Are you guys running 32bit ver of vista or 64bit?

E

ellover009

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
1,908
Hey guys, I know there's quite a few of you that participated on the vista beta and final test, I'm wondering wich ver did you guys install 32bit or 64bit? Do you think 64bit will be the new break for 64bit processing?
 
I just made a post in another subforum that basically says this:

AMD is still a minor player in the grand scheme of things. The two largest names in the computer industry worldwide - Intel (with the Core 2 Duo and 64 bit support) and Microsoft (with XP64 on the back burner now and Vista 64 bit versions about to drop on the public) - are now fully committed to the 64 bit computing experience.

It took time, and it'll take more time to get 64 bit computing anywhere near the kind of penetration that 32 bit computing - which has been around for what, 20+ years now? - if it ever does. The hardware penetration - meaning Core 2 Duo processors - is growing very quickly considering all the high end E-series processors Intel is selling for desktops and the Merom lines for laptops, but it'll take a considerable amount of time to get people actually using that 64 bit capability with a 64 bit OS.

It's not a matter of "if" anymore, it's just a matter of "when".

/me runs Vista Ultimate 64... FYI
 
I mean since vista is a new o/s and a new o/s is usually requires a pc overhaul wouldt it have been a bit easier if microsoft said ok were going to stick to 64bit and well work from there instead of this mess with either 32bit or 64 bit bios. Most processors that pass the vista test are newer ones that usually sport 64 bit.
 
Opterons, Turion64s, Athlon64s and Core 2 Duos are the only ones that can handle 64 bit code presently. I doubt we'll see a Celeron do that anytime soon, and probably the Celeron line will simply cease to exist as the Pentium 4 line is soon to disappear itself and be replaced by just Core Solos and Core 2 Duos.

Not sure what you mean by "32 bit or 64 bit bios" there since current BIOS technology really has nothing to do with how the processor performs - that means the BIOS is just firmware, typically 16 bit code, but it has nothing to do with whether the hardware/processor can run 64 bit code.

The reason I pointed out that Intel and Microsoft are now fully behind 64 bit computing is the important one: AMD alone simply couldn't sway enough of the market, even with XP64 having been around for 2+ years now and Linux distros having been available for a much longer period of time.

Intel and Microsoft move the computer industry. The direction they take is where everyone else follows... or they end up being left behind.
 
i thought the pentium d line did 64 bit too? and i think the low ends do it as well.



for vista, i went 64 bit. because this is a new release, most companies seem a bit more motivated to spit out some drivers for 64bit
 
Martyr said:
i thought the pentium d line did 64 bit too? and i think the low ends do it as well.



for vista, i went 64 bit. because this is a new release, most companies seem a bit more motivated to spit out some drivers for 64bit
Click to expand...

Yea, there were P4s w/ "EMT64" as well, you're correct.
 
32 bits here... Will dip into 64 bits only when I buy a Vista package (no time to waste trying 64 bits on a beta version).
 
I know some games released some patches for 64bit version of xp, the showed some graphical improvements, I think the deal with 64bit is that it's not dos friendly or anything below 32bit processing,
 
Martyr said:
i thought the pentium d line did 64 bit too? and i think the low ends do it as well.



for vista, i went 64 bit. because this is a new release, most companies seem a bit more motivated to spit out some drivers for 64bit
Click to expand...

You sir win one Internet!!! :D

Yeah, I forgot all about the Pentium D lineup there, my apologies.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Intel and Microsoft move the computer industry. The direction they take is where everyone else follows... or they end up being left behind.
Click to expand...

Intel made the EMT64 extensions because of AMD (a virtual copy of x86_64).. so.. in a roundabout kind of way, AMD was moving the computer industry.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
You sir win one Internet!!! :D

Yeah, I forgot all about the Pentium D lineup there, my apologies.
Click to expand...

Many Celerons are also EMT64 aware as well, actually. ... and MS does not consider AMD to be a minor player. After AMD testified in court that MS was not a monopoly, MS rubbed their back by releasing XP x64 before Intel got their "IA32e" *cough* AMD64 *cough* processors out the door.

Microsoft also uses Opterons internally.
 
flint338 said:
Intel made the EMT64 extensions because of AMD (a virtual copy of x86_64).. so.. in a roundabout kind of way, AMD was moving the computer industry.
Click to expand...

AMD got the jump there, that's for sure. But they're just not enough on their own, and even Microsoft releasing XP64 to make use of those 64 bit processors wasn't enough - wasn't nearly enough - to even budge the industry towards 64 bit computing.

The failure of the Itanium product line, which worked for high end people but required massive hardware changes and retooling entire software lineups - hurt Intel pretty bad, and when they were down, AMD basically kicked them with the 64 bit introduction.

Instead of trying to start over from scratch would have been a waste of time and money - this is akin to Apple's choice to use FreeBSD as a base for OS X because they simply did not have the time required to write a brand new OS from scratch for Intel platforms when Motorola said "Thanks, but we're done with the CPU biz" - they chose to license the AMD64 technology and label it EM64T and that's that.

It still took time, however, because even with the 64 bit support the big money maker for Intel, AMD, and Microsoft is the OEM market.

AMD's introduction into the 64 bit market would be analogous to living in an apartment building with a neighbor that weighs 400 lbs that has a heart attack and hits the floor dead. That vibration you feel when their body slams into the carpet is when AMD entered the game, like 1.0 on the Richter scale.

Intel and Microsoft getting into this at almost the same time - with the Core 2 Duo and 64 bit versions of Vista almost on top of each other - would be analogous to the San Francisco earthquake of 1989, clocking in around 7.1 on the same Richter scale.

Sure, AMD got it moving, but they didn't move it. They still don't, and now that the Core 2 Duo reigns for Intel - which I call "The Return of The King" for fun - I don't think they ever will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top