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.
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?
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.
Because they have gotten alot of bad press about being behind Linux on the 64 bit release schedule for ~2 years. Now it is "released" but it is still sortof a closed release. Remember Microsoft has a really good marketing division, this is one of their achievements.
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.
You can get it on a machine and Microsoft will support you. Doesn't sound like Beta to me.
If you were Microsoft, would you like to deal with the long line of tech support calls explaining why the new version of Windows doesn't work on a Pentium Pro.
For the market they are targetting, their sales strategy makes perfect sense.
A speech...
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
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
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.
- Gentoo Linux for AMD64 has been out for well over a year. Plenty of other distros have too.
- Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, and other Unices have been 64-bit for years (not in the x86 architecture, but still, it's there).
- No drivers for my video card, wireless card, DVD+/-RW drive(!), etc., in Windows. If I upgrade Windows on this box (a brand new notebook) to the 64-bit edition, no games, networking, or burning for me. Wheee! But hey, "this is Windows" so I should be happy! Office should be enough for anybody.
:) - You ain't putting your CPU to "good use" until your apps are rebuilt as 64-bit binaries, and really only math-intensive apps (and less so for memory and system bandwidth intensive apps) are going to benefit. Photoshop might benefit a little, but not much. Games, again, maybe, but not much.
- Switching from 32-bit to 64-bit just for the fun of it will just cripple what you can currently do on the Windows platform right now. In Linux land, it all "just works" (with very few exceptions).
I'm no fan of Windows, but for once I can honestly say "64-bit Windows is the wrong tool for most every job right now."Read my stuff.
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
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.
No, Windows doesn't have an inate ability to do anything better. Nowhere in gp's statement did I read a claim that this was the case. "Best" does not denote just pure technical capacity. It can mean many things, such as user experience or availability of professional-quality product.
To further belabor the point and repeatedly kick a dead horse, the general gaming experience on Linux blows compared to what is available for Windows. This is not due to a technical fault in Linux. It is also not due some technical superiority in Windows. It is simply a description of the current market experience.
There was no BS in gp's statement. I don't like Microsoft either, but I like knee-jerk, unthinking FUD even less.
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.)
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
(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 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]
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.
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.