Slashdot Mirror
Half of Windows 7 Machines Running 64-Bit Version
nk497 writes "Microsoft has said that nearly half of machines running Windows 7 are using the 64-bit version, up from just 11% of PCs running Vista. The 32-bit version is limited to 4GB RAM, while the 64-bit version allows 192GB, as well as added security and virtualization capabilities. While Microsoft is pushing 64-bit as a way to gain performance in the OS, it earlier this year advised users to install the 32-bit version of Office 2010, 'because currently many common add-ins for Office will not function in the 64-bit edition.'"
The reality is though that 10% of Windows systems are 64-bit (there's actually still more systems running Vista than Windows 7 out there, although the gap is shrinking). The vast majority of Windows desktops are still running the 32-bit version of Windows XP, and that's not going to change until businesses decide they have a compelling reason to upgrade.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein
We use the 32 bit at work for the compatability with old the old MS Access databases (don't ask... I just work here...)
I use the 64 bit at home - even though it causes some odd glitches with various games here and there, for the most part it runs everything much smoother. I decided that I'd need more than 4 Gigs of RAM to run Visual Studio to Debug my modified Source game.
Just got the word that the desktop team is pushing out Window 7. Unfortunately, there are "a couple" of printers that they couldn't get working 64b drivers for. So they are pushing the 32b version out to everyone...
Blows my mind... It would cost at most a $5000 to replace those printers, compared to the cost of 600+ copies of Windows 7. Crazy.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
We've only been waiting FOREVER for a Win64 version of Flash from adobe...
They probably don't feel like they need to rush it, because, as it is, Win7 x64 still ships with 32-bit IE as a default browser (due to need to preserve plugin compatibility), and all other mainstream browsers only release officially supported Windows versions in 32-bit.
Games are a big deal. For those of us who *aren't* using Linux, we're well past the days of CGA games that run from a single floppy. Some of us demand more, and all of that map and texture data isn't just going to store itself.
And games are just for starters. What about music and video? You can't play MP3s or watch Blu-Ray video (or any other type for that matter) with 640k of RAM. Some people want to use our PCs for more than spreadsheets or word processors, and 640k is more than a little limiting.
(Admittedly, modern word processors and spreadsheet programs are definitely more bloated than they really need to be, but we've gained functionality as a result -- like the ability to actually see what our documents will look like when they're printed, instead of lines of monospaced text. Being able to edit larger documents and spreadsheets without continually having to go to disk to get more data is nice too.)
If they can't test it, they don't want to ship with it.
I had to work on someone's Vista 64 bit machine and I hated it. Not only were half the programs running in 32 bit mode but almost none of my virus removal tools worked so I couldn't completely disinfect it. Three different antivirus programs wouldn't install properly on it either. Almost no software I had ran on it and for some reason, Java 32 bit was installed and 64 bit wouldn't install. If I wanted a computer that no software ran on, I'd buy a mac.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Is there a reason they can't go above the artificial limit of 192 GB?
Is there a realistic way of testing it past that amount?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Did you just say that we don't have 64-bit flash because Windows uses 32-bit IE because we don't have 64-bit flash?
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
There are multiple version with multiple flavors at different price points that confuses "people". Add to this the finicky way upgrades behave and "upgrade upgrade" software and it is no wonder a lot of people don't care or realize a 64-bit version exists.
x86-64 can only address 48-bits and Windows only addresses 44-bits (16 TB). The Windows limitation is interesting because no windows release to date can even touch that address limitation.
My best guess would be that OS releases are artificially limited to the amount of memory they actually test internally against. Home Premium probably doesn't get serious testing beyond 16GB while Ultimate might get tested against 192GB workstation hardware. High end server releases probably get tested with up to 2TB (probably the maximum amount of hardware available at time of testing). 32-bit desktops probably don't even get tested with PAE enabled at all since chances are desktop hardware drivers will crash and burn so they get a 4GB limit.
If I wanted a computer that no software ran on, I'd buy a mac.
Ha Ha. But what do you mean? The 64 bit transition there has been much smoother. And these days what doesn't run on a Mac? You can after all even run Steam now...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The real issue is market segmentation. The driver issues would not exist if the windows driver space made any damn sense.
It gets circular like that because developers are lazy fucks. So MS includes 32-bit IE, 32-bit Windows Media Player and so on as compatibility measures. Your old plugins will keep working in your new OS. They also have 64-bit versions so that when they upgrade you can use that, but they maintain old versions for compatibility. So, the lazy fucks at Adobe say "Well 32-bit is there, so we'll just keep that since that's what people use." People then say "Well Flash isn't out for 64-bit so I'll keep using 32-bit." You do get a circular situation. You can't blame the users, they use what is available, you need to blame the lazy shit devs.
Of course, despite the bitness upgrade, the closed Microsoft world remains stuck in the x86 world. Meanwhile, others are free to choose the best/nicest platform for the job.
The Windows NT line has run on the Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC architectures. Microsoft dropped support for these a long time ago because hardly anybody used anything other than Intel's offering. More recently, Apple has also chosen to do the same thing and most Linux desktops are x86.
So I guess being able to choose the best/nicest platform doesn't mean you will be any different than Microsoft.
I dunno.... I do understand it from the users' perspective. Sometimes, a printer or a scanner is clearly not a piece of shit, worthy of just throwing away, simply because nobody could be bothered to code updated drivers for it. EG. We have a couple of HP DesignJet plotters where I work that use the 42" roll paper. They probably cost well over $12,000 each when they were new, and even today, I see them selling for over $1,000 on eBay. HP never wrote drivers for them for any OS newer than Windows XP (although I understand a 3rd. party now sells a driver for Vista for them, for $150 or so a copy).
The idea that you'd just throw one of these away as part of a Windows 7 upgrade is ludicrous though. Most rational people would say "Screw that! I'm better off keeping a Windows XP box around just to run it on!" You have to figure, most places using these things also have an investment in ink cartridges and supplies to consider, and they're big and bulky. Shipping alone for a new replacement is not going to be cheap.
How many users will ever actually CARE that their OS is 64-bits vs. 32-bits? It doesn't matter for 95% of what people do every day with their PC, but forcing them to get rid of a well-liked piece of hardware they DO use regularly is going to bother them.
I have a very nice flatbed scanner that does 1200DPI. It isn't supported by Windows after XP, but it works fine in every single version of Linux I have tried it with.
Why would I want to replace perfectly working hardware? Do you value your money so little? Or do you just hate the thought of not being a "consumer", not buying the latest and greatest when it comes out?
There is no reason, except for the proprietary locked-down model of Windows, for that hardware to not keep working.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Desktop user? Why would they care? Also the performance impact is tiny compared to the impact of seeking on the harddisk. The article itself should come with a knowledge disclaimer:
"Half of the windows 7 Machines Running 64-bit Versions, 90% of users don't even realise"
The average desktop user doesn't know what defragment is, has 50 apps that load on startup, and think computers naturally get slower over time and simply require replacing.