'PONG'. A cubic foot of TTL chips on PCBs replaced by a handful of programmable chips.

late 1970s -- Z80 - Accountants stunned as changing a single entry in columns of figures recalculates them all instantenously. Typists amazed at being able to just hit a backspace key to change a misstruck letter, and printing a page after the mistakes have been corrected.

early 1980s -- 8086 - IBM makes it possible for you to convince the boss to buy the PCs that makes your office work shine.

late 1980s -- 80286 - GUI PCs transform symbol and visual-based professions. Photo editors, SPICE, MIDI, AutoCAD, PCB autorouter programs appear. IBM PC clones replace 8-bit BASIC trainers in the home.

early 1990s -- 80486 - Windows and Wolfenstein and Wavetable soundcards.

late 1990s -- Pentium One - Internet and MP3 revolutions

early 2000s -- MultiGigHz Pentiums - Home libraries, 5000 music albums on a $100 hard disk (music industry freaks out), full movies on 15 cent CDs, home PCs doing professional level advising (law, medicine, etc..), near free global communication, primitive language translation, speech-to-text

late 2000s -- the TeraByte era - you tell me!!

Re:I don't know abou this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello,

Did everyone know that Microsoft has no business model for the future? They are pretty much a software only company, who gets most of their money from Windows and Office. Now, Linux, Solaris, OpenOffice.org, and others all significantly overlap Microsoft's product space but are much much less expensive. These alternative products are also backed by the biggest names in the business: IBM, Novell, Red Hat, HP, and Sun. History tells us that if a competitor offers a similar product for a lower price, that product eventually becomes the better seller (witness Windows NT in the 1990s, witness the IBM PC). This means Microsoft really has a hard road ahead of them, and they most certainly will fall out of their majority market share.

Just some food for thought.

Most Sincerely Yours,
Anonymous Coward

Re:I don't know abou this...

[drsmithy]

late 1990s -- Pentium One - Internet and MP3 revolutions

The first Pentium chips were actually released in 1993.

Re:I don't know abou this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you telling us this? We don't work for Promise. Go bitch at them for being slow.

Re:I don't know abou this...

[Feztaa]

Yeah, but in Internet time, the difference between 1990 and 1993 is more like 25 years.

Re:I don't know abou this...

[Anonymous Coward]

But Linux is only widely used in Communistic countries (China, North Korea, etc.). I really don't think it will be able to make the jump to more "free" nations.

Re:I don't know abou this...

[Simonetta]

There's always a five year time lag between when Intel releases a new generation processor and when the chip's capabilities are part of the public awareness. It takes that long for the both the OS to catch up and be distributed and also for new innovative applications to be conceived, written, debugged, and adopted.

So yes, the time line would be for introduction:

1971: 4004 first microprocessor
1975: Z80-8080
1978: 8086
1986: 80386
1991: Pentium 1
1998: GigaHertz Pentium
2003: 64-bit TeraByte era dawn

It doesn't matter when a chip is introduced: it matters when it gets adopted - when its use starts to 'snowball' (to begin a positive feedback loop for those lucky enough to live in climates without snow) and it becomes the 'must-have' minimum level for serious computer purchases.

Re:I don't know abou this...

[spworley]

Gates never made that famous "640K is enough" quote. It's an urban legend.

http://tafkac.org/celebrities/bill.gates/gates_mem ory.html

Re:I don't know abou this...

[GraemeDonaldson]

Regardless, when you're talking 1990 through 1999, 1993 does not fall in the half described as "late".

Re:I don't know abou this...

[Ketsuban]

>> These alternative products are also backed by the biggest names in the business: IBM, Novell, Red Hat, HP, and Sun. HP supports Linux? Tell that to my Pavilion and its evil fascist BIOS with its stupid proprietary "repair partition" which I want to get rid of but am afraid the BIOS will choke on me if I do. I hate this piece of crap.

Paging file

[mrcrowbar]

paging-file size increases from 16 TB to 512 TB

So, this means that MS Windows now requires a 16 to 512 TB paging-file? ;)

Re:Paging file

[toddbu]

There are a million follow up jokes to this one, but the sad fact is that anyone would engineer a system where this is either possible or necessary. I had a long discussion with a Windows tester one day about code bloat in Windows and he argued that it wasn't a problem because "we got lots of virtual memory and stuff just gets paged out". I'd like to think that this is an isolated case, but when you look at Windows XP and see all the running services that are installed by default then it appears that he's not alone in his thinking.

The only upside here is that my friends are still replacing their old Windows machines on a regular basis and giving away their old hardware as "scrap". The last machine I got was a 1.6GHz machine with 256MB of memory and a 40GB hard drive. It's now serving as our company's chat server.

Re:Paging file

[Anonymous Coward]

... Running Windows Server 2003, I guess !?

Re:Paging file

[Total_Wimp]

I know this was meant to be funny, but the humorous part is that Win2k3 works just fine on a 1GHZ processor for many, many tasks.

When we upgraded our most heavily used Win2k domain controller to Win2k3, we didn't give it any hardware upgrades. We basically run 400 users on our site and all FSMO roles, including the PDC emulator for an 800 user domain on a dual 933 with 768MB of RAM. During most of the day, the processor doesn't rise above 10%.

I know we're not serving files for 800 users or running a web site with huge transactions on this box, but that's just the point. If you match your hardware to your task, most people find they actually need far less than they think they do.

TW

Re:Paging file

[chthon]

He is certainly not alone in his thinking.

We got an application here which compiles IDL files into components and headers, but on a large scale.

The people who created this tool, did this with a background of embedded processing and compiler writing, but they had no idea of of batch processing issues or porcessing large files.

So instead of writing their program to use intermediate files in sequential way, they just totally used up all memory, including swap because they thought that was efficient.

They also wrote the application from a single-user desktop point of view. What they did not realise whas that we had to run multiple jobs using the same tool on one machine.

The result was that instead of using the harddisk of the system in an efficient manner, we used the memory system in a very inefficient manner, resulting in significant slowdowns on builds.

Millions more bits...

[Rick Zeman]

...for viruses and spyway to utilize! Woo hoo!!!! A new generation dawneth. :-)

Paging size

[Amiga Lover]

> paging-file size increases from 16 TB to 512 TB

Hope that's a maximum, not required :)

Re:Paging size

[FidelCatsro]

Of course its not required , no since it can now use 32* more it will only require 32* more than you currently have ;)

The most important question-

[screwthemoderators]

It still has Solitaire, right?

Re:The most important question-

[Neophytus]

Yes, but minesweeper will be removed due to concerns about terrorists brushing up on mine placement strategy.

Re:The most important question-

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. And it now supports 24 billion cards. And 65 thousand users. And can run 78 times faster. Though back in reality you'll just play a standard 52 at the same speed all on your lonesome.

Re:The most important question-

[Shag]

Yes... but the number of cards just increased exponentially.

Re:The most important question-

[SA Stevens]

Solitaire is a relatively new component of Windows. Windows before 3.0 had a different compliment of games. Reversi was the main one I remember. Might have been the only one.

Re:The most important question-

[Ark42]

Um... SkiFree

Re:The most important question-

[Anonymous Coward]

I congratulate you for making a +5 Funny post that doesn't directly insult MS or Windows.

Re:The most important question-

[m50d]

Plenty of windows - IE, OE, media player, scandisk, explorer - didn't exist until 95, so I wouldn't call something from 3.1 relatively new. And I distinctly remember there being 4 games in 2.0.

Re:The most important question-

[Anonymous Coward]

scandisk did in fact exist before Windows 95. Go check your DOS 6.0 disks. And explorer is just a different version of winfile. Media player also existed for Win 3.1.

Re:The most important question-

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Ballmer hoards gays in his basement. He uses drugs to force them to perform his favorite ballet on his command. He also makes them eat nothing but Pork and Beans to thwart their "evil butt dances," which he says "are not good ballet at all!"

Re:The most important question-

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah however its 32bit only so you won't get the maximum performance

Re:The most important question-

[iamhassi]

" It still has Solitaire, right?"

yeah but now it's Solitaire64, which makes it better!

can't wait for Office64, Explorer64, and Notepad64!

Re:The most important question-

[Zorilla]

Not standard. It came as some sort of games pack - probably as part of an OEM package or with a mouse. I wish I had that game to screw around with as a kid. It was running on the demo machines at Price Club, but wasn't available as part of Windows even if it was free to get.

Re:The most important question-

[PsychicX]

So...I guess we're waiting on SkiFree 64, Flight Simulator 64, and finally, Super Mario 64.

Re:The most important question-

[m50d]

Hmm, you're right about scandisk, but my windows 3.1 certainly had no media player, and explorer is so different from file manager it's a real stretch to call them the same program. Weren't you able to use the old file manager in windows 95, separately from the new one?

right.....

[Anonymous Coward]

but there are other advantages to 64 bit, AREN'T THERE?

I'm at a loss for words

[Dancin_Santa]

I can't be alone in thinking, "holy shit, is that it?"

The paging table is the least of Window's problems.

This lack of real quality is striking me speechless. I have literally no idea what to say.

I admit it. I like Microsoft. I like a lot of their employees. I like a lot of their products. But to release this. THIS. I can't see how this relatively minor port makes big news. We aren't talking quantum leaps in computing, and that's the problem. For a company with the deep engineering backbone that Microsoft has, each release ought to be earth-shaking.

I sit here shrugging my shoulders and sighing at this release. Even the venerable Steve Jobs could spin this into something much better.

Re:I'm at a loss for words

[Anonymous Coward]

This is big news for all the people who have been waiting for it coming. It doesn't reflect at all on how or why Microsoft have taken this amount of time to do it.

Some nerds have 64-bit processors, some of them use Windows by choice. For them, this news matters.

Re:I'm at a loss for words

[RedX]

This isn't meant to be a big release. It's simply a slightly different version of the current OS'es but tweaked for the 64-bit extensions found in Opteron and new Xeons. I wouldn't be surprising if the CPU makers are the forces behind the "big news" here.

Re:I'm at a loss for words

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Microsoft has sought to add more features to make their releases more "earth-shaking." But most of those features are of no use to most people. What features could they have added that many wouldn't have seen as either a monopolistic strategy or redundant?

With a history like Microsoft, you have to be careful where you step.

As for Steve, he would most probably name this iWin.

Re:I'm at a loss for words

[kfg]

We aren't talking quantum leaps in computing. . .

Actually, this is a quantum leap in computing. The leaps have gone in the sequence 4,8,16,32,64. I leave it as an exercise for the student to determine what the next quantum leap in the sequence might be.

Now, let's not always see the same hands.

MS simply made the jump a bit later than some.

AMD supplied the needed energy to jump to the next, ummmm, shell, by applying a cattle prod to their collective posteriors.

KFG

Re:I'm at a loss for words

[sznupi]

By cpu makers you mean Intel I pressume (face it: AMD has no real influence on such things). Diclaimer: I'm using AMD

Re:I'm at a loss for words

[DrSkwid]

We aren't talking quantum leaps in computing, and that's the problem.

Lol, you should go find out what a quantum leap actually is.

The jump from 32 bit to 64 bit Windows is precisely a quantum leap.

Unless you can show me the (infinite number of) versions of Windows that have 32 > bits 64 !

Re:I'm at a loss for words

[DrSkwid]

grr haha me idiot

32 > bits < 64 !

Re:I'm at a loss for words

[Anarke_Incarnate]

Microsoft worked hand in hand with AMD on this OS. AMD has more clout than you think, they just don't have the marketing muscle that intel has (or their heaping loads of cash)

Re:I'm at a loss for words

[sznupi]

And that's exactly why I've said that Intel is the force behind it - with their marketing muscle, they'll really benefit from this, not AMD (unfortunatelly...)

Re:I'm at a loss for words

[Anarke_Incarnate]

And you would still be wrong for saying so. AMD still pioneered the tech behind it and Microsoft is even using their hardware for themselves. While it makes for a good theory, your thoughts on this are just wrong.

Re:I'm at a loss for words

[Anonymous Coward]

Nerds don't use Windos. Only losers do.

Re:I'm at a loss for words

[sznupi]

You're still missing my point...look at it not from the perspective of techs/geeks/ms even, but managers/average consumers. That is what matters unfortunatelly..

Re:I'm at a loss for words

[sznupi]

Of course perhaps I'm too pessimistic...but where money are we'll going to hear probably something among "look how wonderfully ms and intel cooperate, just like in the good old times; this product must thus be amazing, we have to buy it"

16 Terabytes

[yotto]

64-bit Windows will handle 16 terabytes of virtual memory, as compared to 4 GB for 32-bit Windows.
16 terabytes! That oughta be enough for anybody!

Re:16 Terabytes

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand the reference but to understand the joke one must understand you to mean that one day 16 terabytes won't be enough for the average application.

Re:16 Terabytes

[Professor_UNIX]

I understand the reference but to understand the joke one must understand you to mean that one day 16 terabytes won't be enough for the average application.

Thank you Mr. Data, but there's no need to explain every punchline.

Re:16 Terabytes

[Malfourmed]

Humour. It is a difficult concept.

Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth mention?

[Shag]

Just wondering. Obviously Solaris, IRIX, Linux, AIX, Mac OS X and whatever other UNIX flavors are out there (well, except for maybe SCO...) have had 64-bit support for some number of years now.

Is Windows the last major commercial OS to add 64-bit support, or are there others I'm missing?

(Even if it is the last one, I'm sure Microsoft will tout this as supremely innovative. :)

This is only years later than Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

How long is the IT industry going to let Microsoft hold it back?

Re:This is only years later than Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Indefinitely. It's a gravy train.

Finally!!

[Almond Paste]

They have caught up with Ninendo64!

Re:Finally!!

[runderwo]

All commercial software for the Nintendo 64 featured 32-bit code, because that's what the compilers and OS/SDK supported. Strikingly similar to the situation of 32-bit Windows on Athlon 64 prior to this new development.

Gimme five minuites

[Wierd Willy]

I'll crash the bastard.......

Confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that what it will support, or is that what it will require?

Thanks, I'm here all week.

It has been out in beta for a while

[Nurseman]

seems nice, fast, haven't had any BSOD. The only problem, not many 32 bit apps run for me. You MUST run IE, WMP, etc. Windows 64

Re:It has been out in beta for a while

[essdodson]

I've not come across a single app that won't run. What sort of apps are you finding problems with? Which build are you running?

Re:It has been out in beta for a while

[NetNifty]

I'm not the original poster, but I'm running XP x64 RC2 and have had problems with Nero (asks for enterprise key just to run, then it works fine), printer drivers for Canon IP2000 (although driver problems are expected, and the built in BJC-8000 drivers work fine for printing, have to hook it up to 32-bit Windows machine to do head cleaning etc), ZoneAlarm doesn't install (although Tiny has a 64-bit Windows firewall available now), a few motherboard utils for my A8N-SLI Deluxe motherboard won't run (but 64 bit versions seem to be appearing), Doom 3 and some other software complains when installing - but editing the MSI file, or running in Windows XP compatiblity mode to get around this usually lets it install and run fine. Had a problem with GetRight crashing so switched to Free Download Manager (shared internet connection so really need the speed capping), haven't tried any BitTorrent apps (hacked together an app which passes torrents to my laptop) but presumably will have same problem as 32-bit SP2 - initialising socket caps. Apart from my printer, all my hardware works fine (A8N-SLI Deluxe motherboard, NVIDIA 6600GT PCI-Express graphics card, 1GB Crucial PC4000 RAM, 200GB Maxtor SATA HD, 120GB Maxtor ATA133 HD, NFORCE4 onboard sound), although it can be a big sluggish when copying large files from/to HD. Using Firefox 1.0.3 for browsing, Media Player Classic 6.4.8.2 for video, Winamp 5 for music and never had any problems with them, so don't know what poster above is talking about unless is using a very early build (used 1218 previously and only had same issues as I do now - only difference I noticed was upgraded Windows apps - IE got SP2'd with popup blocker, Solitair is 64-bit etc).

Re:It has been out in beta for a while

[NetNifty]

Ignore other post without paragraphs.

I'm not the original poster, but I'm running XP x64 RC2 and have had problems with Nero (asks for enterprise key just to run, then it works fine), printer drivers for Canon IP2000 (although driver problems are expected, and the built in BJC-8000 drivers work fine for printing, have to hook it up to 32-bit Windows machine to do head cleaning etc), ZoneAlarm doesn't install (although Tiny has a 64-bit Windows firewall available now), a few motherboard utils for my A8N-SLI Deluxe motherboard won't run (but 64 bit versions seem to be appearing), Doom 3 and some other software complains when installing - but editing the MSI file, or running in Windows XP compatiblity mode to get around this usually lets it install and run fine. Had a problem with GetRight crashing so switched to Free Download Manager (shared internet connection so really need the speed capping), haven't tried any BitTorrent apps (hacked together an app which passes torrents to my laptop) but presumably will have same problem as 32-bit SP2 - initialising socket caps.

Apart from my printer, all my hardware works fine (A8N-SLI Deluxe motherboard, NVIDIA 6600GT PCI-Express graphics card, 1GB Crucial PC4000 RAM, 200GB Maxtor Diamondmax 10 SATA HD, 120GB Maxtor Diamondmax 9 ATA133 HD, NFORCE4 onboard sound, NEC ND-3500 DVD burner, and some other generic 8x DVD reader), although it can be a big sluggish when copying large files from/to HD I think that's down to drivers rather than anything else.

Using Firefox 1.0.3 for browsing, Media Player Classic 6.4.8.2 for video, Winamp 5 for music and never had any problems with them, so don't know what poster above is talking about unless is using a very early build (used 1218 previously and only had same issues as I do now - only difference I noticed was upgraded Windows apps - IE got SP2'd with popup blocker, Solitair is 64-bit etc).

Re:It has been out in beta for a while

[RichM]

No you don't.
I have been running the final release downloaded from MSDN for a couple of weeks and I'm using Firefox 1.0.3 to post this, while I listen to mp3s on Winamp and talking to my mates using Teamspeak.

I maintain a list of programs which do and don't work here:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/article.php?a=64

Re:It has been out in beta for a while

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you smoking? Firefox worked fine.

Re:It has been out in beta for a while

[Nurseman]

I am OP, I am running build 1812 (?) I think, it's about 2 months old. I could not get FireFox or Winamp, or Itunes or Nero to install or run.
Someone modded me troll, even though I said it ran well Some of the newer beta's probably fixed this.
To the guy running FF, what build are you running ?

Re:It has been out in beta for a while

[Anonymous Coward]

wish I could send a PM to ask this, but so it goes - I'm receiving an Athlon 64+ in a few days and am a casual Windows user, and was curious how substantial a performance difference you've found in day-to-day home computer use on XP x64? Curious if there's enough of a performance boost to risk frequent incompatibility w/ progs and games. thanks.

Re:It has been out in beta for a while

[The Original Yama]

In case you didn't know, Windows doesn't BSOD by default anymore. Instead, it just instantly reboots. MS did this so that people would be more likely to blame something else and not the OS. You can turn the BSOD back on somewhere in Control Panel.

Re:It has been out in beta for a while

[NetNifty]

Can't really answer that sorry as I've only really ran x64 on this machine so don't have regular 32-bit windows to compare with fairly - although I know that a few extra performence boosts from the updated OS (IIRC it uses the same core/kernel from Server 2003) such as "advanced performence" disk caching which I found on my previous machine (AMD XP2400+, 1 GB RAM, NVidia 5900 AGP, running Windows Server 2003) it helped a lot (although that was a much slower HD than the SATA one I've got in here). The OS itself I find a lot more stable than XP SP2 on my laptop (768MB RAM, 2ghz Celeron, 30GB 2.5" internal toshiba HD, 160GB Seagate Barracuda 3.5" in externel USB case) and near enough if not identical to Server 2003. The performence for gaming I can't really find fault with (UT2004 with 1600x1200 resolution and all graphics settings to very high and 32 bots on network is very playable), but personally I'd probably recommend sticking with 32-bit at least for a few months until the drivers and software sort themselves out, or warez it to try it out first on your hardware before deciding to purchase it - no point wasting cash now on something you might not use for a few months. In the whole I'd say x64 is a very usable OS, and I don't think MS could have done much more than they have with the OS itself, and the main issues with it at the moment is third party support.

Re:It has been out in beta for a while

[beerman2k]

FWIW i think that your motherboard utilties won't run becaues they're 16-bit apps. The 64-bit ports of Windows have silently dropped 16-bit support. Most people will never notice but there's a handful of legacy apps (like motherboard config apps and cheepo installer programs) that aren't going to work on 64-bit machines.

Re:It has been out in beta for a while

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows x64 Professional does not include some features found in the 32-bit version: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/W indows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resour ces/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prka _fea_tfiu.asp

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[taskforce]

Mmm... well sort of. AFAIK, Tiger isn't fully 64bit. The only thing that is 64 bit in Tiger is its support for 64 memory for POSIX based apps...(Command line apps; server daemons and such) Tigers kernel will reside in 32 bit address space so that it can still run on the G3 and G4. XPx64 is fully 64 and as such can only run on the x64 architecture and is by no mean a patch up job.

Great, but...

[opcon]

does it run linux?

Re:Great, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

OH MY GOD YOU'RE FUNNY.

better than 64-bit Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another debate takes root? (debate)

Yeah, the BSOD...

[Ron Harwood]

...has somuch more useless information that you need a dual monitor set up just to read it.

Re:Yeah, the BSOD...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, Windows 95 does not have 64-bit support.

Re:Yeah, the BSOD...

[Anonymous Coward]

STOP 0x00000024 (0x00000001 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x00000000)
HAMMER TIME

Re:Yeah, the BSOD...

[Anonymous Coward]

Running Photoshop in Windows 95 inside of Bochs for *BSD of my Athlon 64 4200+ with 4x2GiB=8GiB is faster than running Photoshop in Windows XP x64.

Did you understand me?

Re:Yeah, the BSOD...

[PsychicX]

Are you kidding? A 4200+? The least you could've done is octal dual core opterons (8-way total). What a loser.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't the first version of 64-bit Windows; it's the first x86 64-bit version.

64-bit Windows has been available for Itanium for several years now.

Cool!

[jav1231]

MS: "We finally have a 64-Bit version of Windows. Page file and virtual memory sizes have increased substantially. In recognition of this, all native Windows apps and all new releases of Office, Visual Studio .Net, and other core Microsoft products will be quickly bloated to take full advantage of these new sizes!"

Third party apps

[lavaforge]

I've been messing around with Ubuntu for x86-64 lately and while it is pretty snappy, I miss things a lot of the little things (like the flash plugin) that were never compiled for a 64 bit system.

Is Microsoft going to have a similar problem, in that it has a nice OS, but few apps to run on it?

Re:Third party apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Microsoft going to have a similar problem, in that it has a nice OS, but few apps to run on it?

No, because Windows is not a nice OS-- it's a piece of shit. It's just 64-bit shit now.

Re:Third party apps

[MasterOfMagic]

Can't you run a 32-bit Firefox or Mozilla on x86-64 to get the Flash plugin working? It's not really a complete fix, but if you _need_ the plugin working, I think that's a way to get it working.

Re:Third party apps

[lavaforge]

I looked into that, you need to set up a chroot environment in order to make it work. I don't need the flash plugin that badly.

Re:Third party apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't look back, Flash is garbage!

Re:Third party apps

[pershino]

I run gentoo on AMD64 which has 32-bit compatibility modules which allow running 32-bit apps without the need to chroot. Gentoo's portage also provides 32-bit binary versions of Firefox, Flash player and OpenOffice, amongst others. All works perfectly. Surely other distros do the same?

Re:Third party apps

[screwballicus]

Is Microsoft going to have a similar problem, in that it has a nice OS, but few apps to run on it?

You know, I was expecting application support to be poor for a while, but as it turns out, XP64 seems to have as much if not more currently available software than NT 3.51 for PowerPC.

And here I was thinking that I was going to be running the worst-supported Windows platform out there. Heck no. Second worst for me.

Re:Third party apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Microsoft going to have a similar problem, in that it has a nice OS, but few apps to run on it?

You can run 32-bit apps on it pretty easily. The trouble will be drivers, you need 64-bit drivers.

Re:Third party apps

[rmarll]

Is Microsoft going to have a similar problem, in that it has a nice OS, but few apps to run on it?

I think the idea behind AMD's x64 platform is that you don't have to recompile for it. 32 bit appllications should run on x64 the same as they do on 32 bit versions of XP.

This also has a lot to do with why Itanium didn't sell. It required new software top to bottom.

Re:Third party apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, no. We're just that good ;-)

Re:Third party apps

[jdmuir]

• I miss things a lot of the little things (like the flash plugin) that were never compiled for a 64 bit system.

Run the 32-bit version of Firefox all of your plugins will start working again.

Re:Third party apps

[turgid]

This is a short-comming of the design of 64-bit debian systems. The way Solaris does it is to have 32-bit and 64-bit user-land libraries and utilities side-by-side so that you can run 32-bit and 64-bit binaries on the same 64-bit system at the same time. The debian people chose to break backwards compatibility when they went to 64-bit. I suppose from debian's ideological point of view "everyone should be using Free software and compiling from source" so it doesn't matter. However, in the real world, it does.

Now, if only someone would lend me an AMD64 machine I'd do that badly-needed Slackware AMD64 port, and I'd do it like Solaris...

Re:Third party apps

[Anonymous Coward]

But to compile 32bit apps you still have to chroot to a 32bit system

Re:Third party apps

[Dolda2000]

I miss things a lot of the little things (like the flash plugin)

Oh yes indeed -- What would the world do without Flash, after all?
</sarcasm>

Re:Third party apps

[legirons]

"I've been messing around with Ubuntu for x86-64 lately and while it is pretty snappy"

Ahah! Someone who's got Ubuntu running "snappily". A 64-bit machine, you say? Any reccomendations for memory and processor-speed to get Gnome running at a proper speed?

(On my 700MHz machine, it runs as if every window-activtion request has to go through the post or something...)

Re:Third party apps

[spaceyhackerlady]

The way Solaris does it is to have 32-bit and 64-bit user-land libraries and utilities side-by-side so that you can run 32-bit and 64-bit binaries on the same 64-bit system at the same time.

The UltraSPARC version of Debian (which I run on an Ultra 5) works exactly like Solaris: the kernel is 64 bits, user apps are 32 bits by default, but you can make 64 bit apps if you need them. There are parallel 32 nd 64 bit shared libraries.

When you compile the kernel you get to specify, in addition to the usual stuff about support for ELF and a.out, whether you want to support 64 bit executables.

So far the only applications I've found that really benefit from being 64 bits are database servers.

...laura

Re:Third party apps

[lavaforge]

Athlon 64 3500+
1 Gb RAM
Nvidia GeForce 6800 Ultra
Serial ATA hard Drive

It started out as a gaming rig, but apparently it's enough to run Ubuntu, too.

Re:Third party apps

[Helios1182]

I'm running Suse 9.2 on an x86-64. They offer both 32 and 64 bit versions of Firefox and Xine (The two applications that I run in 32bit mode). I do it so the plugins and all codecs work properly. Otherwise everything is 64bit.

Re:Third party apps

[shayne321]

Is Microsoft going to have a similar problem, in that it has a nice OS, but few apps to run on it?

According to this page at microsoft, 32-bit apps will be supported via an isolated subsystem called WOW64 (much like win 2000 introduced WOW to isolate 16-bit apps). So if their marketing speak is accurate running 32-bit apps should be no problem, they just have to stick to their own dll's.

Re:Third party apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the basic problem is the Debian/amd64 crowd were asses. I think they've recently acknowledged that just maybe they made a mistake in not facilitating a mixed 32/64 environment like every other linux distro did on x86_64, and now rather than setting up a 32-bit chroot, you can just install ia32-libs and have a mixed 32/64 setup like a civilised person.

Re:Third party apps

[ibentmywookie]

I tried that, but couldn't get the 32 bit firefox to install. How do you get 32 bit GTK apps to actually find the libraries in /usr/lib32 ?

I tried the LD_LIBRARY_PATH thing when running realplayer, but it was *still* trying to load the 64 bit libs (and failing) no matter what I did.

It's a bit of a mess. I'm moving to Ubuntu 32 bit until it's sorted out.

Re:Third party apps

[jesterzog]

I haven't tried this, but isn't there some special way to set up a virtual 32 bit userspace? It's the main suggestion being given, with some quite detailed instructions, for running OpenOffice in a 64 bit userspace. OO is one of the major applications that won't yet compile for 64 bit systems. (I understand this is being fixed for the v2 release.)

Re:Third party apps

[jdmuir]

• How do you get 32 bit GTK apps to actually find the libraries in /usr/lib32.

If you want to run a 64-bit system and maintain 32-bit backwards compatability, then the 32-bit libraries must be stored in /lib and /usr/lib; that way you can load any 32-bit app even if it wasn't compiled for a 32-bit + 64-bit environment. The 64-bit libraries are in /lib64 and /usr/lib64.

Maybe you should try Fedora Core 3, which solves this problem?

Re:Serious performance problems..

[Abreu]

Goatse alert!
Mod parent down

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Dancin_Santa]

Microsoft also provided 64-bit Windows NT for Sparc. However, this is their up-to-date operating system ported to a 64-bit arch.

Important question

[ardor]

Do they release it because It Just Works?

Re:Important question

[Anonymous Coward]

No, It Just Compiles(TM)!

Re:Important question

[Captain DaFt]

"It Just Works" That phrase is starting to make me nervous. Why? It's ambiguous.
The word "just" can have two implied meanings here,
First; It can be synonymous with "simply", ie:"It Simply Works"
Second: "Just" is also synonymous with "barely" ie: "It Barely Works"
(Reminds me of the time everbody thought George the Pater said "No new taxes", when the results showed he said "Know new taxes")

For the humor impaired, I'm rarely serious. };-)

This is great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

64-bit Windows will handle 16 terabytes of virtual memory, as compared to 4 GB for 32-bit Windows.

It means we will be able to run "bloatware" such as Emacs without it constantly swapping!

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, we're talking about OSes, not some random toys...

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah just think about it: there was 64-bit support made for Linux before there exsisted any 64-bit processors. Then after everyone else have started supporting 64-bits, Windows is going to have 64-bit-support. Last in the line.

why should I care?

[c-reus]

I mean, as I do not own any computer that will ever reach the amount of 16 TB of hard drive space (assuming that there won't be any super-low-price 16 TB hard drives for sale during the next few years), the 16 TB limit would be enough for me as it is.

Were the cache and page file maximum size limits the only changes (besides making the OS work at 64 bit)?
I hope they updated the integrated drivers list because if the installation still requires me to use floppy disk in order to use SATA drives, I'd quit the installation instantly. I don't have a floppy disk device nor do I intend to buy any extra hardware just to make an OS work on my computer.

Re:why should I care?

[essdodson]

It supported all of my hardware immediately including nVidia SATA, Silicon Image 3114 SATA RAID, nVidia 6600GT pci-e, and the marvell yukon network device which are all fairly new products (less than 4 months old). It did not support the nVidia nic without drivers from nVidia.

Re:why should I care?

[jbplou]

I think these sizes are more important for servers than desktops.

Re:why should I care?

[AmberBlackCat]

I think going from 32 to 64 bits means being able to transfer data between the memory and processor 64 bits at a time instead of 32, which should make a big difference in software that has to process a lot of data in memory like Photoshop or Pinnacle Studio. But it's been a while since I used an assembler. And I hope you don't think Windows is the only OS that requires you to buy new hardware. I never got dialup working on Linux because I had a "WinModem". I would have had to spend another $50 to get one with a controller built in.

Re:why should I care?

[uarch]

One nice thing about x86-64 is that there are more registers for the processor to use when running in x86-64 mode. 2x as many.

More registers -> less register spills -> less memory accesses -> faster execution. (usually)

If you're wondering.. "what is a register?":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_register

Re:why should I care?

[c-reus]

You're correct, I've seen incompatibility issues with Linux and *BSD also - the troubles were solved by simply buying the hardware pieces that had non-M$ dirver support.

It's just that extra hardware == extra expenses. And I don't like extra expenses, I've got enough of those already.

I still think that an OS should be able to be installed out of the box without buying any hardware. But that goes for the installation part only because after the installation, there is an opportunity to install third party hardware drivers that are not actually crucial for the OS to work as it should.

Re:why should I care?

[cowsandmilk]

2x as many

why wouldn't it be 2^32 more address spaces. you're doubling the bits, right?

Re:why should I care?

[mako1138]

The changes in these maximum sizes are a consequence of the move from 32 to 64. The more bits you have, the more bits of memory you can address.

It's just marketing for now.

Re:why should I care?

[uarch]

Different concept.

The x86 micro architecture specifies 8 32-bit integer registers. (some of which are used for stack pointer, etc)
In x86-64 this was raised to 16 64-bit registers.

If we were talking address space it would be:
2^64 - 2^32 more virtual addresses

Every additional bit that we tack on doubles the address space. Adding 32 bits double's the possible values 32 separate times.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows was running on 64-bit RISC CPUs in the mid 90s. Windows was also running on 64-bit IA64 CPUs in 2001. This is just an announcement that Windows will now be running on x86-64 as well, which hasn't existed for years.

Helps to have a clue, don't it?

Not 64-bit, just x64 editions

[cyberjessy]

The submission is absolutely misleading.

Windows Server 2003 has supported 64-bits (Enterprise Edition and Datacenter edition) since its launch on IA64(Itanium). Before that, they also had 64-bit versions of Windows 2000 Server.

Windows XP Professional also had a 64-bit version since 2003, again running on the Itanium. However, XP on Itanium was discontinued as no one was using it outside MS testing labs.

Whats gonna be launched are x64 editions of XP and 2003 Server.

Re:Not 64-bit, just x64 editions

[Tyler Eaves]

So?

Now they're releasing a version for a system that people actually run...

Re:Not 64-bit, just x64 editions

[Brian Stretch]

The submission is absolutely misleading. Windows Server 2003 has supported 64-bits (Enterprise Edition and Datacenter edition) since its launch on IA64(Itanium).

I think they meant "64-bit WinXP on hardware more than 3 people actually paid for."

Whatever. Nice to see Microsoft start to catch up with Linux. I've been running 64-bit Fedora Core for over a year now.

Re:Not 64-bit, just x64 editions

[Jeff DeMaagd]

A researcher outside MS had Windows for Itanium and made an exploit for it. If for nothing else, it shows that a Microsoft product that *nobody* really uses has easy to find exploits, that it has nothing to do with market share, profile or popularity.

Re:Not 64-bit, just x64 editions

[1010011010]

Can you give us a link, please?

Re:Not 64-bit, just x64 editions

[snero3]

this is not the IA64 bit version release but the X86-64 release. A totally different beast.

This is designed to run (in 64 bit mode) with intels new (64 bit) xeon processors and AMDs x86-64 (opteron, athlon 64 etc..)

Re:Not 64-bit, just x64 editions

[argent]

Windows on Itanium was pre-doomed like Windows on Alpha and Windows on MIPS and Windows on Power. People run operating systems to run applications, and people run Windows to run IA32 applications. Unless your 64-bit, RISC, EPIC, or what have you version of Windows runs IA32 applications as fast as comparably priced IA32 version of Windows on IA32 hardware, what's the point?

Sure, IA64 has pretty good IA32 emulation, but Alpha had pretty good IA32 emulation as well thanks to the Freeport Express JIT recompiler. And that just wasn't good enough... It has to be cost-competitive with the best Intel 32-bit chips if it's going to succeed as a Windows platform long term.

So, really, this is the first commercially viable 64-bit windows. What came before this, the never-released 64-bit Alpha version and the Itanium version, well... they have to be considered betas.

Re:Not 64-bit, just x64 editions

[speighd]

And I the 64 bit version of SuSE for over a year. So Windows is about 1.5 years behind LINUX.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Server 2003, Microsoft's current server OS, runs 64-bit native on Itanium. How up-to-date do you want it?

what, only 16TB?

[Vladimir]

With kernel 2.6.11 I had no problem malloc()'ing 2^47 bytes (128TB) ! Memory overcommitting is on, of course. While it seems like an unneeded feature now, remember that W$ limitation means you cannot mmap() stuff >16TB, and this will be a painful limitation in a year or two (1TB IDE disks will soon be launched, I heard).

In addition, I was _really_ surprised to see that Intel's compiler still keeps "long" to 4 bytes on windows (didn't check, but so says their doc). With NO standard integer type for 64 bit, programming is set to be no fun on x86_64 under windows.

Re:what, only 16TB?

[Anonymous Coward]

#include

int64_t next_time_read_something_before_you_write_rubbish;

Re:what, only 16TB?

[Anonymous Coward]

The long type is always 4 bytes (as specified in the C specs). The int type will be expanded to 8 bytes on 64-bit systems, as it is defined by the hardware it is running on (16, 32, or 64 bit hardware). Pointers will be 8 bytes too, remember!

There will indeed be a mess for those trying to use the existing non-standard 64-bit types. Forcing consistency across 32 and 64-bit code bases will be a pain for cross-platform support, but what's new?

Re:what, only 16TB?

[Vladimir]

isn't the header an iso C99 feature? Which flags you specify for printf/scanf? Finally, if you write a portable program, can you rely that int64_t available?

Re:what, only 16TB?

[Anonymous Coward]

C specs my ass - nowhere does it say a long is only 32 bits.

Re:what, only 16TB?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having programmed on numerous 64 bit OSes, I can authoratatively you're completely full of shit.
short = 2 bytes.
int = 4 bytes.
long = it depends.

long is 4 bytes on most (all?) 32 bit OSes. long is 8 bytes on most (all?) 64 bit OSes.
I can speak with experience for vendor supplied compliers on: Solaris, AIX, HPUX, Tru64/OSF1/Digital Unix.

Re:what, only 16TB?

[pmjordan]

Well, if you need an int of a particular size, you need to typedef yourself a compiler/platform specific one anyway; this has always been that way. I believe 'int' used to be 2 bytes on most 16-bit DOS compilers. If you're talking about pointer arithmetic and array indexing, you should have been using size_t for those uses all along.

By the way, the GCC sizes for i386 and x86_64 are:
int: 4 bytes, 4 bytes
long: 4 bytes, 8 bytes
long long: 8 bytes, 16 bytes
size_t: 4 bytes, 8 bytes (I believe it's typedef'ed as an unsigned long)

Note that long long isn't ANSI/ISO compatible.

~phil

Re:what, only 16TB?

[Vladimir]

I actually have a theory for Intel's decision about sizeof(long) on win-x86_64. There is a compiler flag "-mcmodel", which when set to "small" puts your app/data to the lower 2GB. So I think one company asked another to have a way to break as little stuff as possible to make old code at least to compile. I don't know what they do with pointers, but probably there is a trick (like "short pointers" mode). Of course, I hope it's NOT true and there is a more valid reason to make type sizes different from the rest of the 64 bit world (linux, IA64(?), sparc64, dec, etc.)

Re:what, only 16TB?

[tomstdenis]

... arrg I was gonna mod in this discussion... but ...

"long long" is eight bytes on __x86_64__ platforms [e.g. AMD64 with GCC].

long long is also C99 compatible and has been available in GCC and most unix cc's for a very long time.

Tom

Re:what, only 16TB?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having programmed on numerous 64 bit OSes, I can authoratatively you're completely full of shit.
short = 2 bytes.
int = 4 bytes.
long = it depends.

So are you. (well, not *completely*, I guess)
short = at least 16 bits
long = at least 32 bits
int = at least as wide as short and no wider than long

So says the language spec.

long is 4 bytes on most (all?) 32 bit OSes. long is 8 bytes on most (all?) 64 bit OSes.

I don't know about that, but the amd64 native data size is 32 bits. Aside from that, Windows has a *lot* of legacy software that assumes that long is 32 bits. (can't use int, that used to be 16 bits on Windows.) Would you upgrade to an OS that stopped all your (broken, but works) code from compiling?

Re:what, only 16TB?

[ColMustard]

int32_t, int64_t, etc. are pretty standard. If for some reason they aren't defined, there is no reason why you can't make the definition yourself. The printf flags are %llu for uint64_t and %lli for int64_t.

This is actually a lot more portable than using just the generic 'int' or 'long' because the size of those can vary from platform to platform.

Personally, I use the specific int sizes whenever I need a an integer of a specific size. I use the generic keywords for stuff that doesn't really matter like loop iterators, etc.

Re:what, only 16TB?

[NearlyHeadless]

Well, if you need an int of a particular size, you need to typedef yourself a compiler/platform specific one anyway; this has always been that way.

For C99-compliant compilers (and gcc), there is <stdint.h> which defines:

int{N}_t uint{N}_t
int_least{N}_t uint_least{N}_t
int_fast{N}_t uint_fast{N}_t
intptr_t uintptr_t
intmax_t uintmax_t
INT{N}_MIN INT{N}_MAX UINT{N}_MAX
INT_LEAST{N}_MIN INT_LEAST{N}_MAX
UINT_LEAST{N}_MAX
INT_FAST{N}_MIN INT_FAST{N}_MAX UINT_FAST{N}_MAX
INTPTR_MIN INTPTR_MAX UINTPTR_MAX
INTMAX_MIN INTMAX_MAX UINTMAX_MAX
PTRDIFF_MIN PTRDIFF_MAX
SIG_ATOMIC_MIN SIG_ATOMIC_MAX
SIZE_MAX WCHAR_MIN WCHAR_MAX WINT_MIN WINT_MAX
INT{N}_C(value) UINT{N}_C(value)
INTMAX_C(value) UINTMAX_C(value)

Where {N} can be 8, 16, 32, and, if supported, 64

As somebody else noted, c99 also supports long long. Of course older compilers don't have stdint.h. I don't think Microsoft C does either, although I don't have the latest version.

Re:what, only 16TB?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, those types are C99. Whats the problem there, exactly? It's not like standards compliant compilers arn't available, even on Windows.

Re:what, only 16TB?

[The Ego]

So are you. (well, not *completely*, I guess)
short = at least 16 bits
long = at least 32 bits
int = at least as wide as short and no wider than long

So says the language spec.


Not at all, there is no such rule in the C standard.

IIRC the one rule that every C implementation must follow (C99) is:
1 == sizeof(char) I don't know about that, but the amd64 native data size is 32 bits

Your sentence is so unclear that it is hard to know how invalid it is. Are you talking
about the 32bits 'compatibility' mode (which can be argued is not the 'real' AMD64), the instruction encoding (where, IIRC, 64bit operations indeed have a new qualifier, but this doesn't make them not native) or the ALU/register file bitsize (which is 64bit) ?

I don't see anything in AMD64 that would make your claim valid (and I am no particular fan of x86-64).

All in all you seem pretty confused about that 64 bits thing.

Re:what, only 16TB?

[The Ego]

Sorry, the comment above appears quite truncated due to the use of "less than" in the rule I quoted (of course I did not preview :-( ).

Damn.

Re:what, only 16TB?

[Vladimir]

First of all, according to man page, "ll" is a printf modifier for "long long". So the fact it works for int64_t is a simple coincidence that int64_t is defined as "long long int". If "long long" were 128 bit, your program would work incorrectly. I completely agree that if you _know_ how many bits you need and rely on that, you should use explicit types like int64_t; however there are situations where you prefer int/long: for example you have atol() but no atoint64(), fseek()'s offset is "long", etc. (yes, I know, there is fsetpos()), etc.

Re:what, only 16TB?

[istartedi]

Hacking up your own version of stdint.h for the MS compiler is a trivial exercise of course. Then when you want to port to 64-bit you just edit that one file. The only really irritating thing was that for a while they didn't support casting from uint64_t to double. You had to cast it to int64_t and make sure you were never going to set the highest bit. So, I have this ugly macro that wraps those casts, but otherwise it was no big deal.

Re:what, only 16TB?

[Sinical]

Uh. int64_t && uint64_t?

Re:what, only 16TB?

[ColMustard]

Of course, but that is because printf is only designed for the generic types. I rarely need to print integers of which the bit-size is important--and when I do it's probably for debugging--so it doesn't really matter all that much. Of course I use the generic types in most cases because, like I said, the number of bits usually doesn't matter.

Re:what, only 16TB?

[Keeper]

This statement is wrong in nearly every aspect.

The C standard defines the size of short, int and long as:

sizeof (short) = sizeof (int) = sizeof (long)

At no point is an explicit size defined/fixed.

Re:what, only 16TB?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're referring to GCC's -mcmodel=small (which is the default, BTW), the limit on the text/data segments is 2GB, but pointers are fully 64-bit (and sizeof(long) is 8).

The code model only affects relocations, so it's not going to cause you to run into any limitations unless your binary is bigger than 2GB (not counting shared libraries).

Note that Win32/x64 isn't ABI compatible with SysV/ELF/amd64 (the binary and calling conventions used by Linux, *BSD, Solaris etc.), anyhow, they even use different registers to pass arguments.

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Windows every day - by choice. It never crashes, and works exceptionally well with everything I throw at it.

Maybe I'm lucky, maybe I'm open-minded enough to take the time to configure it properly instead of following the flock of shit-stirring sheep that seems to frequent this place so much.

That's

[Anonymous Coward]

the minimum requirements, not what it will support

Driver support ?

[Pop69]

Last time I tried one of the Betas for this on my AMD64 box I couldn't get network live as there were no drivers for either my Yukon Marvell onboard NIC or my Netgear wg311v2 wireless card.

Has this changed or are we going to have an OS that is largely useless due to lack of drivers for common hardware ?

Re:Driver support ?

[james_r_boyer]

I got it off of MSDN a few weeks back and it works fine with my nVidia stuff.

Re:Driver support ?

[wewd]

The most recent version contains drivers for Yukon Marvell onboard NIC, and works fine. Currently many (or some) of the manufacturers are developing 64-bit drivers, who knows how long that will take. Major problem is SATA drives, most of them requires use of floppy on boot, and this floppy needs missing SATA drivers. There is absolutely no need to hurry with XP-x64 until there is much more wider coverage on driver and software section.

Re:Driver support ?

[man_of_mr_e]

http://www.marvell.com/drivers/driverDisplay.do?dI d=101&pId=28

nothing on the Netgear yet afaict

This is informative ?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

x86 not x64 !

Who modded this informative ?

Re:This is informative ?!?!?

[m50d]

Lol, +1 insightful. Mods on crack or what?

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD parent up, that's the truth, my windows machines sit there doing absolutely nothing swapping to the disk.

ibm openpower announcement recently

[mattr]

So are they catching up to linux or far ahead? I found an announcement from april 12
here (google cache as html) about IBM's new linux based OpenPower series that can handle 64GB of memory, is ubuntu-64 or other distro already able to do what xp-64 can as far as the accessible memory/disk?

Not that we'll ever need it (hah hah).

Re:The good of this

[kfg]

I guess the race is on to see who can write the biggest "hello" program.

Dude, please, don't say shit like that. It might be taken as a challange. Next thing you know we'll be having people bragging about their "Hello" programs including Feel-O-Round support.

KFG

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the anger, poor M$-fanboy? ;)

And they're releasing it just in time!

[Anonymous Coward]

To try and take away the thunder from Mac OS X "Tiger".

Re:And they're releasing it just in time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, expect constant salvos from MS in the next two to three weeks, they'll do all kinds of crazy shit to stay in the news and to steal attention from the launch of Tiger-- this week, in the run-up to release day, and for the next week or two after, as people get their feet wet and those not privy to advance copies start posting reviews.

Re:And they're releasing it just in time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 64 bit has been around for years, predating Tiger by a long time. Just not on X86.

Re:And they're releasing it just in time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you understand, Microsoft is very jealous of the ability of Apple to sell service packs for $100+ each. Microsoft has all these corporate customers who actually expect routine OS updates for free.

Of course, Microsoft sells on a platform where people believe the "myth" that PCs are cheaper than Macs. I mean, just because one can get a major-brand PC for $420 that has six USB ports, a monitor, a keyboard, a mouse and a 80 GB hard drive, while a Mac Mini is $500 computer with equal RAM, a less-than-half GHz processor (more than enough slower to make up for any Megahertz Myth), no keyboard/mouse/monitor, only 2 USB ports, and a 40 GB HD . . . .

Re:The good of this

[tomjen]

section .text
global _start

msg db 'hello luser',0xa
mov edx, 0xc
mov ecx, msg
mov ebx, 0x1
mov eax, 0x4
int 0x80

mov ebx, 0
mov eax, 1
int 0x80

hehe, assembly is still the way to go.

World-Leader

[turgid]

Microsoft once again shows why it is the world leader at the very cutting edge of computer science and software technology.

Now, with the world's first 64-bit operating system, they have further extended their lead.

How long will it be until competitors such as IBM, HP, Sun Microsystems, Apple Computer and Linux Technology get their code ported to 64-bits?

Will this finally render all other operating systems obsolete?

Corporations and novice users the world over have come to appreciate the simplicity and ease of installing and administering Windows(TM) systems. Now they can do this it 64-bits, with the added speed and simplicity this provides.

Internet downloads, MP3 music and DVD video have never been so fast, stable, efficient and high-quality.

Programmers too will feel the benefit of 64-bit .NET technology, allowing portability across all versions of Windows on diverse processor architectures from intel(TM) and cheap Advanced Micro Devices(TM) not-quite-work-alikes, making them viable in the Enterprise and for home gaming for the very first time.

I've pre-ordered my 5 license pack for Windows-64 Home Edition(R)(TM)(pat pending) already. Have you? What are you waiting for?

Re:World-Leader

[Metzli]

"How long will it be until competitors such as IBM, HP, Sun Microsystems, Apple Computer and Linux Technology get their code ported to 64-bits?"

The scary thing is that there are likely people who believe this.

I am curious though, I wonder if the 64-bit Windows version can easily switch to 32-bit, a la Solaris?

Re:World-Leader

[Anonymous Coward]

"How long will it be until competitors such as IBM, HP, Sun Microsystems, Apple Computer and Linux Technology get their code ported to 64-bits?"

Didn't IBM sell their computer division earlier this year/late last year?

Re:World-Leader

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before the first 64-bit viruses?

Re:World-Leader

[MagnusDredd]

I would have rated this as funny....

you forgot the tag, it'd let the less appreciative of dry humor know that you were joking.

Re:World-Leader

[MagnusDredd]

(sarcasm) tag that is

Re:World-Leader

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't IBM sell their computer division earlier this year/late last year?

Does not your scrotum need kicking?

Re:World-Leader

[turgid]

(sarcasm) tag that is

That was left as an exercise to the interested reader.

Re:World-Leader

[truesaer]

I am curious though, I wonder if the 64-bit Windows version can easily switch to 32-bit, a la Solaris?

I'm not sure I get why you would want to do this. 32-bit software runs on 64-bit windows, so I can't imagine why you would want to switch between a 32-bit and 64-bit version of the OS. The only 32-bit software that wont work anymore is drivers.

Incidentally, there is one switch from 32- to 64-bit in this version of windows...because the OS must start in real mode, switch to 32-bit protected mode, then switch into 64-bit long mode.

Re:World-Leader

[MagnusDredd]

You gotta be kidding, this crowd gets more clueless every year that passes... ;)

Re:Uhm

[James A. Y. Joyce]

"Maybe I'm lucky"

Yes, you are. I'm running Windows XP Home Edition right now and I'll be damned if it doesn't blue screen two times a day.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Anonymous Coward]

DEC had 64 bit ALPHA processors in 1992, Linux didn't gain 64 bit support until 1996. That's still early, but your statement is not true.

Very interesting

[doofer]

If this guy was talking about the new macosx update he'd be trolled till he was stone, but i guess there aren't exactly as many windows lovers as there are apple fanboys. Its just interesting to see whats acceptable for against windows, then against apple.

and to claim that a major OS that the majority of the world will end up using isn't "stuff that matters" is a joke.

Re:Very interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

It only matters because it's what the drooling morons use to access our servers, spread viruses and run spyware on.

Re:Very interesting

[SA Stevens]

If they were YOUR servers, you'd be wearing a suit, and not that smelly RPM sweatshirt. Face it, YOU ARE THE DATA JANITOR. It hurts when the people in the nice clothes walk by your floor scrubber without even noticing they're marring your newly waxed floor, but that's life when you decide to be a Janitor-grade employee.

NOW GET ON UP TO THE LJET4 ON THIRD FLOOR AND CHANGE THE FUCKING TONER CARTRIDGE, BOY. Hop to it!

Re:Very interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats an LJET4?

Sorry, I'm an MCSE :)

BSODs

[kunkie]

BSODs will now occur 8100% of the time, which is an increase from 90% of the time. Also the TCO will also increase ^2 times.

OS/2?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I think the POWER-based version of OS/2 was 64-bit in the mid 90s -- or at least straightforwardly capable with the microkernel -- so there you go.

IBM operating systems like z/OS and i5/OS (formerly OS/400) went 64-bit long ago, as you might expect for enterprise operating systems. And there's legitimate, major, widely deployed 64-bit software for those OSes, e.g. DB2 UDB V8 for z/OS (which can't even run 31-bit(*)). 64-bit z/TPF will ship later this year. (I'm not sure who needs 64-bit z/TPF since TPF does thousands upon thousands of usually-little transactions per second -- think credit cards -- but somebody does I guess. Maybe because it keeps the college kids happier if they're using 64-bit GCC there.) z/VM is not *really* (yet), but that doesn't much matter (yet), unless you're at the very edges of Linux on zSeries scaling. (z/VM 5.2 will be honestly 64-bit.) z/VSE is not (and no plans), but 390/ESA isn't exactly limiting: it can still get to all the memory installed in the server, even on behalf of older 24-bit and 31-bit VSE apps.

How about CP/M? Does that count? How about MS-DOS/PC-DOS/DR-DOS? MUSIC/SP? 4690 OS?

(*) Yes, 31-bit. IBM had one bit of extra incentive to add 64-bit support.

Pentium M support

[Anonymous Coward]

So my question is what will happen to support for 32-bit Pentium M computers for the years to come. Pentium M isn't 64-bit. Does that mean anyone who buys a wintel laptop will be using WinXP SP2 until Intel gets its ass moving? Are 64-bit Intel laptops even on the horizon? I know AMD's mobile processor isn't 64-bit either. Athlon64 mobile be damned, it's a heat monster just like P4-M.

32-bit Windows != 4 GB memory

[Brahmastra]

Even 32-bit Windows (at least the enterprise editions) can address up to 36-bits of physical memory using PAE.. not 32-bits, providing far more than 4GB.

Re:32-bit Windows != 4 GB memory

[Ann Elk]

Yes, I believe that's why the summary states "64-bit Windows will handle 16 terabytes of virtual memory, as compared to 4 GB for 32-bit Windows."

Re:32-bit Windows != 4 GB memory

[0xdeaddead]

Yes and we used to have LIM EMS back in the day. The difference is that this is LINEAR.. its still 4 gig.

Re:32-bit Windows != 4 GB memory

[arodland]

Um no, completely wrong. It's completely useless to have a VM space that's smaller than physical memory.

So anyway, sure, sure, they've got 64 bits now. But are they vertical?

Re:32-bit Windows != 4 GB memory

[Ann Elk]

Completely wrong? Did I misquote (aside from emphasizing the word virtual)?

VM < phys is not completely useless, but it is terribly inconvenient.

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

Your computer, your drivers and your hardware sucks. That's not Windows' fault.

FSVO "Windows."

[Shag]

Windows NT 3-4 ran on the Alpha and MIPS, yes. I know. I have that OS media, though I lack the CPUs.

Windows Server 200x ran on IA64 (FSVO "ran").

That said, in terms of versions of Windows that Joe User might actually have, running on hardware that Joe User might actually have... this is big news.

(Especially if you look at Windows on previous 64-bit platforms, as a percentage of total installed base...)

That said, I do, technically, sit corrected.

What about wmv/wma dlls ?

[unixmaster]

Will they bit 64bit too? Then we could use them for mplayer on pure 64bit Linux's which currently only supports dll loading on 32bit due to the fact that no 64bit dll is around. OR will Microsoft cheat and just provide 32bit versions of these which I think is more likely.

Re:What about wmv/wma dlls ?

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I hear, half the OS (and every third party program) runs on top of WOW64... shudder

Re:What about wmv/wma dlls ?

[StarHeart]

I get the impression they cheated. When I looked at Windows Media Player 10 in XP x64, the task manager said it was 32bit.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Panaflex]

Technically, Windows NT on Alpha (and Solaris I do believe) was merely running in 32bit "mode" (Still used 64bit pointers, however the top word was merely masked off.)

It wasn't until Windows 2000 for Alpha (the version that was literally cut right before shipment... some people managed to get a copy) that full 64bit apps were available!

-Pan

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[MtViewGuy]

Essentially what the new version of Windows XP does is support the full functionality of the x86-64 CPU instructions. Something that is now practical given the large number of sales of machines using the Athlon64/Opteron CPU architecture and recent-production Pentium 4's that also support x86-64 instructions.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[KarmaMB84]

The biggest vendor of chips that Windows runs on was still 32-bit until recently. As far as the market is concerned, there was little demand for 64-bit Windows on the desktop until Intel started talking 64-bit. Maybe Windows should support 128-bit x86 processors now so that in 20 years it will be first?

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

You pointed to an article about actual server *hardware*. Completely unrelated.
Yes, Linux can address TBs of RAM on x86/64 (AMD64) since a very long time, so Linux is way ahead.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Metzli]

I must admit that W2k for Alpha was the best and most stable version of Windows I've ever had. It had essentially zero application support though.

ATTENTION MODS

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a troll if it's true!

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[nxtw]

*cough* denial - Windows XP is outdoing Mac OS X, what will the Slashdot trolls do?

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Panaflex]

Eek! Not solaris... MIPS / PowerPC!!! Must been something funny in my corn flakes this morning. I heard someone did a SPARC port, but I never saw the techincal details of it.

-Panb

To be more specific...

[Shag]

Cool. PAE must really come in handy on all those x86 boxen with room for 64GB of RAM. But there seem to be a few catches.

Its Official: Microsoft Found More Bits!

[nighty5]

Ballmer: we've been working hard to find more bits for some time now

Press: so what exactly was found?

Ballmer: well i'm not entirely sure, you see everyone has been raving about us lacking in the bits in our products

Press: so what did you actually do about it?

Ballmer: we simply acquired the bits we were missing from our product offerings, various high profile acquisitions were conducted to ensure all bits were accounted for

Press: can you tell us preciously who was acquired ?

Ballmer: that would be telling, however I can say that I don't have the slightest idea what all this means, our customers have just been saying "give us more bits!" - we firmly believe we've been innovating for 20 years to continuly improve our products to contain more bits, or features as you will.

Press: Steve, I don't think you understand what you're talking about

Ballmer: we firmly believe we've been innovating for 20 years to continuly improve our products to contain more bits, or features as you will.

Press: you just said that, do you have anything more to add?

Ballmer: we now have more bits than the rest of the software vendor industry!

Press: yeah sure, you do..... {cut!}

Re:Its Official: Microsoft Found More Bits!

[pipingguy]

I'm not an IT guy, but apparently one of our network computers failed a couple of weeks ago. From talking to one of the computer guys I learned that it was a really gruesome sight, with bits and bytes strewn all over the server room floor. Interestingly though, some of the bits landed vertically!

In true arrogant computer guy tradition, they made the office services people clean it all up and upon reflection we are wondering if important data has been stolen.

Re:Its Official: Microsoft Found More Bits!

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt anyone but Steve's mother ever thought he could do anything "preciously".

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Shag]

Agreed. There were probably 64-bit CPUs out there before Linux existed. :)

still a 32-bit file system?

[briancnorton]

It amazes me that the one limitation with 32-bit that normal people ACTUALLY run in to is the one not addressed. I routinely work with files over the 2gb limit and have to pull them over a network from solaris just to use them in windows. Talk about a hassle. Is this part of the virtual memory increase or not?

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[BlacBaron]

Don't know what you're problem is but I have Windows 2000, and using NTFS i've got some files that are over 8gb.

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[man_of_mr_e]

Uhh.. NTFS has always been a 64 bit filesystem. FAT is 32 bit and only supports 2GB files.

Also, many C based apps only use a 32 bit file pointer, so that could be your problem as well.

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[pegr]

I routinely work with files over the 2gb limit...

That's a filesystem limit, not an OS limit. Use NTFS (yuck!), and you won't have that problem...

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[SA Stevens]

It amazes me that somebody who is manipulating > 2 gb files is still running a FAT based filesystem.

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[Anonymous Coward]

FAT 32 does NOT have a 2 GB limit - only "FAT classic" has that limit.

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[afxgrin]

Yeah - FAT32 has some 48GB limit, I found this out when I installed a 200GB harddrive, and wanted it in FAT32 so I could have write access under Linux.

Instead I just ran into numerous problems and formatted the drive w/ NTFS leaving a smaller FAT32 partition.

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the comment again. He was talking about limits on file-size, not filesystem-size.

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[limegreen]

What is this obsession with duel booting? It's all very well being able to access your Windows data while running Linux, and your Linux data while running Windows, but then you need to run something VMWare-ish to process your data with the application you really need from the other OS.

Or just get a 2nd PC and network them.

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[afxgrin]

What's your problem with dual booting? I have a reasonably good computer, and I want to have the maximum performance possible in either operating system.

Plus I have no problems with having a dual boot setup and it's quite functional.

As for VMWare, VMWare is not free unless you warez it, and really VMWare has several limitations. Eg. Multisim 7 runs very slow, 3d applications just don't work, etc (it's a good product otherwise, I love VMWare for what it can do)

I need these applications and I have no choice in my need of them unless I seek another profession. If I had all the software I needed under Linux, I probably wouldn't bother with dual booting. But reality dictates otherwise...

A second PC is something I have used for a long time, but then that second PC got outdated, and I don't want to spend the money on another PC. Keeping one computer upgraded is enough of a financial burden on me, two is just not realistic.

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[dabraun]

What a troll. I've been using XP Media Center for years with plenty of 6+ GB files (2 hour TV recordings at 6 mbit/sec) - and files of this size have been supported since long before that. In fact I think NTFS has always supported this.

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[limegreen]

I am not an up-time junky, but rebooting is a serious break in multi-tasking and continuity. That is my problem with duel booting.

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[Deviate_X]

Actually NTFS has supported files upto 16TB in size since 1992.

type Convert c: /FS:ntfs on the command line if u are using a non 9x OS

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[cqnn]

Some people like having a little break in
multitasking and continuity.

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[cpct0]

Even there...

I use NTFS...

And there is STILL a very stupid 2Gb limitation on Windoze XP that pisses off anyone who ever had to do video or sound editing: the fscking recycle bin recycles up to 2gb max.

I have a 200gb drive. I have a 4gb file. I cannot make any mistakes while trashing that file, or else I need to undelete.

That's the world upside down. I would say you'd need to be more careful of bigger files than smaller, don't you think?

Mike

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[pegr]

I use NTFS...

And there is STILL a very stupid 2Gb limitation on Windoze XP that pisses off anyone who ever had to do video or sound editing: the fscking recycle bin recycles up to 2gb max.

No wonder I've never heard of this limitation... I turn off the Recycle Bin at first boot. And since my bigger files tend to be "more valuable", yes, I do take better care of them. (Backing up 16GB database files does suck...)

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[man_of_mr_e]

FAT32 is limited to 2GB for any single file, not 2GB of total files.

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[Anonymous Coward]

No FAT32 has a file size limit of 4GB. And a Partition size limit of 32GB.

I vaguely remember that some of the old 32bit UNIX file systems used to have a 2GB file size limit, and it was a real pain to manage all those tiny files.

NTFS BTW has a file size limit of 16GB, which is hardly 64 bit, other than also being a bit of a pain in the butt at times.

Sorry to correct you but you were out by a factor of 2.

>>> 2**32
4294967296L
>>> 2**64
18446744073709551616L

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[man_of_mr_e]

Yes and no. FAT32 has a 4GB limit on NT, but on Windows 9x it's 2GB.

Also, NTFS file pointers are 64 bit, but as implemented in XP have 44 bit limitations in the device drivers, which means a maximum file size of 16TB (not GB)

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation /W indows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resour ces/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc _fil_tdrn.asp

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[Anonymous Coward]

NTFS has a thoretical limit of 16EB (Exabytes). That must be a terrible restriction to you.

Re:still a 32-bit file system?

[Anonymous Coward]

So feel free to dual boot if it suits you; why mock someone else for their choice that suits them? Idiot.

Re:Uhm

[Taladar]

Wrong. A hardcore nerd doesn't have enough social skills to convert their relatives.

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

I run a XP machine as my primary workstation, and it works wonderfully. I have never seen a BSOD, atleast since I had a bad IDE cable that was causing the disk to fail. Maybe you should try a new install with SP2 slipstreamed into the cd. Install AVG + zonealarm before it goes online. Tweak up the services that hog memory (see: http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm Currently down :( )Install a GOOD browser (opera, firefox), and I would say you have a nice stable system :)

Early 64-bit Processors

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the MIPS R4000 beat ALPHA to market by about a year (1991), if we're talking about microprocessor shipments.

quantum leaps

[Anonymous Coward]

A quantum is the smallest discrete amount.
So, the key word here is leap. It's a 32 bit leap.
Now this is a pretty big leap. Even at one G, it is much greater than say a 'giant leap'.

Think about it a minute (which is a huge number of Cesium state transitions). A small step might bypass one quantum unit. i.e. 5 bits to 7 bits. A giant step might bypass 2 - 6 quantum. The mother of all leaps, some 16 bits pales in comparisonto 32. NO! this is a mind boggling leap. More in the category of Rebus Kaneebus jumping to the center of the earth.

But don't forget. We owe it all to two state signalling. Thank you Morris the code cat.

Which brings to mind. If a chicken can learn to play the piano, why can so few humans learn Morris code?

Re:quantum leaps

[Anarke_Incarnate]

Morris Code or Morse Code? IFRC, Morris was just a cat in food commercials. Morse code was the beep beep bop beep bop stuff :)

Re:quantum leaps

[Zorilla]

No shit?

Re:Uhm

[zr-rifle]

It's this kind of childish fanboyism that's keeping many people from trying Linux out.

Linux has it's reasons and uses, so does Windows. The secret is choosing the right tool for your job, according to your skills, patience and time. Linux can be a better tool for some (I use it at home and at work, after I convinced my boss it was ok to let me use it if I didn't lose any productivity), but for everybody. Flaming these people calling them losers is not going to win any of them to your cause, let alone leave them a positive impression about you and the operative system you're promoting. For this reason, your behaviour is more damaging to Linux than the propaganda you normally get from Microsoft.

Re:Uneeded.

[imsabbel]

COME ON.
Please not again this "why is the maximum 1000, NOBODY will ever use more then 10" talk.

Why should it be limited to less than 512TB? Any reason for such a thing? No.

Foreigners

[turgid]

Nowadays I think it's more like, "Three user-land tasks should be enough for poor foreigners."

The interesting question is...

[Reemi]

...if and how do they package the Media Player.

Will they dear to offend the EU commisioner?

Re:The interesting question is...

[rylin]

This is not an interesting question.
XP x64 is OEM-only.
In other words, Dell, Gateway (are they still in business?, HP, IBM etc. can package whatever they want on the so-called "Recovery Discs" they ship.

Re:Think of the Bloat

[Kwirl]

your attempt at mocking windows loses some of its luster by your misplaced numbers :P 640GB is more than .5TB so you kinda just told the world you didn't know their values in relation to each other :P Besides, Mr. Clippy provides a valuable service that the /. community needs and clammors for, right?

Activation..

[malkavian]

64 bit OS would be nice in the Windows Arena for me.. I can happily run the 64bit Linux distros, but have been sitting around on Win2k for games playing...
A large part of the reason I didn't get XP was the 'activation' after sizable hardware rebuilds (about a 12 month cycle for me, unless something breaks)..
If it's on the 64 bit Windows release, I guess I won't be getting that either.

Re:Activation..

[StarHeart]

I have yet to see a copy of XP x64 that doesn't have activation. Not to say that they haven't or won't make one some time in the future.

Re:Activation..

[Anonymous Coward]

There are always cracks for it.

Re:Activation..

[SCVirus]

All you need to do is 'legally' acquire the activationless corperate edition, with the special torrent discount!

Well good for them, but if they do not address

[alfredo]

the security problems that have dogged them for years, the good press from "innovation" will be overshadowed by the latest exploit.

64 bits will mean nothing to the small business owner who's data has been stolen by some kid in Romania.

Well...

[HiggsBison]

So, this means that MS Windows now requires a 16 to 512 TB paging-file? ;)

Well... it seems to work better that way.

Not that I'm using MS Windows, mind you. Hehehe.

Re:Uneeded.

[Kwirl]

This just in: Google adopting Windows as primary OS of choice...

W2K for Alpha

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why it was stable.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[SA Stevens]

They provided Windows NT for Sparc, or they produced it and kept it 'in the can'? I've never seen it 'in the wild' nor have I seen where to order it on www.microsoft.com.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[mikis]

AFAIK there was never NT for Sparc, there were "only" Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC versions. There were plans to port it to SPARC, but I'm not sure they ever did it.

The answer is in here somewhere...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is a 64-bit rewrite of 32-bit user interface and extensions for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit program originally coded for 4-bit processors made by a 2-bit corporation than can't handle 1-bit of competition.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[SA Stevens]

Sounds a lot like NT 4.0 for Power PC.

I brought it up on a PREP box, then scoured the net using it's built-in Internet Explorer 2.0 trying to find ANYTHING that would run on it.

Felt kinda like the last passenger pidgeon flying around helplessly.

mnbRe:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

2K only blue-screened on me when I had bad memory modules.
XP has never blue screened on me, or any of my family, co-workers, or friends.

You have a hardware issue, seriously.

Re:mnbRe:Uhm

[Metzli]

I had W2k blue-screen because of an imcompatibility with my CD burner's software. XP has blue-screened on me once and that was due to a DIMM not being fully seated. Other than that, it just sits and hums along.

Re:Uhm

[zenneth]

"Maybe I'm lucky"

Yes, you are. I'm running Windows XP Home Edition right now and I'll be damned if it doesn't blue screen two times a day.

I'd say that instead of him being lucky, you're rather unlucky. If I were you, I wouldn't buy shoddy equipment. Next time, run the hardware compatibility test included with the Windows CDROM.

Can't be 64-bit

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows, by definition, is 2-bit. :-)

Fat Binaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. The system is based on Fat Binaries. These allow an executable package to contain code for multiple platforms. Theoretically, you could put versions of the same application for NextStep MC68K, OpenStep, OSX 32, OSX 64, Darwin x86 and several others in the same package and have it look like one program. Too big for you? Run lipo to remove versions you don't need. The whole system is based around this concept, allowing the OS to be fully 64bit on 64bit systems and fully 32bit on 32bit systems. Even XCode allows people on 32bit machines to design and compile applications for both platforms and release the compiled application in fat binary format.

Re:Fat Binaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Fat binaries have nothing to do with 64-bit suppor for GUI apps.

"It is important to note that in the Tiger release, the support for 64-bit programming does not extend throughout the entire set of APIs available on Mac OS X. Most notably, the Cocoa and Carbon GUI application frameworks are not ready for 64-bit programming. In practical terms, this means that the "heavy lifting" of an application that needs 64-bit support can be done by a background process which communicates with a front-end 32-bit GUI process via a variety of mechanisms including IPC and shared memory."

http://developer.apple.com/macosx/tiger/64bit.ht ml

Re:Fat Binaries

[Lemming Mark]

Actually it is true: Cocoa / Carbon apps are restricted to 32 bit. This is allegedly for performance reasons (reduces the cache footprint - apparently for the GUI libraries the overhead of using 64 bit was found significant), not just to simplify implemention. Note that this means although most applications are limited to 32 bits of address space you can still use more than 32 bits of addressable RAM overall. The kernel runs in a 32 bit address space, creating temporary mappings to pages outside this space when necessary (i.e. it doesn't map the whole of physical memory like Linux). They do (AFAIK) maintain binary compatibility for device drivers, unlike Windows, Linux, or anything else I know of.

Re:Fat Binaries

[minion]

Not true. The system is based on Fat Binaries. These allow an executable package to contain code for multiple platforms. Theoretically, you could put versions of the same application for NextStep MC68K, OpenStep, OSX 32, OSX 64, Darwin x86 and several others in the same package and have it look like one program. Too big for you? Run lipo to remove versions you don't need. The whole system is based around this concept, allowing the OS to be fully 64bit on 64bit systems and fully 32bit on 32bit systems. Even XCode allows people on 32bit machines to design and compile applications for both platforms and release the compiled application in fat binary format.

Thats really insensitive of Apple. We live in an age where we still have to call things fat? I think we should rally for them to change this technology to 'ObeseBinary Format'.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[0xdeaddead]

Where?! links pleas!!!

BTW NT is little endian. Running on a big endian cpu would like change EVERYTHING..

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Panaflex]

Yep.. I really wish that Intel will kill the suckage Itanic and pickup the Alpha chips.

The fact that itanic depends on the freakin compiler to reorder instructions is beyond dumb. Only the cpu can know the appropriate order that works best in a multi-threaded environment.

HP and Intel, bring back the Alpha!

Pan

Gawd, to be a decade behind Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun Microsystems has been shipping fully 64-bit chips and operating systems for about a decade now.

Sun press release from 1995 about 64-bit chips and operating systems.

Re:Gawd, to be a decade behind Sun

[rbanffy]

IIRC, SGI had it in 1992

Re:Gawd, to be a decade behind Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

And there was a big price difference between an IBM PC and a SPARC workstation. 64-bit in the home wasn't practical. Additionally, I would hardly call them "behind" considering the market share they have.

Re:Think of the Bloat

[gordo3000]

wow, who'd've thunk it, the day when a program would require more RAM than it does hard drive space;-)

and it will still choke on the registry...

[dashersey]

Lots of memory, lots of horsepower, all lined up to do single-threaded synchronous i/o to a single point of contention, AKA the registry!

Plus, it will swap everything out to disk even when there's terabyte of free RAM no matter how hard you plead with it not to!

Seriously, when will Redmond stop eutrophycating and start engineering this platform, that once showed so much promise?

Re:and it will still choke on the registry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which *nix applications do multi-threaded I/O to their settings files? Pretty retarded complaint.

Re:and it will still choke on the registry...

[dashersey]

They have more than one ....

Re:and it will still choke on the registry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows doesn't swap, it pages. There exist good explanations of the system, but the general idea is that Windows loads as much as possible into memory to make things quick, and if there is not enough room or if nothing has needed it in a long time it moves to virtual memory. After an even longer amount of time, I believe it is cleared (or if not, it is when the computer is shut down).

And by the way, what the hell is "eutrophycating"?

Re:and it will still choke on the registry...

[spongman]

and you're saying the OS doesn't have a lock at some fundamental level around its IO queues?

Re:and it will still choke on the registry...

[Anonymous Coward]

eutrophication

Re:and it will still choke on the registry...

[dashersey]

Not at all. All I'm saying is that *nix does not force all applications and system processes to access a single file for settings and object registrations.

Re:and it will still choke on the registry...

[spongman]

Well, firstly windows doesn't force you to do anything, you can write your settings to as many text files as you like, or you can use the registry.

regardless, you seem to be implying that the registry in windows is more 'single-threaded synchronous' than writing to multiple files in unix. maybe you could back that up with something, because i don't see that as necessarily true (unless your files are on devices connected to different busses).

Re:The good of this

[Waffle Iron]

But you're relying on kilobytes of bloated BIOS code. Here's a more stripped-down version:

msg db 'hello luser', 0xa
mov es, 0xb800
mov si, msg
xor di, di
mov cx, 12
mov ah, 7

lp1:
lodsb
stosw
loop lp1
halt

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[turgid]

Rumour has it they actually did produce a SPARC version but never made it public, since Sun refused to stop Solaris development in favour of Windows NT.

Incidentally, all those old Windows NT RISC ports were all 32-bit, using the 32-bit compatibility features of those processors initially designed to run legacy software. The way that the AMD64 architecture handles backwards compatibility is quite similar to those RISC processors.

Windows bits

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows ia a:

32-bit kludge running on top of a
16-bit patch to an
8-bit operating system written for a
4-bit microprocessor by a
2-bit company that can't stand
1-bit of competition

Re:Windows bits

[jimicus]

Needs updating. Also needs to account for Windows NT's heritage being entirely 32-bit.

Windows is now a:

64-bit hack of a user interface first seen on a
32-bit kludge on top of a
16 bit patch to an ....

Re:Windows bits

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's attribute this quote properly, shall we? Original quote here

Re:Windows bits

[glitch23]

That isn't the original saying though. 32-bit shell on a 16-bit OS (DOS)...

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Queer Boy]

Mmm... well sort of. AFAIK, Tiger isn't fully 64bit. The only thing that is 64 bit in Tiger is its support for 64 memory for POSIX based apps...

The only real advantage 64-bit has over 32-bit for anyone outside of the supercomputing realm is the memory it can access. ALL applications in Tiger can access 64-bit memory if they are written for it meaning the backend is not written for Cocoa but for Darwin. BTW, Darwin is different than POSIX.

The true genius of Apple is that the data model for Tiger is LP64 which means source for Linux, SGI and Sun is easy to port to the G5 with Tiger.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[StarHeart]

XP x64 isn't fully 64bit. One example is Windows Media Player 10, which is still 32bit.

They had to do something...

[connah0047]

...their error report server could not handle the Explorer crash reports.

virtual memory or page file...

[SailingDeity]

16TB of virtual memory... 512TB page file... aren't they the same thing?

Re:virtual memory or page file...

[HD Webdev]

Without a link to the document mentioned in the article, I am guessing that there is confusion in the article about virtual memory vs virtual disk.

ie: a RAM drive.

Re:virtual memory or page file...

[Detritus]

When they say virtual memory, I think they actually mean virtual address space, the maximum address space for a process. NT and its descendants have a 4 GB address space, split into 2 GB for the user and 2 GB for the system, just like the VAX.

Re:virtual memory or page file...

[m50d]

No. Virtual memory is (presumably) the memory space. Which makes it seem odd that it can have a bigger page file than it can map, but then reiserfs supports bigger files than filesystems, presumably it's for the future.

2GB limit for a single process is gone!

[scharman]

The only real benefit to most people is the artificial limit of 2GB (user data addressable) for a single win32 process.

Everything else isn't really a benefit but actually decreases performance by a small amount (either increase memory usage and/or increased time due to increased memory usage)

It always makes me laugh when people think that 64bit is like the magical bullet of performance. For 99% of people, there is no reason to change for a few years yet.

Re:2GB limit for a single process is gone!

[WalksOnDirt]

Calculations using large integers are much faster using 64 bits. For most people, this would primarily show up in encryption/decryption.

Note that, if using simple methods, multiplying twice as many bits takes four times as long.

Re:2GB limit for a single process is gone!

[Anonymous Coward]

well, you can enjoy your cynicism, but the fact remains that until MS crossed this threshold, the mainstream of the computing industry had no incentive to work towards any applications that will take advantage of the added capabilities. This is an important milestone in the evolution of applications on the desktop IMO, for no other reason than that.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[gbjbaanb]

XP x64 isn't fully 64bit. One example is Windows Media Player 10, which is still 32bit

Yes, but remember that Media Player most definitely is not, oh no, no way, not at all, move along nothing to see here, couldn't even possibly be, not even in the realms of possibilties be, no not even if we wanted to make it, part of the operating system.

You'll be saying IE is only 32 bit next :o :~)

This is insightful ?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

x64 is Microsoft's name for AMD64/x86-64
Now who modded this insightful?!?!?

You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[argent]

The big reason for going to 64-bit Windows has nothing to do with the word size. The main reason is that AMD64 has shed another chunk of the 8086 instruction set legacy. The IA32 has 8 32-bit general purpose registers, about the same total register storage as the Cosmac 1802... a 4/8 bit microprocessor from the '70s. AMD64 gives you 16 64-bit registers, which is pretty small for a 64-bit machine (Alpha and Power have 32) but big enough to give the compiler room to work in, especially since it's also doubling the number of SSE registers.

Here's some other computers for comparison:

PDP-11, late '60s... 8 16-bit general purpose registers.
VAX, '70s... 16 32-bit GPRs.
68000, ~'80... 8 32-bit GPRs, 8 32-bit index registers.
z8000, ~'80... 16 16-bit registers.
8086, late '70s, 8 16-bit GPRs.
MIPS, '80s, 32 32-bit registers.
SPARC, ~'90... 32 32-bit GPRs, but only 8 were really usable as GPRs for the optimiser. Thus has hurt the Sparc's performance.
Power PC, '90s, 32 32 or 64-bit GPRs
Alpha, '90s, 32 64-bit registers

I would say the 4x register-file space increase is going to be far more important than the larger virtual memory.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[doofusclam]

68000, ~'80... 8 32-bit GPRs, 8 32-bit index registers.

You know, I used to program 68000s on the Atari ST and Amiga, but i've never thought about this - you're right, an old 68000 had better register than the newer Athlon XP in my new computer. Amazing. As an aside, as the Atari didn't address more than 16 bits of memory you could use the top (unused) half of the ax registers to store other stuff sometimes.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[argent]

As an aside, as the Atari didn't address more than 16 bits of memory [I think you mean 24 bits] you could use the top (unused) half [byte] of the ax registers to store other stuff sometimes.

How dare you copy Microsoft!

Microsoft took years to learn that this was a bad idea. Some of their software broke when the Mac went over 512k because ofthis, then it broke on the Amiga when it went over 1M, then it broke on both platforms when the 68020 came out... which was apparently why Apple stuck with 24-bit addressing up through the SE/30.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[Detritus]

I didn't think that the 8086 had any GPRs. The instruction set had so many limitations and special cases, which made life miserable for anyone trying to write a good code generator for a compiler.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[HBI]

Technically AX, BX, CX and DX were considered general purpose, but the truth is that they all had special meanings, CX being the increment counter, etc. So you're right, but everyone who read the MASM manual saw the tripe that the registers were general-purpose.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[clem.dickey]

> PDP-11, late '60s... 8 16-bit general purpose registers.

Seven, of you needed a program counter. Oops, make that six if you needed a stack. A few instructions only worked with R0/R1, and I think "mark stack" made special use of R5. That left R2/3/4 as truly interchangeable. Still a great architecture.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[argent]

I didn't think that the 8086 had any GPRs.

Any of the 8 registers can be used as the source or destination of most arithmetic operations arithmetic operation or as an index. Some operations only worked on specific registers, and the encoding was weird. I don't believe compilers typically generated things like string instructions directly... they were in the runtime library.

Most computers back then had special modes or instructions that only worked on specific GPRs. For example the PDP-11 used R6 and R7 for the stack pointer and program counter. The 8086 was more screwed up than most in all kinds of ways, of course, and the special register-specific operations were just the beginning.

Getting back to the topic, the fact that the AMD64 instruction set has shed so much of that crap is a much better reason to use it than the fact that it allows you to use 64-bit addresses.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh... do you know what you're talking about? This sounds like it was written by a layman.

The number of GPRs are not directly related to performance. This is the difference between CISC and RISC . You can learn this in a lower division, undergraduate college course.

Basically, CISC chips have complex instructions that allow them to manipulate data IN MEMORY. Because they don't need to put as much in registers, there are far fewer GPRs. RISC chips must load data to a register to perform operations on it and then store it back into memory. Therefore RISC needs many more GPRs. Most CISC chips today are really RISC under the hood (yes, this includes x86 as of Pentium Pro forward). So even though you can't see the GPR as a programmer, they are there under the hood.

The fact of the matter is that GPRs don't matter to nobody anymore. The amount of ASM written today is infintesimally small compared to the rest. Many shops write C code for tasks that might use ASM just for managability. Otherwise, you can have a good processor design no matter the number of GPRs and a good compiler will handle the allocation efficiently. There is no need to have many or few because register allocation is no longer done by hand. And just because you can't see the GPR as a programmer doesn't mean it isn't there being utilized by the processor internally.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[argent]

and I think "mark stack" made special use of R5

If I understand what you're talking about... you could use any register as the linkage register in the standard call/return model.

You also forgot that if you had EIS then some instructions only worked on even register pairs.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[Detritus]

The PDP-11 had a beautiful instruction set. Even though R6 and R7 had special uses, they could also be treated as general purpose registers. You could index off the program counter for position-independent code and data. All of the addressing modes worked with all of the registers.

The 8086 was still, at its heart, an accumulator oriented machine, even though it made some efforts at generalizing the register pairs (AX, BX, CX, DX).

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[argent]

The PDP-11 had a beautiful instruction set.

Yes, but the 8086 and descendants is easier to make go fast than the PDP-11 could have been, because the memory-memory architecture turned out to be much much harder to pipeline. The VAX was even worse, which is why DEC came up with the lovely Alpha.

But artistically the PDP-11 was unsurpassed. Consider the strange beauty of these fragments:

ONE: MOV #1,-(SP)
JMP @(R5)+

and

ONEP: JSR R5,ONE
DW PLUS
DW RET

and

PLUS: ADD (SP)+,(SP)
JMP @(R5)+

and

RET: RTS R5

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[argent]

Whoops, those (SP)s should be R2 or R4, if I recall correctly, and that last should be:

RET: MOV (SP)+,R5
JMP @(R5)+

This time the SP is really SP.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're the layman here.

Having more registers does improve performance. If you don't believe me, take a look at some benchmarks on the AMD Athlon64/Opteron of legacy 32-bit programs vs programs compiled to use the long mode of the Athlon64.

Why does it improve performance? Simple. More registers means you have to do less load/store operations to memory to manipulate data. You have more data in your registers which means you can manipulate data directly in the registers rather than having to work with data in memory.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple stuck with 24-bit addressing because they used the same trick in their OS and their firmware. Google for "unclean ROM", "Mode/32" and the like.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[runderwo]

Basically, CISC chips have complex instructions that allow them to manipulate data IN MEMORY. Because they don't need to put as much in registers, there are far fewer GPRs.

Exactly how would the ALU manipulate data "in memory"? Oh, that's right, it *loads the value* into a temporary register, calculates the product, then *stores the value back* to memory. If you have many instructions using the same operands, this memory access is a horrific waste of CPU cycles.

So even though you can't see the GPR as a programmer, they are there under the hood.

So first you say that there is no need for GPRs because using them slows down your program, and now you say that it's okay because they are there anyway in CISC chips. A compiler can use registers more efficiently when it knows what is available, just the same as it can with functional units in out-of-order pipelines. Hiding this information from the compiler because of the necessity to maintain legacy compatibility or because CISC is perceived as easier for assembly programmers is a detriment for the rest of us, not a gain.

Otherwise, you can have a good processor design no matter the number of GPRs and a good compiler will handle the allocation efficiently.

Try hand-compiling a C block for a machine with, say, 2 GPRs. And sure, you can assume that it does renaming internally to avoid stalls. I think you will quickly see what the problem with a GPR-starved architecture is.

And just because you can't see the GPR as a programmer doesn't mean it isn't there being utilized by the processor internally.

That's correct, but not in the way that you think. Register renaming only prevents pipeline stalls, it doesn't help you when your program uses 9 variables at some local point and you have only 8 compiler-visible registers.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[runderwo]

I would say the 4x register-file space increase is going to be far more important than the larger virtual memory.

It's true, but remember with that comes 2 more bits of register file address in every instruction. I don't know if the instructions are still encoded 32-bit, but hopefully it will leave enough room for other stuff (immediate, etc) to be efficiently encoded.

Re:You don't need a 64-bit Windows as much as...

[argent]

It's true, but remember with that comes 2 more bits of register file address in every instruction.

One more bit. You get 2x from having twice the registers, and another 2x from them being twice as wide. This isn't as good as having 4x the registers but it does help some.

As for the encoding... it's hard to imagine an instruction set encoding that could be WORSE than the x86.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[StarHeart]

It is part of what comes with the XP x64. I am thinking of the OS in a broader sense.

Actually, it comes with IE 32bit and IE 64bit.

How about 64 bit Java for Windows?

[wheelbarrow]

Will there be a solid implementation of 64 bit java to go with this new system? I see benefit in allowing java server applications to go beyond the current 2GB limit that 32 bit java applcations are faced with.

Re:How about 64 bit Java for Windows?

[thammoud]

We currently use 64 bit Java on Linux. Works great.

Re:How about 64 bit Java for Windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

Poster asked about Windows.

Re:How about 64 bit Java for Windows?

[Warren_Canuck]

Already available in beta from
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/download.jsp
Link at the bottom of the page.

Re:Uhm

[zootm]

Almost definately an issue with a driver, or some software which plays with lower level things (CD burners and firewalls are common things here).

I've never seen an XP box bluescreen for any reason other than bad/out-of-date drivers (or sometimes the aforementioned software), or genuine hardware failure.

NX is useless, its hackable..

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it has an OFF switch, this should be enforced, all a virus or attacker has to do is turn off DEP and voala, stomp over memory as much as they like. Useless.

Does WindowsUpdate have 64bit drivers available?

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[_iris]

Don't forget NT4 for Alpha.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[pohl]

Just in case anybody was curious about what the term LP64 implies, or what the alternatives choices where, this page describes them.

Stupid moderators

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "sarcasm". It's not a troll.

Well, it's not a troll unless you're a Windoze fanboy.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[p0rnking]

There was a 64 bit version of NT, for the Alpha chip, when it first reached 500Mhz (around '95)

Is the speed increase important so

[Nybble's Byte]

I can reboot Windows faster?

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[forkazoo]

I am not aware of a 64 bit port to SPARC. I know they had 32 bit build for alpha, ppc, MIPS. I have heard from reliable sources that there was a 64 bit port of NT 5 beta (eventually named Win2k) to Alpha. Apparently, a lot of the code from that port was used to make the 64 bit Itanium port.

Talking of Solaris...

[turgid]

I wonder with Microsoft's and Sun's new friendship, and with the open-sourcing of Solaris, if code from Solaris will find its way into Windows? I wonder if there will be a port of the Solaris kernel to run on the NT microkernel? Old-time Sun engineers have long been very resistant to microkernel designs, but the younger ones think there are useful advantages.

Just think, you could have a Windows NT (i.e. XP or Professional whatever) machine that would run Windows, Solaris and Linux binaries on AMD64 hardware.

Pricing?

[TomHandy]

I have an Athlon 64 system I built, and I'm currently running regular Windows XP Home (which I had a license for from a previous computer, and didn't feel like buying XP Pro). One thing I haven't seen yet is what the costs will be of this x64 version of Windows XP. Will it be a free upgrade? If not, any idea on what it's going to cost? One reason I never tried out the pre-release version of x64 is that it seemed to require an XP Pro key, which I didn't have.

Re:Pricing?

[chazbot]

I'm not sure about an actual price. According to their spokesperson in the official Microsoft beta newsgroup, there will not be a retail box. As such, it will only be available preinstalled or through an oem reseller. Maybe around $90 to $120? Also, from the same newsgroup, there will not be an upgrade option.
I couldn't tell you if it would be worth the money.
I gave it try. The lack of 64bit drivers drove me away pretty quickly.

P.S. You could have tried the pre-release for free. When you signed up to dowload, they emailed a regristration key.

Re:Pricing?

[Prien715]

According to various sources (like this one), Windows x64 is supposed to be free as in beer if you have 32 bit license. Wish I could find the link on the MS website.

Re:Pricing?

[Script_God]

From what I've read, it will be free as in beer only if you have an XP Pro license. As for the prerelease, they gave you a key when you downloaded it.

Re:Pricing?

[MojoStan]

One thing I haven't seen yet is what the costs will be of this x64 version of Windows XP. Will it be a free upgrade? If not, any idea on what it's going to cost?

Japanese retailers have apparently already started selling Windows XP Pro x64 and the article says: "Pricing is on par with the regular professional version of Windows XP."

The photos from the article show the OEM version of XP Pro x64 edition (no fancy box or printed manual). The OEM version of XP Pro costs about $140 at newegg.com.

One reason I never tried out the pre-release version of x64 is that it seemed to require an XP Pro key, which I didn't have.

I think it will also be required for the "free upgrade" to the x64 edition. Everything I've read about the "free upgrade from 32-bit Windows XP" (like this article) only mentions the Professional edition and excludes the Home edition.

Re:Pricing?

[TomHandy]

Cool..... thanks everyone for the clarification on this. I guess the main question will be whether it's worth it to get x64 or not. I mean, I certainly don't mind paying for an OS if it will help me get some significant performance benefit out of the A64.

gee, pretty impressive timing...

[acroyear]

Considering they had a version of Windows NT for the 64-bit DEC Alpha over 10 years ago...

M$, like everybody else, totally lost 7 years of 64-bit potential by sacrificing the Alpha. Compaq could have taken the chip when they bought DEC, slapped the intel instruction set onto it in some fashion, and had a 4 year head-start on AMD and Intel BOTH in producing the 64-bit PC.

but they blew it. as did everybody else.

Re:gee, pretty impressive timing...

[leoc]

Considering they had a version of Windows NT for the 64-bit DEC Alpha over 10 years ago...

NT on Alpha 10 years ago was NOT a 64 bit os. It was a 32 bit OS running on a 64 bit cpu.

but they blew it. as did everybody else.

Tell that to my dual 667 Alpha7 box that I've had for almost 6 years now running 64bit Linux.

Re:gee, pretty impressive timing...

[acroyear]

NT on Alpha 10 years ago was NOT a 64 bit os. It was a 32 bit OS running on a 64 bit cpu.

my point is that they had a start -- they had a working OS on a 64 bit chip that they could have worked on to convert to 64 had they started 10 years ago and would have been easily ready for the current generation of 64 bit chips rather than slowing 64bit adoption down because nobody (outside unix) had an os for it.

of course, that would have required the NT team to be aware of the coming desktop monopoly that windows 95/98 and 2000 would bring, which they couldn't have known since at the time Microsoft's OS teams were still trying to figure out how O/S 2 would do, along with every other analyst out there.

Re:gee, pretty impressive timing...

[IntlHarvester]

Microsoft and DEC announced that they were working on a 64-bit version of NT4/Alpha. Unfortunately it was quashed when Compaq bought DEC.

My impression is that Windows/x64 was delayed due to driver and 32-bit compatibility issues and not because the core OS lacked 64-bit support. (There's still Linux distros that haven't got the 32-bit compatibility totally sorted.)

Wow, only 13 years after my first 64-bit desktop!

[Tony Hammitt]

That Microsoft really has to be commended for their foresight, it's only been 13+ years since the Alpha 64 bit desktops came out, and now they have something that will run on part of a 32/64 bit processor! No wonder they have so many people looking to them for technology leadership.

Yes, technically, they did support part of windows NT on the Alpha, but it didn't work well and had no backing from any application providers.

I just think it's strange that people are seeing this 64-bit thing as if it were something new. I like the fact that you can now finally get 64-bit boxes in a normal computer store, but it's taken far too long to get it to market. Think where we'd be with databases with 64-bit transaction IDs, wraparound wouldn't be very likely and the DBAs could stop worrying about it. Oh well, eventually....

In any case, I think I'll crank up one of my old alphas today just to see if it still works. I haven't used it in a couple of years although the last time I had it on it racked up a 700 day uptime. I've had that box for 8 years now and the technology was kind of old when I got it.

Re:Wow, only 13 years after my first 64-bit deskto

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, support or no support it was released. If you're going to ignore facts you can make just about any argument you want.

Free (beer) version?

[DoofusOfDeath]

I've heard that MS will give this version free to current licencees of 32-bit XP Pro. Does anyone know when/how we're supposed to get the x86-64 version?

Re:Free (beer) version?

[updatelee]

I highly doubt that.

Re:Free (beer) version?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. It's not like they're Apple, charging $100+ for service packs . . . .

Already available for download on MSDN

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows XP for 64 Bit processors is already available for download on the MSDN download site.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[thedustbustr]

If it was "simply stated to incense" it would be flamebait. Learn how to fucking mod.

Re:Think of the Bloat

[westlake]

You know, I have never once heard a user complain about bloat, or joke about Clippy, for that matter. Even when Clippy jokes had the virtue, at least, of novelty.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[drsmithy]

BTW NT is little endian. Running on a big endian cpu would like change EVERYTHING..

NT is endian-neutral (else it wouldn't be able to run the new PPC970 Xbox2, as the 970 is only big-endian).

I'm not entirely sure *when* that happened, as the old Alpha, etc, versions of NT all ran the chips in little-endian mode, but it is certainly true today.

Windows NT 3.1 was released on PowerPC and MIPS

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to burst your fanboy bubble but 64-bit versions of Windows have been available since Windows first shippend in 1993.

Windows 3.1 (the first verision of Windows NT) was DEVELOPED ON and the MIPS and was released for Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, and x86.

AND Windows 2000 and the server version has been released on Itanium for over half a decade.

Re:Windows NT 3.1 was released on PowerPC and MIPS

[rbanffy]

By far, the most interesting gain in 64 bit computing (except in the x86 world, where AMD64 also introduces a couple much-needed registers that make a lot of a difference) is the extended address space. You must know a 32 bit address space (such as offered by pre PAE 32 bit x86 processors) limited processes to address 4 GB of memory at once. A 64 bit address space, OTOH, gives you 4096 times as much space.

IIRC (it seems nobody cared about it at the time enough to write it down), Windows (up to 2000) on Alpha could map at most 32 GB (a 35 bit address space) of memory to a single process. I am not sure what MIPS had available, but this falls short of a 64-bit address space.

I give you that Windows NT was conceived as a workstation and small server OS and having 4 GB of memory at that time was almost unthinkable and 16 TB of address space was almost a joke. Maybe NT on Alpha and MIPS was more than a 32-bit OS, but to call NT a 64 bit OS running on 64-bit CPUs is a bit of an exaggeration.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[dabraun]

I imagine IE 32bit is included so that it can be embedded in 32bit applications that rely on it.

4GB of RAM Statement is Wrong

[Nintendork]

More than 4GB of memory has been supported in 32-bit CPUs since the Pentium Pro using PAE (Page Address Extensions). I read somewhere that AMDs latest add 8 bits for a total of 40. Windows has been supporting PAE since 2000 and I believe Linux is doing it as well. Currently, the most advanced version of Windows Server 2003 supports 36-bit addressing for a total of 64GB of RAM. Link

-Lucas

Re:4GB of RAM Statement is Wrong

[Deviate_X]

I think they meant virtual memory vs memory, the distinction is important, but i'm not going to explain why ;)

Comparison of 32-bit and 64-bit memory architecture for 64-bit editions of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 is an interesting link however

_

Re:4GB of RAM Statement is Wrong

[Mad Merlin]

The way they supported more than 4G of memory was also a rather ugly hack...

That crippling with lots of memory is due to what many people describe as a major kludge in the Pentium architecture called Page Address Extensions (PAE). According to Torvalds, "the only real major failure of the x86 is the PAE crud".
Seen here

Re:4GB of RAM Statement is Wrong

[Nintendork]

Wow, thanks for that. I didn't realize that PAE is regarded in such a bad light.

What's the big deal?

[guardian alpha]

Activation involves a painless, short call, and no personal information being released.

A switch of numbers, and on your way.

Re:What's the big deal?

[amliebsch]

I suspect that, for many, "activation" is a rationalization for a desire to steal the software, or not have to learn how to use it. Much like many people rationalize never trying Linux because of the "difficult installation." For a few, it might be legitimate, but for many, is an excuse.

Re:What's the big deal?

[malkavian]

Activation requires a really annoying call (I have to call to INSTALL an operating system?).
I've made several in my time.
I've done upgrades on hardware for people who HAVE got XP on there (came with the machine), and it's a case of reading a whole bunch of numbers down the phone at them. Anything goes wrong, and you can end up making the same call all over again.
So, to me, the call was neither short, nor painless.
It was irritating and pointless.
I happily pay for any software I use (and although I use Linux heavily, I like having windows as a backup OS for when Linux can't do something).
I have no 'cracked' software.
I just refuse to have that constraint placed on me that I'm at the mercy of Microsoft every time I want to install an OS.

Re:What's the big deal?

[guardian alpha]

Seems like someone doesn't know Windows from the Nazi party. Any installion of Windows XP does NOT require a call, nor does an upgrade require a call. The primary way to activate a copy of windows is through the default "activate via the internet" option.

In fact, the screen even says that you should do that option FIRST before calling in and doing it manually. Now, in ALL the computers I've installed XP on, I've never once had a problem that lasted more than 20-30 seconds for then to handle. So activation isn't your problem, you choosing to manually do it all instead of the automatic option is your problem.

Re:What's the big deal?

[malkavian]

Interesting take. Wonder where you got that from? I run databases and building servers on a large regional hospital these days.. Largely MS, though I have Linux boxes in there for various tasks..
Been using Windows for over 15 years now, so.. How does that map with not wanting to 'learn how to use it'?
As for 'stealing' the software? I have fully paid licenses for Win2k, I pay the sub to Mandriva (because I use it), I pay for whatever software, music and vids I use, simply because I LIKE to pay my way through life.
I simply refuse to tolerate being beholden to any company to use something I've already purchased.
Would you buy a DVD that you had to call the manufacturer every time you bought a new DVD player?
Would you accept having to call up the manufacturer of your car every time you had maintenance done on it, read off the chassis numbers, have them check it's ok for you to use that car before you can drive it again?
Personally, I'd vote with my wallet, and not buy from people like that.
Which is what I did with XP. I don't have it because I refuse to accept it's terms.
No cracked version. Just staying with what terms I'm willing to accept.
I don't like their terms, I don't buy or use their software.

I just don't buy your view of 'for many, it's just an excuse'..
I call bullshit on that one. An awful lot of people I know are increasingly disenchanted by that activation scheme.
All paid up, but never again while that lasts.

Re:What's the big deal?

[mvdwege]

The primary way to activate a copy of windows is through the default "activate via the internet" option.

And that sounds like someone who is being a nuisance on the Internet. Do you know what the survival time for a freshly installed WinXP installation is? Short enough that running the activation procedure might leave your machine zombie'd before the activation is even done.

Mart

Re:What's the big deal?

[guardian alpha]

If your machine is getting zombied then guess what, someone doesn't have their firewall/router settings properly configured to protect the boxen behind it.

Yet again, this isn't a problem with Activation, but how you handle Windows installations.

Re:What's the big deal?

[mvdwege]

Another reason why I don't use Windows. What's the use of an OS that needs third-party protection to be safe to use?

So installing Windows both means asking 'Mother may I' and buying extra protection. Do you mind if I pass?

Mart

Re:What's the big deal?

[guardian alpha]

Let me get this right :D

So you are saying that openBSD, Linux, BeOS, and every other OS has NO need whatsoever for additional firewall protection at the hardware router level?

Pfft. You are either new to the computer scene, have no idea what the word 'security' involves, or have never seen the equal amount of vunerabilities that exist in each and every operating system.. many only able to be stopped (until a patch is created) by hardware firwalls.

Seriously now, you don't think CISCO is a fortune 500 company just for shits and giggles family connections, do you?

Re:What's the big deal?

[mvdwege]

So you are saying that openBSD, Linux, BeOS, and every other OS has NO need whatsoever for additional firewall protection at the hardware router level?

In the enterprise? Sure, no doubt. As a home machine connected directly to the Internet? Nope. There is enough protection available out of the box with ipf, netfilter and just plain not running extraneous services. None of these things are offered on Windows XP by default. Even the built-in packet filter (which still has some serious deficiencies) only runs by default and before the network is up in Service Pack 2.

And if you equate security with hardware firewalls only, then I posit that it is you who has no clue about security at all.

Mart

Re:What's the big deal?

[guardian alpha]

Okay, time to get my hands dirty and get this over with, once and for all :) There is one thing I can't stand more than Windows zealots, and it's Linux zealots.

A home machine connected to the internet is in great need of hardware-level protection due to the primary insecurity being at the end-user level rather than just the OS capability. A properly setup hardware router on a home system, particularly when using WiFi is a great assurance of limited amount of wireless connections and DHCP connections allowed at any given time.

Unless you honestly think that homes with wireless shouldn't care that their wireless connection is not only being hijacked, but being monitored and their data being collected midstream? Let's not even bring up encryption on the router level.

But let's set aside wireless for right now, after all... wireless is already 100% secure on the OS level and thus there is no need for hardware security according to your statements.

Let's refocus on wired internet. Ah, what is this? The same insecurities exist for wired? A hardware firewall/router can control maximum amount of DHCP connections as well as limit it down to ONLY specific MAC addresses in case someone preforms an "outside the house" hijack". Let's also plug-on the possibility of software failure via exploits and typical bugs. These do exist in your world too, correct? Good. If ipf and netfilter end up leaving gapping holes in your system (as they have many times in the past) then what's your first line of protection? A hardware router that is NOT ONLY allowing you to share your primary home internet connection between computers, but is now offering that backup protection while you wait for a proper patch.

--Even the built-in packet filter (which still has some serious deficiencies) only runs by default and before the network is up in Service Pack 2.--

And this sheds light on how much knowledge you have torwards Windows security capability. The amount of services opened to the outside public (beyond 127.0.0.1 only) are far less than a typical Suse, Redhat, and even Slackware installation. Why? Because server-like services are much less used on home machines, and most end-user homemachines are running on Windows. Granted, you can turn off services in Linux with a simple configuration file. Granted, if you live in the same world I do, you can do the same thing in Windows with the 'Administrate Services" tool built into Windows.

So I don't get your point. Enterprise, home.. what's the difference in terms of having a second layer of security? Because in your words, the OS itself should be secure enough to not need a firewall, but yet you think enterprises should have it on the same Operating Systems that at home shouldn't need one. Pfft, you are trying to win a topic in which you refuse to learn the subject matter.

Go play "I'm a zealot" elsewhere, perhaps where you don't expect people to disagree with you on a subject you simply don't give the time of day to learn.

Re:What's the big deal?

[mvdwege]

The amount of services opened to the outside public (beyond 127.0.0.1 only) are far less than a typical Suse, Redhat, and even Slackware installation.

This is bullshit. Even a Linux distribution from the same vintage as Windows XP runs fewer unnecessary services listening on outside connections by default. Anyone who has ever installed both Windows and a Linux distribution since then will acknowledge that, except for the Microsoft shills.

Tell me oh great wizard, if what you say is true, why is the survival time of a default WinXP install so much lower than that of a default Linux install?

Mart

Re:What's the big deal?

[guardian alpha]

--Anyone who has ever installed both Windows and a Linux distribution since then will acknowledge that, except for the Microsoft shills.--

A default installation of Windows XP Home allows no more than 3 services to the outside world. (135,137,139)

A default installation of Redhat or Fedora Core allows no more than 5 services to the outside world (time, ssh, apache, X, time are the most common).

A tweaked installation of Windows XP Home allows 0 services to the outside world. ( http://nuhi.msfn.org/nlite.html )

A customized installation of RedHat or Fedora Core allows 0 services to the outside world.

See a pattern here? People who know how Windows work's have nothing to fear about the few services facing the outside.

--Tell me oh great wizard, if what you say is true, why is the survival time of a default WinXP install so much lower than that of a default Linux install?--

Because there are not thousands upon thousands of automagic worms hammering unfirewalled linux (yet again another reason to use a hardware firewall) boxes. But windows boxes are a different story due to it's popularity and the general knowledge of the end-user that runs Windows. Those worms are primarily targeted at outdated exploits/Windows releases, rather than up to date systems (ie. SP2). If Linux was just as popular as Windows, and the majority of the crowd didn't keep with updates (ala apt-get or emerge), then Linux would have a short intital lifespan as well. In fact, running an outdated version of Linux (say.. Redhat 4) is only asking for an old 'click me to run' exploit on it's outdated services.

That's all just common sense though. You can even purchase/order Windows XP Home/Pro with SP2 preinstalled on it, cutting down CONSIDERABLY on the possibility of it falling to any form of attack just after installation. Very similar to not installing RedHat 7 and choosing to upgrade to Redhat 9. Not only has this been tested, but the debunking of this myth happened on MANY news stories in the past on slashdot.

I don't get where you are going with this. First I show you how to bypass the hassel of Windows Activation. Next I show you a faster way to deal with the reactivation of Windows. After that I explain the benefits of a hardware firewall on ANY network as being a large basis of one factor torwards box security. Now I'm explaining the basic differences in Windows and Linux security capability.

I know that both have their differences, but I also don't let zealotry stop me from learning how to accomplish task A in Windows that I know Linux does well. If you want to continue to be a zealot, that's fine. We each have our own opinions. But if you want to hate something then you need to start putting as much effort in researching how to solve the problems of the OS you hate as you do in researching how to solve the problems of an OS you love. Windows can do damn near anything Linux can do, and just as well. Linux can do damn near anything Windows can do, and just as well.

All it takes is someone willing to sit down, debunk the myths, and learn to optimize their use of Operating Systems once the specific problem and solution has been found.

Re:What's the big deal?

[mvdwege]

A default installation of Redhat or Fedora Core allows no more than 5 services to the outside world (time, ssh, apache, X, time are the most common).

A default install? Desktop or server? Red Hat hasn't had these services active and unfirewalled in its default workstation install since 8.0. I flat out don't believe you.

Because there are not thousands upon thousands of automagic worms hammering unfirewalled linux (yet again another reason to use a hardware firewall) boxes. But windows boxes are a different story due to it's popularity

Yes of course. That is why I see so many infected Apache servers attacking our systems. That popularity myth has been debunked so many times before, the fact that you keep bringing it up marks you as either an MS shill or terminally stupid. Don't bother with further replies, this is not going anywhere.

Mart

Re:What's the big deal?

[guardian alpha]

--A default install? Desktop or server? Red Hat hasn't had these services active and unfirewalled in its default workstation install since 8.0. I flat out don't believe you.--

Don't believe me? O.o When is the last time you've ever installed a Linux system, and chose the "Default" option? That's fine if you don't believe me, but you might as well try it yourself and see.

--Yes of course. That is why I see so many infected Apache servers attacking our systems. That popularity myth has been debunked so many times before, the fact that you keep bringing it up marks you as either an MS shill or terminally stupid. Don't bother with further replies, this is not going anywhere.--

Ah, and here your ignorance reaches it's prime. Apache servers are not overly infected due to the typical intelligence level people have when administering an apache server, compared to the typical intelligence level people have when watching a DivX movie on Windows. Popularity combined with a low intelligence level for the majority crowd easily determains a huge percentage of what makes a program vulnerable on a mass scale.

I'm sorry you choose to be a zealot, and say "I flat out don't believe you" instead of "Maybe I should try it myself and see". Welcome to slashdot, and your ass was just owned in Windows Security Capability by an avid slackware user.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[rainman_bc]

IIRC there was an Alpha port of NT 4 as well. Wasn't Alpha 64-bit?

64bit or 32bit

[cyfer2000]

But is it 64bit native one or a 32bit one run in a virtual machine? I suppose that a 64bit solitaire runs better than a 32bit solitaire. :-)

Re:64bit or 32bit

[Anonymous Coward]

It includes both:

C:\WINDOWS\system32>dir sol.exe
Volume in drive C has no label.
Volume Serial Number is D489-189D

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\system32

03/25/2005 05:00 AM 78,336 sol.exe
1 File(s) 78,336 bytes
0 Dir(s) 31,403,466,752 bytes free

C:\WINDOWS\system32>dir ..\SysWOW64\sol.exe
Volume in drive C has no label.
Volume Serial Number is D489-189D

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SysWOW64

03/25/2005 05:00 AM 57,856 sol.exe
1 File(s) 57,856 bytes
0 Dir(s) 31,403,466,752 bytes free

In general 64-bit windows is laid out with 32-bit copies of everything (for interoperability w/ legacy 32-bit software) and 64-bit copies of everything. If you were to start Solitare from the start menu you'd get a 64-bit solitate. If you were to do start, run, %windir%\syswow64\cmd.exe and then run "sol.exe" then you'd get the 32-bit version (launched from a 32-bit command prompt). If you run %windir%\system32\cmd.exe and then run "sol.exe" you'll get the 64-bit version run from the 64-bit command prompt (yes, the folder with 64 in it's name contains 32-bit versions, and the folder with 32 in it's name contains 64-bit versions).

Another interesting example is Internal Explorer which is included in both versions and by default you get the 32-bit IE (probably because all the browser plugins are 32-bit).

Things get even more interesting when you're at the 32-bit command prompt. You start seeing what to 64-bit users is "syswow64" as "system32". And all the registry keys get re-mapped to a Wow6432Node (ie, HKLM\Software\Wow6432Node contains all the Software settings for 32-bit apps).

What all of this means is that there's no virtual machine needed. The 32-bit apps run on the 64-bit OS and are exposed a 32-bit set of DLLs that call into the 64-bit OS for all of their operations. So if you have a program that spends a lot of time in OS libraries then it'll potentially see some of the benefits of running on a 64-bit OS.

Re:64bit or 32bit

[Zorilla]

Great, it's gone from a fairly logically named directory called "system" to being called "system32" to finally being named "SysWOW64". I'm waiting for "Kumquat128" so programs can risk jacking up four different directories now.

is it just me?

[Cecil B ReDemented]

I cant help but wonder,is it just me? How many /.ers actually use windows? Considering we all seem to know that there's plenty of other software out there that gives us this,why does anyone care? Anyone that needs it could simply get what they need from the other companies,badda bing (insert mob joke here). Dont get me wrong,i realize this is /. worthy news,but by god!Lets all just shake our head at Mr. gates in shame,and walk away.Thank you.

-1 bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Conspiracy theories say...

[Anonymous Coward]

... it was only delayed till after Intel had a semi-workable 64 bit support on their CPU-s ...

Really, there was no reason to ship it this late, AMD had x86-64 specs and an emulator around a long time before real chips where available, and it's not like it's a first 64-bit Windows ever, so they had experience with 64-bit programming.

does this mean

[suezz]

that is will crash twice as much since 32x2=64

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Detritus]

The Alpha was 64-bit, the Alpha version of NT was mostly 32-bit due to the architectural limitations of NT.

Paging is Slow...turn it off!

[qualico]

I've had so much more performance and stability, (until of course you use up installed physical memory), since paging has been turned off.

So if that's the best feature MS can offer, then it really is a pointless upgrade...umm or in my thinking *downgrade*.

Why?

[nurb432]

Sure for some special applications this might be good, but for the average Joe running his email and an occasional spreadsheet why does it matter? What we have now vastly exceedes 99% of users needs now.

Except of course to help force people back into the upgrade cycle.

"just beacuse" isnt a reason to do something.

Re:Why?

[Detritus]

Because systems with 4 GB or more of RAM are going to be commonplace in the not-too-distant future. A 64-bit operating system is needed to make efficient use of that much memory. You may not need that much memory, but it will eventually become standard. Many Windows PCs are already being sold with 512 MB of RAM as the base configuration.

Re:Why?

[interstellar_donkey]

Why?

Because it's a logical step in the advancement of computers.

I can remember a good 17 years ago debating with a "computer expert" about hard drives. He said that nobody would ever need anything bigger then a one megabyte HDD. I still think about that and smile.

Back then, nobody could predict the way computers would shape our lives. Now, of course, we know.

Small steps in the advancement of hardware and software typically don't revolutionize our use of computers, but putting them all together has a dramatic effect. So we've started a shift towards 64 bit. We've got the hardware, and now we're getting the software. Yes, at first it won't be a big deal to the end users, but that leap will ultimately give us more power and flexibility to do more advanced things.

We've got a lot more we can do with computers, and not just with games. Parsing human speech into text, for example, is currently pretty bad. Being able to recognize features in an image is rudimentary at best. No, a 64 bit OS won't change that, but it will lead to a better hardware and software base to make it easier for developers to approach those goals.

Moving to 64 bit is not being done "just because", it's being done as a step in the continued evolution of computing technology, which leads to better advances down the road.

Re:Why?

[shutdown -p now]

You're not required to upgrade. You can still happily run 32-bit XP on your current hardware; or even on AMD64 system, for that matter.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the desktop a 64 bit cpu vs a 32 bit cpu is rather pointless (unless the price drops dramatically) with the exception of gaming which could make use of the 64bit CPU, however gaming is now being pushed more and more onto consoles and developers will only go were the money is to be had.

64 bit CPU computing is mainly aimed at the server market which is dominated by the *nix OS's. It is a multi billion $ market and MS want's a shair of it (or all of it if it can) and this puts it in direct compitition with IBM, HP and SUN. This is going to be interesting.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"just beacuse" isnt a reason to do something.

Quite the contrary; it is the only good reason to do anything.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Deviate_X]

I know they had 32 bit build for alpha, ppc, MIPS

The port (3.51 and NT4) to Alpha was definitly 64-Bit...

Windows NT

Re:The good of this

[Anonymous Coward]

But your code will not work on both monochrome and color monitors!

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[bhpaddock]

Well, technically Windows x64 Edition will be out a few days before OS X "Tiger" - which is the first version of OS X to have any real 64-bit support.

It's also worth noting that adding 64-bit support to a PowerPC-based OS is much easier than adding it to an x86-based OS. PowerPC was designed with 64-bit operation in mind, x86 was not.

Prior to "Tiger," the best OS X could do was to support 4GB of memory per processor, with a maximum of 4GB of memory given to one application (because of the 32-bit address map).

Windows XP has been able to do that in PAE mode ("Physical Address Extension") for years now. That's why two years ago you could buy 32-bit Xeon systems with 12GB of memory from Dell (and you still can).

Given the nature of the move to 64-bit architectures, I think the industry as a whole is doing quite well.

If you want to bicker about Windows x64 vs. Tiger, then Windows clearly wins. In Tiger, GUI apps can't be 64-bit (you have to write 2 executables to support 32-bit graphical output from a 64-bit backend service). Windows x64 has no such limitation.

Real Hackers & Pirates don't use Windows XP.

[Anonymous Coward]

The pirates of the Spanish Galeon don't use the Windows XP of Mocosoft from the NorthAmerican Marine, The Redmond.

. No saqueis babas con el lanzamiento de Windows XP x64!!! No olvideis de TCPA Palladium!!!

Looks like its time to update my favorite quote...

[The Tyrant]

Windows: A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

Looks like its time to add a new line for 64 bits... any suggestions?

Installing multiple windows versions on a system?

[tji]

Does Windows allow you to install multiple versions in the same partition, and select which to run on boot?

I have some devices that will not have 64 bit driver support for the foreseeable future (HDTV receiver cards), so I can't go completely 64 bit. But, I would like to try my Athlon64 at full power for other stuff.

Also, I wouldn't mind trying out XP Media Center for some HDTV stuff. Can these co-exist?

Confused...

[jgold03]

Remind me why 64-bit windows only provides a virtual address space of 16 TB, when a 64-bit address can address 2^64 = 16 exabytes.

Re:Confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess: Because today's (and probably tomorrow's) machines wouldn't have enough RAM to hold the page tables for an address space that big.

Re:Wow, only 13 years after my first 64-bit deskto

[gatkinso]

NT worked fine on the Alpha. Not MS's fault that few people want (and even less need) 64 bit CPU's - hence the lack of third party interest.

[wake up call] Re:I don't know abou this...

[Vladimir]

- why don't you order a 8-way Opteron? Each CPU supports 4 DDR modules and 2GB ones are available (probably $1K/piece). This gives you 8*4*2=64GB
-The largest SATA drive on Pricewatch is ~400GB. You need 160 of them to reach your limit, but again, I don't see why it's not possible ...
Of course, you more likely to call Sun/IBM with such an order.

Re:[wake up call] Re:I don't know abou this...

[LetterJ]

It's also not like we had 3.8Ghz 32 bit processors with 4GB of RAM and 400GB drives when the first 32 bit versions of Windows showed up circa 1995. Heck, the Win95 requirements could be satisfied with a 386 and math coprocessor, 8MB of RAM and 30MB of hard drive space. The upper limits of 32 bit computing sounded just about as high back then.

When you release a completely new platform, it had BETTER have some room for technology that doesn't exist right now.

The typical 486 or 1st generation Pentium was running at a clock speed less than 1% of the 64 bit procesors of today, 16MB of RAM similar, etc.

Those numbers put these ceilings pretty easily in range and possibly too conservative.

Sometimes you have to plan for really big numbers. I'm not thrilled with what cars, food, etc. are going to cost (with nothing more than normal inflation) in 35 years when I'm 65, but that doesn't change the fact that I should really plan for about 4 million in assets to completely retire at that age. Saying that $125,000 will be a modest salary equivalent to $45,000 this year matches up pretty well.

Re:[wake up call] Re:I don't know abou this...

[The Snowman]

Exactly -- the upper limits on Windows x64 seem high now, but in a few years some of us will actually hit those limits.

I would be more interested in comparing Win64 to 64-bit Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc. How does performance compare? Hardware limits? I am off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of google...

OT, but...

[fyngyrz]

Now, let's not always see the same hands.

Was that a nod to Tom Lehrer?

Sparc and G5 owners say...

[Anonymous Coward]

...big fucking deal.

Re:Looks like its time to update my favorite quote

[cnettel]

A 64-bit recompile of a thirty-two bit extension...

On the other hand, it's not only a recompile. They disallowed some practices for drivers (made a few structures write-protected after boot and so on), but to fit your kind of description, I think a recompile fits quite well...

Re:Wow, only 13 years after my first 64-bit deskto

[drsmithy]

I just think it's strange that people are seeing this 64-bit thing as if it were something new.

The word you're after is "relevant". 13 years ago a 64 bit desktop's advantages over a 32 bit one were completely irrelevant (personally I think they still are today and are likely to remain so for another couple of years at least).

64-bit Blue Screen

[benw1979]

The Blue Screen of death will now appear in gorgeous 64-bit color. Which is still ummm, blue, actually.

Re:64-bit Blue Screen

[cpghost]

Deep blue, to be correct, due to much higher color depth resolution...

But does it really matter?

[Flaming Cowpie]

Yeah, Microsoft is jumping the Tiger gun by 5 days. That's to be expected. With the specs that are quoted, what exactly is the net gain to the enduser? Are users going to suddenly go, "Oh! Gee, that's what I've been missing all this time?". Other than the increased memory footprint, even on OSX there's very little in way of "Holy Cow!" increases for the enduser. This isn't to say that this isn't the groundwork for some very interesting long term gains. Overall, those that leverage the advantages of 64bit design in the most inovative ways are going to distinguish themselves - that alone will rule out Redmond. Inovation isn't their hallmark. Now, if I could just get a 64bit version of Textedit. Then we'd be cooking with gas.

Re:Wow, only 13 years after my first 64-bit deskto

[cnettel]

We can't even be sure that they were an advantage. Cache and memory is precious. Some code, still, gets slower on AMD64, despite new registers and all, just because we've doubled the pointer size and that means more data transfers. The CPU is faster than before and can handle loads of memory, but if you are not running out of space, whether it is virtual address space or physical memory, there are no benefits of 64-bit addressing. Every address is bigger, without any benefit.

But, I think the time might be now, after all. If more people got used to the idea of just memory mapping their data, that could really bring some benefits. And, as it happens, their data may be several hundred MBs, at least. The 32-bit memory space is crammed. Also look at Windows, which without an automatic rebasing creates quite a few relocation conflicts that needs to be resolved at load time. Without any real need for it...

Re:Wow, only 13 years after my first 64-bit deskto

[demon]

Of course, NT on AXP was never 64-bit. It used the 32-bit mode of the Alpha CPUs. IA-64 was the first _actual_ 64-bit version of Windows. And really, there were never any real application ports for any of the other major arches Windows was ported to back in the day (MIPS, PPC, AXP) - at least Alpha/AXP had FX!32 to allow x86 apps to be run...

Re:Uhm

[m50d]

That's because it ships with BSOD disabled. It can still freeze or reboot though, and I've found it will. Rarely enough to be tolerable, and nowhere near as bad as old versions, but it definitely happens, roughly once a month or so. (My linux box hasn't crashed since christmas, and I've been using it more).

Yes!

[amliebsch]

You can't take three from two, Two is less than three, So you look at the four in the eights place. Now that's really four eights, So you make it three eights, Regroup, and you change an eight to eight ones, And you add them to the two, and you get one-two base eight, Which is ten base ten, And you take away three, that's seven.

Is that clear?

Re:Yes!

[kfg]

It's just like base 10 really. . .if you're missing two fingers.

KFG

Re:Uhm

[zootm]

I was counting reboots like that as occurences of the blue screen (this is very much a "friends begging you to fix their computer" issue here) since you can still see it for a second, and I usually disable the automatic reboot.

Seriously still never seen it outside of the conditions I noted. I've had XP boxes run for 4 or 5 months (rebooting for updates kills windows uptime though) without problems. I've certainly never seen a "slow approach" bluescreen like you describe, and as were so common on previous versions of the OS. Admittedly though, most XP installs I've seen were post-SP1 (until about that time, most people I knew were either using a 9x system or 2k...).

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

Try running something other than a piece of shit Compaq or some shit you fished out of someones else's trash and you might have better 'luck'.

Re:Installing multiple windows versions on a syste

[prockcore]

Does Windows allow you to install multiple versions in the same partition, and select which to run on boot?


Yup.. and XP64 creates a Program Files (x86) and a WIN64 directory so it doesn't conflict with your regular XP32 install.

Re:Uhm

[m50d]

It doesn't seem to be monthly, just random averaging about once a month, and this is post-SP2. Could be hardware but memtest ran ok and there's not much else which could go wrong. The nic is quite old but they tend to run forever, the one in the linux box is from the same time. It seems to be good old random windows instability to me, though admittedly I'm biased.

Re:Uhm

[zootm]

Sounds like a case of YMMV to me. I can assure you that it's certainly not common, in any case.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what you're talking about. Don't try to be smart.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Anonymous Coward]

How did a completely incorrect post get moderated to 5?

Microsoft's infinite monkeys:

[rice_burners_suck]

Any software that Microsoft makes is bound to be garbage. It only appears to work, sometimes. What's actually going on under the surface is the destruction of your computer hardware, your data, your patience, and your soul.

There is a conjecture that if an infinite number of monkeys were set pounding away on an infinite number of typewriters, and given an infinite amount of time, one monkey would eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.

Others believe that a work such as Shakespeare's, which requires creative judgement to produce, could never emerge from randomness and chaos.

However, I believe that at Microsoft's campus, there are an infinite number of monkeys pounding away at an infinite number of computer keyboards, and whenever something that looks like computer software emerges from the chaos, Microsoft's marketing department packages and sells it.

Parent is a troll ...

[clem.dickey]

... and self have *no* sense of humor.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Anonymous Coward]

Rumor also has it that some individuals were privately building NT for other platforms just for fun.

But Not Enough to Run Longhorn...

[Master of Transhuman]

"64-bit Windows will handle 16 terabytes of virtual memory, as compared to 4 GB for 32-bit Windows. System cache size jumps from 1 GB to 1 TB, and paging-file size increases from 16 TB to 512 TB."

Seriously, yesterday I was downloading tons of babe pictures from model sites using FireFox. Windows XP repeatedly told me my virtual memory space was too low and it was upping it, and while doing so, requests for memory might be denied. Whereupon the system got noticeably slower. Rebooting solved the problem for a while, but after another hour or two, it happened again.

So either FireFox has a serious memory leak, or Windows just can't handle memory no matter how much it has. I have 512MB and the only other thing running besides my usual tray utilities was my file manager. The same config right now shows only around 256MB being used with a peak of 300+MB.

Besides, who cares? Having more access to memory merely means Microsoft will bloat Windows with more "features" that nobody uses, anyway.

Re:But Not Enough to Run Longhorn...

[Anonymous Coward]

firefox bloats quickly

Need / Want

[nurb432]

No, he was right. No one would ever *NEED* it.. ( though i bet he meant GB not MB. As back then Floppies were pushing 1 MB )

Anything more is just wasteful *WANT*.

will 32-bit drivers work? I'd long-ago heard, not

[NOPteron]

A year or two ago, I read, here somewheres, that ALL drivers had to be 64-bit, if one switched. . .

IF that is true, and one has to get drivers for a bunch of strange stuff for one's AMD64 notebook ( dig the screen-space & capability on this barebones Asus 'book ), and such aren't going to be all available, then it makes sense to go with SUSE AMD64 & Win-32, doesn't it?

I don't want to buy 2 copies of WinXP just because the first one won't really work. . .

Specifically, I'm thinking of 3rd-party drivers. . .

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[bhpaddock]

That seems strange. You may be correct, but during the beta there most certainly was a 64-bit version of WMP. However, it would not work with 32-bit plug-ins, which may be the reason they decided not to ship it with an x64 build (and WMP doesn't really *need* to be 64-bit anyway).

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Anonymous Coward]

Slackware....unfortunately,

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Professor Bluebird]

Also, 32-bit IE is there so that 32-bit viruses, err, ActiveX controls can be used. You can't easily embed 32-bit code in a 64-bit app.

Not quite.

[turgid]

64-bit Windows has been available for Itanium for several years now.

Correction: an alpha of 64-bit windows has been available for both itanium machines for at least 18 months now.

Today

[nurb432]

Today.. but in time it will become required ..

16 TB ought be enough for everybody...

[cpghost]

Do these guys know no limits (for their memory hungry OS)? Must remember... to buy memory manufacturers stocks...

Tiny Drawback to x86-64 Windows

[Laven]

x86-64 Windows is completely incapable of running 16-bit DOS executbles. While you may think this is unimportant, unfortunately far too many dumb websites still distribute those "self extracting" archives that are 16-bit DOS executables. In many cases these archives containly ONLY a PDF, or other cases 32bit/64bit software. Distributors somehow think self extracting archives are "friendlier" to users and keep using the same old archivers that they used 10 years ago because it wasn't a problem for anyone.

Of course this always was annoying to me because I use nothing but Linux. And the very idea of executing untrusted programs from 3rd parties is somewhat scary...

Re:Tiny Drawback to x86-64 Windows

[dfghjk]

x86-64 linux is even more restrictive. Try downloading an x86-32 plugin and installing it.

Re:Tiny Drawback to x86-64 Windows

[Laven]

And it is possible to run if you install the 32bit web browser to use with that 32bit plugin.

data types (was Re:what, only 16TB?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Unix vendors agreed to what is called LP64, meaning that long integers and pointer types would be 64-bit on the new 64-bit hardware introduced in the 1990s. Microsoft was unable to do this due to a huge legacy code problem (they've got code and structures inherited from Win16 where long was the only available 32-bit type.. it's basically a nightmare)

There's a similar problem with character/ string handling, where Unix vendors selected UTF-8 as the assumed default and as Unicode grew, UTF-8 grew right along with it. Whereas Microsoft picked UCS2, which turned out to be too small, so now in some places the 16bit wide characters are a UTF-16 encoding, and in other places they're Unicode character literals. Result is that it's more complicated than UTF-8 (what Microsoft were trying to avoid) and yet less robust and consistent. AND there's an endian problem that UTF-8 easily sidestepped.

Huge swathes of Unix code which worked on 32-bit ASCII systems, recompiles and runs perfectly on 64-bit Unicode systems. Indeed if you compare Red Hat 7.3 on a Pentium to RHEL 4 on AMD64 this is immediately apparent. The same trick doesn't work in Windows (much to the dismay of evangelists who spent years trying to persuade ISVs of the need to cope with these changes).

Of course both systems will -work- the Windows way just isn't very pretty. Neatness counts.

well..

[Karaman]

... I was supposed to receive a copy in Friday, but things got messed up. I will try win 2003 64 bit on Athlon 3000+ machine. If it is good enough I might search for a corporate license. If not, will put the cd in the microwave and torch/torture it to death :)

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[alienmole]

The only real advantage 64-bit has over 32-bit for anyone outside of the supercomputing realm is the memory it can access.

That's not the only advantage. For example, high-performance 64-bit integers can be very useful in a variety of applications. 32 bits makes for integers that are often just a little too small, and 64 bits gives plenty of breathing room.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Lost Race]

I used to run NT 3.51 and 4.0 on an Alpha, and I can confirm that those versions of NT were definitely 32 bit, not 64 bit. I did software development using the native Alpha version of Visual C++ and pointers were 4 bytes long (32 bits). There were no 64-bit versions of the Windows or NT kernel APIs at the time so the entire operating system, shell, and native applications were all 32-bit. I'm not talking about the x86 emulator, which was obviously 32-bit, I'm talking about native AXP code, which was also 32-bit. Alpha supported native 32-bit pointers and little-endian integers (probably just for NT).

I also used RedHat on the same machine, and its pointers were 8 bytes long (64 bits).

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[forkazoo]

I'm not sure what makes you think that... Even the web page that you linked in your post disagrees:

"NT runs on 64-bit Alpha hardware and offers 64-bit files and file systems but has yet to address the key 64-bit requirement to support large amounts of physical memory for enhancing database performance."

Running on a system capable of 64 bits does not mean the OS itself is 64 bits. The Win64 API didn't even exist when NT4 came out.

Re:Memory Lane

[screwthemoderators]

Actually Scandisk was introduced in Dos 6.2 http://www.nukesoft.co.uk/msdos/dosversions.shtml Although Mediaplayer existed, it was packaged seperately. Also Windows 3.x was a 16-bit system- there were some awful memory hacks to keep that kludge going

I don't see where this is a drawback...

[argent]

x86-64 Windows is completely incapable of running 16-bit DOS executbles. While you may think this is unimportant, unfortunately far too many dumb websites still distribute those "self extracting" archives that are 16-bit DOS executables.

Oh good, that means that maybe, just maybe, they'll have to quit using these Windows-specific malware-promoting abominations! Thank you' I really appreciate a bit of good news.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[Zorilla]

Well, technically Windows x64 Edition will be out a few days before OS X "Tiger" - which is the first version of OS X to have any real 64-bit support.

Or not.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[bhpaddock]

Actually you've been able to buy Windows XP x64 for weeks now from several OEM vendors. I was speaking of official announcements, however.

Paging-file?

[WgT2]

Oh, great!
Oh, joy!

Dispite being able to support (currently) more than needed amount of RAM, this post thinks it's impressive to tout the size of 64-bit addressing for paging files!?!?!?

"Windows based mandatory paging: It's not a weakness in design, it's a feature!"

true genious?

[dfghjk]

you think it takes true genious to come up with that?

...because they're snobs...

[dfghjk]

and bigots.

There's a point for me!

[lorenlal]

I've owned an Athlon 64 for about a year now... I'm happy that now I can get it running in the mode it was designed for.

I can finally justify my purchase... well... Sort of...

That is intentional

[bluGill]

When AMD designed the x86-64 instruction set some of the early prototypes had more registers exposed. However that left less registers available to the optimizers on this chip (I forget what they call this), so the performance was less with more registers.

Re:That is intentional

[argent]

When AMD designed the x86-64 instruction set some of the early prototypes had more registers exposed. However that left less registers available to the optimizers on this chip (I forget what they call this), so the performance was less with more registers.

Register renaming, I think, or the recompiler that needs to do it.

Register renaming is a tool developed to deal with the fact that you don't have enough registers, so the compiler can't do enough optimization, so you have to slide a register that's still holding a result out of the way to keep working on later instructions that want to write to the same register once it's available.

If you have enough registers you can get rid of the whole thing and shorten the pipeline and that's even better. Not only is a shorter pipeline faster clock for clock, other things being equal, but the compiler can see a bigger chunk of code than the recompiler on the chip, and it's bigger and smarter as well... so if the compiler does the register allocation (all other things still being equal, of course) it can do a better job.

The problem things aren't equal. AMD64 doesn't have the luxury of exposing as much internal state to the compiler as Alpha or even older RISCs (let alone pulling some of the nasty pranks on the compiler that Intel's trademark psycho architectures... i860 and IA64, or even old iAPX432... are wont to do). The problem is AMD64 has to keep the chunk of hardware that does the register renaming around anyway because it's still got to run IA32 code really fast.

Bummer, eh?

This is wrong [was] I don't know abou this...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is wrong.

Toodles!

In other news

[Martigan80]

Service Pack 1 prerelease beta 1 is do out on monday as well with an expected release time of next week.

does windows have a permanent page file?

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to make windows NEVER hit the HDD given adequate RAM.

seems now windows cant go a few secs without hitting the HDD.. This causesmad slowdown.

HDD only to load apps and app data

Finally!

[OneSeventeen]

This 16TB paging-file has been holding me back, 512TB here I come! Now, how many of us are running Windows XP on a system with 16TB lying around for paging-files much less 512? Isn't that type of system reserved for *real* server software? (I use XP at home and love it, and will probably buy XP64 for my laptop next week, but all my servers are belong to *nix!)

They're already here...

[Anonymous Coward]

w64.shruggle.1318: May 26, 2004
w64.rugrat.3344: August 20, 2004

There was an article linked on /. about Rugrat if I remember right. Seems the virus writers like to get an early start on these things.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti

[DarkEdgeX]

The only real advantage 64-bit has over 32-bit for anyone outside of the supercomputing realm is the memory it can access.

Not true. x64 (AMD64 and EM64T) also introduce additional general purpose registers (GPRs; double the amount available with x86) and additional SSE registers (also doubled). That's a lot of additional scratch space for compilers to use to keep things from being moved back and forth from memory.

I'm not saying it'll make huge improvements of course, but it'll be a noticeable improvement once optimized compilers are available and you see native x64 games (for example) or encoders.

Readable version

[Anonymous Coward]

http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/24/1 221214

great

[lampajoo]

Now windows apps can be even MORE bloated.

2 facts and a thought.

[jnf]

1) XP 64 and 2003 32/64have been avail. as beta downloads from microsoft on an evaluation basis- they would even ship cd's to you for the cost of media.

2) OS/400 is already ready for the next jump to 128 bit and in fact uses 128 bit pointers/etc.

thought:
If we designed things correctly in the first place switching our hardware like that would be relatively easy.

disclaimer:
currently employed by a company that has literally said 'efficiency is not a design goal'/somewhat disgruntled.

No viruses yet ?!?!

[Mr Europe]

Where's the list of vulnerabilities?

A new windows-version and not a single virus out yet!?

What is your bet:
How long will it take for the first virus especially targetting Win64 to spreads out ?

My guess is two weeks.

wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

FAT32 can go at least up to 120GB on a partition. Haven't tried it on my 200GB drive.

Re:Uhm

[m50d]

Anecdotally, IME it still is common. Everyone whom I talk to uses windows, and they all have their computer crash every so often, even the XP users. Of course this could be hardware problems etc.

Re:Uhm

[zootm]

Strange, I find the opposite! Most cases I've seen crashes are down to lack of updates (the usual worm suspects). Post-SP2 boxes I've never see go down other than hardware or bugged system software. Anecdotal, I know!