64 bit ??

[pentoman]

Hi,

4 months ago I bought an AMD 64 bit computer, which would be future proof for when 64 bit fully comes along. Windows XP 64 bit has been around for ages now and many PC's being sold today must be 64 bit.

I'm quite amazed to find so few manufacturers offering 64-bit drivers for their hardware though. I can't get on the internet because my D-link Wireless network card has no 64 bit drivers. D-link's general attitude is approximately 'sorry we have no plans for 64 bit drivers at the moment'.

I can't understand what they are thinking? It's not like 64-bit is some fad that's going to pass, it's a requirement for the future and PCs can't really go any faster without it (because 32 bit limits PCs to 2GB of RAM).

Am I missing something? I know it was the same when Windows 2000 came along, how long was it until that was a viable option.

Anyone know any good wireless stuff manufacturers? D-link have now made the list because of this poor driver support, joining Netgear for all round crappy products and useless India support centre, and Linksys for my crashy router!


Russell

[robbieduncan]

Windows x64 Pro is not really mainstream yet. Most people I know with Athlon64s (or 64bit Pentiums) are still using 32bit Windows XP. Once more people move over to it (or perhaps when Vista ships) there will be a lot more drivers coming out. Personally I've not had a lot of issues with x64, but I only use mine for gaming...

[annodomini2]

pentoman said:

Hi, 4 months ago I bought an AMD 64 bit computer, which would be future proof for when 64 bit fully comes along. Windows XP 64 bit has been around for ages now and many PC's being sold today must be 64 bit. I'm quite amazed to find so few manufacturers offering 64-bit drivers for their hardware though. I can't get on the internet because my D-link Wireless network card has no 64 bit drivers. D-link's general attitude is approximately 'sorry we have no plans for 64 bit drivers at the moment'. I can't understand what they are thinking? It's not like 64-bit is some fad that's going to pass, it's a requirement for the future and PCs can't really go any faster without it (because 32 bit limits PCs to 2GB of RAM). Am I missing something? I know it was the same when Windows 2000 came along, how long was it until that was a viable option. Anyone know any good wireless stuff manufacturers? D-link have now made the list because of this poor driver support, joining Netgear for all round crappy products and useless India support centre, and Linksys for my crashy router! Russell

Due to the current widespread use of 32Bit systems and applications, there is currently a transition period while most people update to the latest equipment and software, until then support from 3 party suppliers is going to be thin on the ground. This will probably occur with Vista.

pentoman said:

(because 32 bit limits PCs to 2GB of RAM).

This is incorrect, 4GB acutally, 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes. Although there are ways around this.

Many 8 bit systems run way more than 256bytes of ram, e.g. spectrum.

I have found 32bit motherboards that will run upto 12GB of ram.

[roop]

annodomini2 said:

Many 8 bit systems run way more than 256bytes of ram, e.g. spectrum.

I think my i8086 was 8 bit and that had 640k

[twister]

annodomini2 said:

Many 8 bit systems run way more than 256bytes of ram, e.g. spectrum.

This highlights one of the problems when talking about the bit-ness of a cpu, because when someone refers to an n-bit cpu what they're usually on about is the width of the data bus, which is generally not the same as the width of the address bus...

[Jinx]

roop said:

annodomini2 said: Many 8 bit systems run way more than 256bytes of ram, e.g. spectrum. I think my i8086 was 8 bit and that had 640k

IIRC the 8086 was based on a 16 bit architecture - the 8088 was 8 bit.

[Zod]

Jinx said:

roop said: annodomini2 said: Many 8 bit systems run way more than 256bytes of ram, e.g. spectrum. I think my i8086 was 8 bit and that had 640k IIRC the 8086 was based on a 16 bit architecture - the 8088 was 8 bit.

It was a combination of 8 bit and 16 bit.

As for 64 bit drivers, later this years, when Windows Vista comes out, manufacturers will have to have 64 bit drivers ready.

[Jinx]

Zod said:

It was a combination of 8 bit and 16 bit. As for 64 bit drivers, later this years, when Windows Vista comes out, manufacturers will have to have 64 bit drivers ready.

I'll bow to your superness It did have a 16 bit data bus didn't it or was that a dream I had

>> Edited by Jinx on Tuesday 7th March 12:51

[aldi]

Jinx said:

Zod said: It was a combination of 8 bit and 16 bit. As for 64 bit drivers, later this years, when Windows Vista comes out, manufacturers will have to have 64 bit drivers ready. I'll bow to your superness It did have a 16 bit data bus didn't it or was that a dream I had >> Edited by Jinx on Tuesday 7th March 12:51

You Dream about data busses?

[dilbert]

as far as I understand it there are no plans to move the MS compiler into a 64bit executable, although obviously that will not prevent it producing a 64 bit executable.

The main reason for this is that most of the existing 64 bit hardware only provides a 64 bit address bus. With this in mind, if you have a "data intensive" application with a lot of pointer manipulation like a compiler, quite often the resulting executable is slower, and sometimes as much as twice the size.

64 bit is a logical progression, but it's not really a panacea, in the way that perhaps the step up from 486 to pentium was.

The current proposal is to provide seamless support using the existing WOW32 code under Vista. As I understand it the only Win32 prototypes that will change between 32 and 64 bit runtimes is "RegisterClass" and "CreateWindow". Basically it sounds like the core of Vista is just a recompiled XP. I'd imagine that the platform has additional capabilites, however.

[lockstock2sb]

I use xp 64 bit and got drivers for every piece of kit i use on it. Its solid as a rock and i'm very pleased. Not much difference between 64 and 32 at the moment but as soon as the 64 bit apps and games come out it will come into its own.

someone must do wireless nic drivers for their products - might just need some investigation

[dilbert]

lockstock2sb said:

I use xp 64 bit and got drivers for every piece of kit i use on it. Its solid as a rock and i'm very pleased. Not much difference between 64 and 32 at the moment but as soon as the 64 bit apps and games come out it will come into its own. someone must do wireless nic drivers for their products - might just need some investigation

That sounds about right. It ought to be reliable, since it's basically the same inside. The only thing I'd say is that I wouldn't be expecting 64bit wordprocessors to be coming along.

The way to see 64bit is that if your computer can do it then it's good, because some apps may need it, and an older machine wouldn't be able to run them. The thing is that there aren't really that many apps that actually need it.

[lockstock2sb]

dilbert said:

lockstock2sb said: I use xp 64 bit and got drivers for every piece of kit i use on it. Its solid as a rock and i'm very pleased. Not much difference between 64 and 32 at the moment but as soon as the 64 bit apps and games come out it will come into its own. someone must do wireless nic drivers for their products - might just need some investigation That sounds about right. It ought to be reliable, since it's basically the same inside. The only thing I'd say is that I wouldn't be expecting 64bit wordprocessors to be coming along. The way to see 64bit is that if your computer can do it then it's good, because some apps may need it, and an older machine wouldn't be able to run them. The thing is that there aren't really that many apps that actually need it.

Thats quite true - mines for games anyway so i'm more likely to be able to make use of the 64bit architecture

[annodomini2]

lockstock2sb said:

I use xp 64 bit and got drivers for every piece of kit i use on it. Its solid as a rock and i'm very pleased. Not much difference between 64 and 32 at the moment but as soon as the 64 bit apps and games come out it will come into its own. someone must do wireless nic drivers for their products - might just need some investigation

Games yes, apps unlikely, unless your running Matlab or AutoCAD, possibly graphics programs. Most apps can quite happily run in 32Bit, that is why it has survived for so long.

[anonymous-user]

annodomini2 said:

pentoman said: (because 32 bit limits PCs to 2GB of RAM). This is incorrect, 4GB acutally, 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes. Although there are ways around this. Many 8 bit systems run way more than 256bytes of ram, e.g. spectrum. I have found 32bit motherboards that will run upto 12GB of ram.

But under 32bit windows you're limited to 2GB RAM per process. This restriction is removed in XP x64 / Win2k3 x64. However, I'm unsure as to why this restriction should be removed under 64 bit windows when it's not applicable to 32bit *nix.

[annodomini2]

LexSport said:

annodomini2 said: pentoman said: (because 32 bit limits PCs to 2GB of RAM). This is incorrect, 4GB acutally, 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes. Although there are ways around this. Many 8 bit systems run way more than 256bytes of ram, e.g. spectrum. I have found 32bit motherboards that will run upto 12GB of ram. But under 32bit windows you're limited to 2GB RAM per process. This restriction is removed in XP x64 / Win2k3 x64. However, I'm unsure as to why this restriction should be removed under 64 bit windows when it's not applicable to 32bit *nix.

It'll be dependent on the implementation of the windows memory management strategy, if they used a signed type (because they're morons), it would be 2,147,483,647 max positive value.

Also depends on the memory architechture, either way it sounds like bad programming.

The MS compiler is so bad, back when windows 95 came out, MS supposedly sold the rights for windows 3.1 to IBM (prerequesite of OSX).

IBM apparently rebuilt the existing code with their own compiler, without changing a line of code, from the MS compiler it was 31MB (this is when 120mb HDD were £200!), the result was supposedly 8MB and ran upto 5x faster. Although i cannot confirm this.

[anonymous-user]

annodomini2 said:

It'll be dependent on the implementation of the windows memory management strategy, if they used a signed type (because they're morons), it would be 2,147,483,647 max positive value.

That'll be it! Ta. Hence the move to a signed 64bit integer gives a theoretical max of 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (2^63) Should be enough even for our company's Java servers.

[dilbert]

annodomini2 said:

LexSport said: annodomini2 said: pentoman said: (because 32 bit limits PCs to 2GB of RAM). This is incorrect, 4GB acutally, 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes. Although there are ways around this. Many 8 bit systems run way more than 256bytes of ram, e.g. spectrum. I have found 32bit motherboards that will run upto 12GB of ram. But under 32bit windows you're limited to 2GB RAM per process. This restriction is removed in XP x64 / Win2k3 x64. However, I'm unsure as to why this restriction should be removed under 64 bit windows when it's not applicable to 32bit *nix. It'll be dependent on the implementation of the windows memory management strategy, if they used a signed type (because they're morons), it would be 2,147,483,647 max positive value. Also depends on the memory architechture, either way it sounds like bad programming. The MS compiler is so bad, back when windows 95 came out, MS supposedly sold the rights for windows 3.1 to IBM (prerequesite of OSX). IBM apparently rebuilt the existing code with their own compiler, without changing a line of code, from the MS compiler it was 31MB (this is when 120mb HDD were £200!), the result was supposedly 8MB and ran upto 5x faster. Although i cannot confirm this.

And there you have a Mac Person.....

I don't think it's to do with signed unsigned integers. The merits of reserving vast ammounts of space for "system use" are dubious however.

I wouldn't be surprised if IBM ommited the /O2 option though, it'd help their case. Version 12 is pretty good, it's quite loose, which I like, although I'm gonna hate one day! It only does chars and longs in reality!

I guess however you've not used GNU for things like the 8051. Those sorts of things are bad compilers. Maybe some of the early stuff that did VHDL 87!

[maddog-uk]

I am going to redmond 2 weeks today so will be asking this exact question on behalf of my employers. I am happy to post the response. I am very fruastrated at the adoption rate, but I am finding on the server side more stuff is coming out daily. In our testing on AMD boxes we saw a 300% performance increase on server 2003 64bit, which has shocked us as we only put in for comparison purposes!

[annodomini2]

dilbert said:

annodomini2 said: LexSport said: annodomini2 said: pentoman said: (because 32 bit limits PCs to 2GB of RAM). This is incorrect, 4GB acutally, 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes. Although there are ways around this. Many 8 bit systems run way more than 256bytes of ram, e.g. spectrum. I have found 32bit motherboards that will run upto 12GB of ram. But under 32bit windows you're limited to 2GB RAM per process. This restriction is removed in XP x64 / Win2k3 x64. However, I'm unsure as to why this restriction should be removed under 64 bit windows when it's not applicable to 32bit *nix. It'll be dependent on the implementation of the windows memory management strategy, if they used a signed type (because they're morons), it would be 2,147,483,647 max positive value. Also depends on the memory architechture, either way it sounds like bad programming. The MS compiler is so bad, back when windows 95 came out, MS supposedly sold the rights for windows 3.1 to IBM (prerequesite of OSX). IBM apparently rebuilt the existing code with their own compiler, without changing a line of code, from the MS compiler it was 31MB (this is when 120mb HDD were £200!), the result was supposedly 8MB and ran upto 5x faster. Although i cannot confirm this. And there you have a Mac Person..... I don't think it's to do with signed unsigned integers. The merits of reserving vast ammounts of space for "system use" are dubious however. I wouldn't be surprised if IBM ommited the /O2 option though, it'd help their case. Version 12 is pretty good, it's quite loose, which I like, although I'm gonna hate one day! It only does chars and longs in reality! I guess however you've not used GNU for things like the 8051. Those sorts of things are bad compilers. Maybe some of the early stuff that did VHDL 87!

Neither I'm an embedded software engineer.