Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft to Launch 64-bit Windows on Monday

Posted by Zonk on from the mmmmm-terabytes dept.

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."

11 of 484 comments (clear)

  1. I don't know abou this... by Aruthra · · Score: 5, Funny

    640k ought to be enough for anybody.

    1. Re:I don't know abou this... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
  2. Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth mention? by Shag · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. :)

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  3. Finally!! by Almond+Paste · · Score: 5, Funny

    They have caught up with Ninendo64!

  4. Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  5. Not 64-bit, just x64 editions by cyberjessy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Life is just a conviction.
  6. what, only 16TB? by Vladimir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:what, only 16TB? by tomstdenis · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... 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

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  7. Re:16 Terabytes by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 5, Funny
    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.

  8. Re:still a 32-bit file system? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
  9. Fat Binaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.