Slashdot Mirror
64-Bit Windows Releases Now Available
SimplyJeff writes "Athlon 64 users rejoice! Today at WinHEC 2005 in Seattle, Microsoft announced availability of the 64-bit editions of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. Strangely (and possibly a sign the drivers aren't yet up to snuff), Microsoft will not sell the 64-bit releases in retail outlets. For now, only new PC buys can get Windows x64 Edition as an option. However, those who purchased Windows XP after March 31, 2003, can trade in their copy for the 64-bit version at a cost of $12 and a voided warranty. Although, x64 users will get one free support call to Microsoft." Reader bonch adds a link to CNET's review of the OS.
And in my opinion, the $12 trade sounds like a nice deal.
The $12 trade in deal is only valid if you purchased a PC with WinXP preinstalled. If you built your own system and installed a retail WinXP the offer doesn't apply.
See MS link to it here.
It's like they ran Solitare on Win95 and XP and since they saw no difference, XP is clearly no better.
Watch Bill's keynote. He doesn't claim random desktop bench marks will run faster.
He does state that for very specific scenarios (where you need lots of memory) like Active Directory and SQL, x64 is a huge improvement...with numbers to back it up.
A speech...
From MS's site:
In order to be eligible to receive Windows® XP Professional x64 Edition, your computer must have been ordered between March 31, 2003 and July 31, 2005 with Microsoft Windows® XP Pro (32 Bit) preinstalled.
So, it seems from that, if your computer came preinstalled with Windows XP Home Edition (like me), you're out of luck.
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
Unless a driver says it's certified to work with XP64, it won't load. If your hardware isn't supported by default, you have to find a 64 bit driver. (There may be a few exceptions, such as USB devices where the "driver" is really more like instructions to the OS on how to operate the device and not low level hardware interface.) If your hardware isn't supported, you can't use it until the manufacturer releases a 64bit driver. I can't use XP64 on my Asus K8V because I have SATA hard drivers and there are no 64 bit drivers for non-RAID mode.
Wrong. See here:
/. story.
If you built your PC yourself [snip] the link to the right.
The link to the right being the same link given in the
Funny. When you click that link on the right (or the one in the slashdot summary) you're taken to a page that says otherwise:
Technology Advancement Program Eligibility
In order to be eligible to receive Windows® XP Professional x64 Edition, your computer must have been ordered between March 31, 2003 and July 31, 2005 with Microsoft Windows® XP Pro (32 Bit) preinstalled. (Emphasis mine)
In addition, you must read and agree to the following:
Right now, I click the link but can't agree to the terms on their form, so 64bit for $12 is impossible for me--I installed WinXP on my own from a copy I bought from NewEgg. Maybe it's a catch-22, or maybe the webdev team just screwed up. I sure hope it's the second and your right.
Unfortunetly you can't just upgrade from 32 to 64 bit. The x64 OS is a 'full' install, and you should do it on a partition that does not already have a 32-bit OS installed on it (otherwise weird things can go on with your Program Files & some other system folders).
What you can do to make the transition much more seamless is to use the File & Settings Transfer Wizard that is included on the x64 CD (it is a newer version than what shipped with 32-bit XP, so make sure you use this updated one). It will pack all your (surprise) files & settings up and then you can import them to your new x64 install.
As for 'will 64 break most/all of my 32 bit apps?' - no. Pretty much all of your 32 bit apps will still be able to run - and often will run faster. The main exceptions are apps that have drivers along with them, which will need to have an update provided by the company that wrote the app to include a 64-bit driver.
Registrant: ZOMAX INC. (PRODUCTORDER-DOM) 2727 Systron Drive Concord, CA 94518 US Domain Name: PRODUCTORDER.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: Watson, Carl (CW2954) watsonc@WEST.ZOMAX.COM Zomax, Inc. 2727 SYSTRON DR CONCORD, CA 94518-1355 US (510) 492-2301 fax: (925) 686-0290 Record expires on 22-Apr-2012. Record created on 21-Apr-1997. Database last updated on 25-Apr-2005 23:08:14 EDT.
Tiger is NOT fully 64-bit. The memory system supports 64-bit pointers. But you can't write a 64-bit GUI application. Carbon and Cocoa are not 64-bit.
A 64-bit application has to be broken into two executables, a 32-bit GUI front-end and a 64-bit engine.
I must be missing something... I don't get why that was modded 'funny'.
Anyway, Intel's "Extended Memory 64 Technology" (EM64T) is compatible tech. They have Pentium 4 w/ EM64T and Xeon w/ EM64T processors that will run Win XP x64 Edition (and the Server 2003 x64 Editions) just fine.
"Great, now all people need are some applications really designed to take advantage of it...."
Newtek just announced a 64-bit version of Lightwave. Okay, this isn't a must-have product for the masses, but 3d artists tend to be the ones to make the most of their new found bits and hertz.
"Derp de derp."
The OS is there for whoever needs it. Microsoft is just making sure that people don't start upgrading without understanding the limitations.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/64-bits/index .x?pg=1
It's not just about memory.
AMD made it so that a program running in pure 64-bit mode has access to double the number of general purpose registers and SIMD registers. More registers == fewer memory accesses && fewer memory accesses == faster programs.
A 64-bit application has to be broken into two executables, a 32-bit GUI front-end and a 64-bit engine.
Technically, yes, but the way OS X handles executable packages, both executables can be bound together, so that the user sees only one "application." If done well, both executables will look like one, unless you run top.
I found it the opposite. I use ubuntu and all I needed to do is write apt-get install apache.
/var/www I think and I didn't have to modify any config files to configure it.
After doing this the web server was up and running and I didn't need to do anything other than apt-get the packages (such as php, it had a quite readable list just by searching for apache) that I wanted the server to run and it just worked ((tm), apparently). It told me it was set up in
I was surprised how easy it was because I had tried not long before to run a web server on Windows XP Pro and it took me a very very long time to get it up and running, and even then didn't have things like a database (you need to pay for that).
Perhaps it's just been a long time since you've tried this. Linux has made huge leaps in just the past couple of years in usability, and should this trend continue it will most definitely eclipse Longhorn before its release.