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.
Great, now all people need are some applications really designed to take advantage of it....
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Why the hell don't they just label it public beta, since it seems they want no one but a very select few to use it. This is more like a beta test then a product release ...
This signature was left intentionally blank.
One free phone call . . . sounds just like going to county jail if you ask me. . . . i'll take my 64bit use on a G5 thank you very much
Force of Will = Glue 'nuff said.
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
...nuff said.
From the summary:
Although, x64 users will get one free support call to Microsoft.
What on earth does that mean? Does a call to MS support cost so much that one free call is worth mentioning in the summary?
Or do they know that anyone using W64 will need to call MS support, or what?
If you have a 64-bit processor, here is your OS. I know people are going to get on here and talk about Linux supporting 64-bit a while ago and such, but this is Windows. They have moved to 64-bit. That means, us designers who like to use Photoshop or just play games (that don't run on linux that is) can finally put our 64-bit processor to some good use.
There is still going to be the lack of 64-bit programs for a while, but it's a start.
And in my opinion, the $12 trade sounds like a nice deal.
Cheers
P.S. No, I am not a Linux hater or w/e. I like linux, I like windows. I just use them for what each does best.
I think this is a good step forward. The actual performance improvements will likely be quite marginal until there are native 64-bit applications. Currently Windows XP and 2003 64-bit editions run 32-bit applications perfectly, but under an emulation layer called WoW (no not World of Warcraft, but Windows on Windows).
I'm not sure how many people remember this, but back when Digital Equipment Corporation's famed Alpha processor was "supported" by Windows NT, the 64-bit environment was infact not much more than a cheap hack. Microsoft designed Windows NT to not actually execute 64-bit instructions, but 32-bit instructions in parallel. I'm glad to see Microsoft is doing a better job supporting the AMD and Intel 64-bit processor lines.shop.envescent.com - Computer hardware and more.
...Beelzebub just bought himself a snowblower.
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.
At this stage of the game it doesn't make any sense for most users to switch to 64 bit XP. It isn't mature enough and doesn't have enough driver support. This is being put out there so that businesses that have a special need for 64bit computing (for example large memory address space) can get started.
Expect to see plenty of patching and continued development moving forward.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
But since all 64 bit programs must be reengineered anyway (ranging from a simple recompile to a partial rewrite depending on the code), is NX on by default for 64 bit programs (an off for Windows On Windows 32 (the layer that runs Win32 programs on Win64))? Seems like the opportune time to make that switch.
If companies can get drivers out soon for it, should be a relativly nice OS. Of course since this is just a different architecture in many ways this is less than a service pack (since nothing has changed featurewise except under the hood). Comparing it to Tiger wouldn't really be fair for that reason.
But going forward, it should be interesting to see performance differences as drivers mature. I'd love to see a performance comparaison in 6 months or so when things should be relativly good. And now that Windows is out, we should see more 64-bit programs which means better benchmarks for the difference between 32 and 64 bits in everyday tasks. The last big excuse for avoid 64 bits is gone (first it was processors, but AMD and Intel both sell 'em now, then it was Windows, but MS sells THAT now, what's left?).
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
See MS link to it here.
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.
You spout off about the joys of linux. But,when Microsoft comes crawling with a 64-bit OS, you fall over like a bitch in heat. Sadness
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
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...
I should note, that AMD made that decision. When running a 64 bit OS, the x86-64 architecture can run 64-bit programs, or 32-bit programs. There is no mode (AFAIK) that will let you execute 16 or 8-bit programs. In 32-bit mode on i386 you can still drop down and run 16-bit and 8-bit tasks, but not x86-64. So MS would have to build Virtual PC into Windows to allow that.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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.
If it was sold in a box in stores, people who don't know what it is might pick it up and try to install it. Very few people have 64-bit processors - certainly the average consumer who buys software from a retailer does not. This way they can control it: you only get the 64-bit version of Windows if you actually have a 64-bit processor.
The poster implied their reason was lack of support. I think it's lack of interest.
Now that it has been released, what 64-bit compilers are available for the operating system? The last time I looked, Microsoft was planning to use an ugly data model (LLP64) where only "long long" variables and pointers would be 64-bits. To me, that's a chicken-shit decision, broken code should be fixed or rewritten, not accommodated by crippling the compiler.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
: 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.
Voided warranty? Blimey! This system is dangerous, and Microsoft knows it!
Circumcision is child abuse.
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.
I started a new job about a couple years ago. Didn't take me long to notice the following line all over:
struct devive_info = (struct device_info *)a_ulDeviceHandle.
I told the chief programer we need to fix this fast as 64 bits are coming, and was told not to worry about it.
For those who can't read hungarian, this function was passed in a parameter as a int, and it was promptly cast (old style C cast too) to a pointer. This works on 32 bit platforms (normally), but will never work on 64 bit platforms.
This is the guy who decided that since GCC is a terrible C++ compiler (it is, but we were still using compilers from 1995 for the windows stuff, and working around bugs in it), he would standardize on Gcc 2.95 even though gcc 3 is much better. I never did figure out that logic. (this was a decision made late last year) Sometimes I'm glad he doesn't work there anymore.
Not that it matters much to me, I'm a UNIX guy. The last version of Windows I ever had on my machines was 3.1, and I installed OS/2 as soon as it arrived.
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.
Windows is:
a 32 bit extension and a graphical shell for
a 16 bit patch to
an 8 bit operating system originally coded for
a 4 bit microprocessor, written by
a 2 bit company, that can't stand
1 bit of competition.
My only (very lame) suggestion is:
"a 64 bit recompilation of"
Other suggestions are welcome.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
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.
You means windows comes with a warrenty???
Mac OS 10.3 and Tiger (10.4) both have 64-bit components. Tiger obviously has more.
The idea here is that the bulk of the OS is still 32-bits. Applications run in 32-bit space, but unix tools (Apple lingo for CLI apps) can reside in 64-bit space, as does the bulk of the underlying OS that requires it (memory, kernel, some drivers, one-button mouse etc) and that only if the hardware is 64-bits (so the OS is a FAT build for some components).
If you user-space (UI) application requires 64-bits (PhotoShop to name the proverbial example), then it's image processing threads can be 64-bits and loaded from the 32-bit UI application.
As time move on and Tiger gets more update and eventually reach MegaPussy (not the actual name but whatever 10.5 will be), more components will be 64-bits.
There is some criticism for this adoption strategy but it has a goal. This way, Tiger apps can run on either 32 or 64-bits machines. if you app requires (or uses) 64-bits components, then it will be a more concious design decision and there are less chance some dweeb ends up trying to launch a 64-bit application on it's Rev B iMac.
Such transitions to new hardware is not new to Apple (wich I consider the kings in that field, considering what the hardware platform went through). It only means less broken apps for now.
(And I was kidding about the 64-bit one-button mouse drivers.)
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/64-bits/index .x?pg=1
(A) 64-bit XP has already been shipping for a long time (Itanium)
(B) Tiger isn't fully 64-bit, so there's no dicksize race with Apple here.
(C) The crossover between OS X and Win64 customers is tiny anyway
(D) Windows x64 went "gold" before Apple even announced Tigers release date, so it's entirely a coincidence the dates are so close.
(E) Probably 80% of Windows sales is through OEMs, so this ain't "limted availabiity" in the slightest.
(F) Destroying every aspect of your post is getting boring.
As opposed to the two-bit versions they have been selling for years?
Fat chicks need love, too. But they gotta pay. - Quagmire
You can pimp Linux all you like, most people care about Windows and what it runs on. For a long time, the only 64-bit Windows was IA-64. GRanted no one used it, but still. However now MS has discontinued all IA-64 support for workstation, and gone with x86-64, and it's going mainstream. That effectively means the format war is decided. Intel may continue to make IA-64 chips, but they'll never be mainstream since Windows doesn't use them.
I saw these being sold all over Akihabara this past weekend... This guy confirms, and they seem legit. Anybody know what's up with this?
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.
You are only partially correct. While you are correct that AMD64's hardware design does not allow for real-mode 16-bit code, it does allow for 16-bit code execution as long as it is protected-mode (so, Win16s applications should be able to work without a problem). (Source)
[insert witty comment here]
Interestingly the issues seen in new Windows are the same as the ones in x86_64 Linux. Except drivers aren't nearly as problematic since there are only a few "3rd party" proprietary drivers (like graphics card manufacturers), and those have had 64-bit drivers for quite some time. The drivers in the kernel tree have been cleaned up during the last 10 years (starting with the alpha port), so in many cases just a recompile is enough.
;), that way buggy browser plugins don't crash your browser completely).
(Browser) plugins are the other issue, if you need flash or proprietary format video playing using windows dll's you'll still want to use a 32-bit browser or video player. Konqueror, I believe, runs plugins as a separate process, so it's unaffected by this (it's not a bad design choice either, Firefox/mozilla/IE should do this too
So, do you need a 64-bit OS? Like mentioned in other comments, you probably don't need 64-bitness that much (unless running code processing lots of big numbers), but those extra registers you get in 64-bit mode give you a nice speed boost. And people already have enough memory in their boxes to see a benefit today (> 1GB is enough since you avoid all those TLB flushes and all that, this applies to Windows and Linux, >= 4GB for a big boost since you don't need that PAE crap)
You know, for all the bullshit about how Linux is ahead of MS in the 64 bit department, that's _not_ my experience with it.
Sometime during th last half of last year, i.e., after more than a year of "Linux is 64 bit already" bullshit, I actually gave it a try. Gentoo, to be precise. Let me tell you how it worked:
There were almost no drivers for anything. Not for the hard drive, not for AGP, not for anything. And that was on a Via K8T800 chipset, i.e., the chipset the A64 was launched with.
Which is just as well, because ATI also had no 64 bit drivers for my 9800 XT. I ended up staring into a 60 Hz VESA Framebuffer display for about a week before I uninstalled it.
And you know how slow that framebuffer was? Let's just say it's the first time I saw DSL downloads being braked by the speed of updating the progress bar.
But maybe it had 64 bit applications? Nope, guess again. No 64 bit OpenOffice, no 64 bit Eclipse, not one goddamn app I needed to use was ported yet. Just for a lark I tried emerging Pingus. (God knows the framebuffer speed didn't promise to be good for a game.) Guess what? That one wasn't 64 bit ready, either.
So you folks are telling me... what? That a freakin' useless system with no apps and no drivers counts as being ahead of MS? Yeah, right. That MS sucks for not loading 32 bit drivers... just like Linux didn't load ATI's 32 bit drivers? That MS's marketting is more guilty than the bleating zealots promoting a Linux system without drivers or apps as a finished and production-ready solution?
Sometimes this kind of zealotry strikes me like doing more harm than good. I can tell you that _I_ am not looking forward to trying 64 bit Linux again. (And I'm writing this in Konqueror in 32 bit mode Gentoo linux right now, so you can spare the "Redmond fanboy" wisecracks.) I think other people who got tricked by that zealotry would be even less inclined to give it another try, ever.
It may not be obvious, but _some_ truth in advertising can go a long way. Yes, we're all nerds, we're all outraged as the "creative puffering" that marketting does. But one-upping them via outright lies and outright promoting an unfinished product where only the kernel and GCC is anywhere near 64 bit ready, well, is just a way to shoot the whole Linux community in the foot.
It may not be obvious, but the _only_ use and reason to live of a computer or an OS is to run an apps, and of those is to solve a problem the user has. Same as a tool. You don't buy a microwave oven as an ideological statement against gas ovens, you buy them to actually heat some stuff in them. Same with computers.
And there a tool which sorta is imperfect beats a tool which is completely useless any day.
That's the problem with the mindless zealotry: you sold someone a solution based on _your_ ideology, rather than his needs, you've lost him as a customer for good. That tool from MS is very very imperfect, yes, but it does run Paintshop, some games, etc. It does what Joe Average wants. If your big ideology win is selling Joe a tool which doesn't do that, you haven't converted him, you've just gained someone who'll tell all his friends to stay off that Linux crap.
Just food for thought.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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.
a: not strange
b: nothing to do with drivers:
1: makes people upgrade to faster machine anyway - wow this runs faster (more ram etc)
2: bouys IT industry with another round of upgrades
delta: microsoft often make people upgrade thier os to have a new media plyer, browser or web server, if they made it.
So not suprising.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Erm.... b***ocks. I'm running Linux on an Athlon64 for six months now, and everything's there and functional on the hardware you mention.
OK there's no 64 bit openoffice yet, but the 32 bit binary version works perfectly.
You're talking utter rubbish. Everything works, including IDE, SATA, Gigabit Ethernet, 8x AGP and accelerated graphics. It plays Doom 3 like a dream.
WTF did you do wrong?!!
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
I call Bullshit.
i have been running linux on a dual Opteron for 4 months now with NO problems. granted I went Nvidia, and they care about releasing drives for linux people so I had no problems there... UT2004 in 64 bit (yup the 64 bit version of the linux app is on the install CD's) is screaming fast. All drivers are there in 64 bit goodness, SATA is happy as well as my u320 Scsi raid.
Care to actually list the hardware you claim that there was no support for? Myself and several others in the LUG have no problems with 64bit linux. Also anyone having a shit fit over an office app running in 32 bit mode really needs to get a life. We have been using Suse 9.2 and it runs all the 32 bit apps happily on the 64 bit system. If you were a real gentoo user you would have known how to get 32 bit emulation turned on.
here, waht help? this obscure website
Suse has it set up for you already, but as a Gentoo user you must be an advanced linux pro to choose it over a newbie distro like Suse that configures everything for you already.
this is NOT a dig on Gentoo users, you guys typically are levels above the "I hate text files" crowd, I just know that the parent is lying and am trying to make a point about it.
if the parent is actually truthful i strongly suggest he choose a distro that has more automatic configurations and is ready for 64 bit like Suse.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Hmmm, I've had a completely different experience with 64 bit Gentoo... I'm currently running 64 bit Gentoo Linux on an FX-55 chip. I dual booted into WinXP 64 bit for a little while, but found the lack of native 64 bit applications (and especially drivers) to be irritating (I'm not a big fan of Windows to begin with either). I've found the biggest speed increases have nothing to do with 64 bit code though. In fact memory access seems to be way, way, way faster. There is also no more "bigmem" option, which was required to address more than 768MB of RAM in 32 bit Linux (at the expense of performance). Ok, so some apps seem to have benefited, and there is a lot of 64 bit optimized code for Linux, but man, applications (32 bit or 64 bit) launch faster, the OS boots faster... I'm really happy with the 64 bit switch. My experience with 64 bit WinXP was much more similar to what you describe with 64 bit Gentoo actually... No drivers, no 64 bit binaries, nothing ran correctly. The few 64 bit drivers that were out there (nVidia mostly) were stripped down versions of the 32 bit software; no supporting apps/control panels. Sound was all FUBAR too (not to imply that 64 bit ALSA was easy to get working). This all seemed to be related to the inability to install non "64 bit Windows Certified" drivers.
The browser thing (32 bit plugins don't work) was annoying at first... Then I just installed adblock and told it to strip out all flash content. I don't even miss it :) You can use Konqueror with 32 bit plugins, but c'mon, who wants to have to run two web browsers just to see flash ads?
For me, the real frustrating parts of running a 64 bit OS right now are two fold. One, all the closed-source CODECs are still 32 bit only which means a side-by-side install of 32 bit media players is required to say, play WM files in Linux. That side-by-side install is the other pain. Though Gentoo has done a good job of it, I have two of every library installed; one 32 bit and one 64 bit. Some apps have to be compiled 32 bit, which GCC does a good job of, but if it gets linked to a 64 bit library or gets pissy about a 64 bit dependancy, you're sunk.
All-in-all I've seen no reason whatsoever (for ME) to run 64 bit Windows when the open source community has been working so hard to churn out a butt-load of 64 bit apps (the 64 bit Gentoo Portage tree is almost as large as the 32 bit tree now). The big irony is that I've been chomping at the bit for a 64 bit Windows release to spur the authoring of 64 bit drivers, CODECs, and games. So bigs thumbs up here for 64 bit Windows even though I have no plans to run it.
I'm going to go ahead and say it though; 64 bit Windows XP PRO RC2 (the latest 64bit Win I ran) can't hold a candel to 64 bit Gentoo Linux. That said, I did spend a lot of time reading up on 64 bit Linux and waited until nVidia released 64 bit drivers, then bought an nVidia mobo/GPU. I would have been really mad if I had to load 2D-only drivers on my 6800 Ultra, but then I wouldn't drop $500 on a graphics card until I made sure that it supported by the OS I intended to run. I'm also not going to let my horrible experience with 64 bit Windows sour me on the OS forever; I'll simply try again down the road when it is more "main stream". If MS makes a better 64 bit OS than Linux - I'll switch.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.