samsung.204b
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2006
- Messages
- 180
will 64bit vista be adopted in the same time they release vista 32bit? should 64bit drivers and applications be available at the same time too?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
when will we move to 64bit?
- Thread starter samsung.204b
- Start date
There will have to be a substantial install base to encourage more and more driver and software developers to spend more time and effort on the 64 bit coding. It definitely will happen, so that's not the question. I've actually toyed with installing XP64 on my new system to give it a whirl. I don't have any reason to, other than that almighty "cuz I can" factor.
samsung.204b
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2006
- Messages
- 180
i know it will happen. just i want to know how soon, i have a 64bit cpu now and vista 64bit will soon come, but what about the 99% of the other kind of software like drivers, games, applications, etc.?
swatbat
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 13,052
I'm thinking that the round after vista will be the big turning point to 64bit. By that time all of the procs should have full 64 bit support. I just don't think we will see vista being the switch os.
Agree with swatbat. If we do see 64-bit becoming the everday choice for a 64-bit desktop OS during Vista's product lifespan I'd imagine it would be well toward the end of that period. Sure, it might make some things detecably more responsive and measurably faster, but the reality is that it simply isn't needed for the vast majority of people.
QTF. I see vista as more of the "transitionOS" into 64 bit. By the time the next version of windows comes out (2010 at the earliest I'd imagine) we'll be seeing more and more 64 bit stuff to the point that we should be close to full conversionswatbat said:
samsung.204b
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2006
- Messages
- 180
ameoba said:
what the heck is 64bit good for then?
Without a healthy dose of applications that are written for 64 bit code, there isn't anything it's good for, aside from bragging rights and e-wang enlargment. That's why, on a typical desktop computer, there's no reason to run it right now, since very little, if anything is slated to take advantage of it. XP64 was a proof-of-concept product...to get developers and hardware manufacturers thinking down the road. Until the vast majority of processors in use are 64 bit capable, it's not even going to be an option.
As soon as sheeple stop whining about "we dont need it" "How many peple actually use 4gigs of RAM?"
I say if your building a new computer today, build it 64bit. The fact is that most of us that visit [H] are already using 2gigs of RAM, and the next upgrade cycle we will be at 4gigs.... Then you'll be kickin yourself in the head for not going 64bit.
Build smart, not what others tell you.
I say if your building a new computer today, build it 64bit. The fact is that most of us that visit [H] are already using 2gigs of RAM, and the next upgrade cycle we will be at 4gigs.... Then you'll be kickin yourself in the head for not going 64bit.
Build smart, not what others tell you.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
duby229 said:
well, its impossible to build a computer without 64-bit capability now anyway... so this is a moot point
Tekara
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,970
The laptop core duo's are all 32bit, it's only here recently that the 64 bit core 2 duo's are available. There's still plenty of 32bit laptops to be had.
duby229 said:
There's quite a difference between "have 4 gigs", "use 4 gigs" and "need 4 gigs". We won't be seeing a situation where systems with RAM in excess of 2 gigs are coomonplace until such time as you see entry level preassembled systems sold with that much RAM as standard. That won't be happening until such time as basic, everyday computing activities require that much RAM to be installed in systems. We won't be seeing 64-bit Windows become anything other than an "option" for mainstream users until that all occurs.
Sure, it's an essential item for people who run certain software. Sure, it's an attractive option for enthusiasts who want to specc their systems up and maximise benchmark results. But those things don't legitimise blanket claims which suggest that 'everybody' should be fitting massive amounts of RAM and using the 64-bit OS installation. Not everybody who visits a board such as this to seek advice is a 'hardkore' enthusiast and following that advice isn't necessarily 'smart' for everybody!
Catweazle said:
I think if you choose to go back and "read" R-E-A-D r e a d what I said you'll notice that I mentioned this site. I did NOT make a blanket statement about anything. So take you words out of my mouth please....
And YES the fact is that most COMMON computers that you can buy in retail have 1GIG of RAM, MOST of US on the [H] use at least 2GIGS. These are facts deal with it. The next upgrade cycle will put most of US on the [H] at 4GIGS...... If your building a computer today, and you build with less then 2GIGS... Well needless to say you shouldnt be building anything. And on the next upgrade cycle if your building with less then 4GIGS needless to say you shouldnt be building anything.
I dont think this is anything new. Most of us knew this day was coming three years ago. If MS doesnt get ready for 64bit by next year they will have some major issues on there hands. And if anyone is NOT building 64bit today then it is there own fault come next year when they find out how expensive the required upgrade will be.
Build smart, not what other people tell you to. That's what I said and I'm sticking to it.
So what about all the people who currently have no need for 2 GB of memory, such as my-in-laws who check e-mail, browse the web, and print out pictures? It certainly would be a waste of money for them to buy 2 GB of memory.duby229 said:
Again, I'll go back to my example above. I'm building them a budget computer. What would they need 64 bit computing for?duby229 said:
You should heed your own advice. Building smart means building for the needs of the owner/user. You are failing to remember that not everyone out there is a member of a forum like this, where high end computers are a must. Do you really think 64 bit will be the primary platform within a year? It will be yearS before anyone with only a 32 bit machine will be "left behind". Take a wider look at the computing industry as a whole, not just a tiny group of enthusiasts.duby229 said:
djnes said:
Are they building there own computer? And are they [H]? If you answered no to any of these questions then you need not apply. My comments are strictly limited to enthusiast building there own computer. As I clearly laid out above.
djnes said:
Once again putting words in my mouth. As an enthusiast if YOU were to build a computer for your own personal needs, and YOU built it with less then 2GIGS today then YOU dont have any right building a computer today.
djnes said:
Building smart means building to the BENEFIT of the end user, AND to prevent hassles for yourself in the future. I understand the urge to rip people off so that you can make a quick buck, but if this describes you then then maybe you should re-evaluate your occupation.
Come next year when we --ENTHUSIASTS-- start using 4GIGS regularly everyone who didnt plan there upgrading path ahead will be kickin themselfs in the head.
Again build smart, not what others te;ll you to. That is what I said and I'm stickin to it.
That was your comment, duby229, and it doesn't restrict the suggestion to only "enthusiasts". Intentional or not, it was a blanket statement which suggests that everybody should be building systems which include 2 to 4Gb of RAM, and stating that most visitors to [H] already have such systems.duby229 said:
Your clarification that the suggestion is restricted to those people who are building a new system and who would like to think of themselves as "hard" is more helpful, because it clearly identifies the suggestion as ego-driven rather than as one motivated by practical concerns.
I would think it painfully obvious, from reading the questions about Windows Vista over recent weeks, that a substantial proportion of newcomers making queries of this nature are not, in fact, people who fall into such a category.
Yep that is exactly what I said. If your building your own computer today, and you build it with less then two gigs of memory then you have no business building a computer today. Come the next upgrade cycle it will be 4 gigs..... Seeing as how this is the [H] forums I think it is clear that this commect is geared towqards enthusiasts.
I even mentioned that specifically so you can stop trying to put meaning in what I said that isnt there.
I stated simply that most people who visit these forums and are also building a computer today. I'm sure there are lots of people with existing computers... DUHH. But this comment is geared strictly to those people who are building a new computer.
Stop trying to put meaning where it doesnt exist. I know what I said so you can stop trying to put words in my mouth.
I even mentioned that specifically so you can stop trying to put meaning in what I said that isnt there.
I stated simply that most people who visit these forums and are also building a computer today. I'm sure there are lots of people with existing computers... DUHH. But this comment is geared strictly to those people who are building a new computer.
Stop trying to put meaning where it doesnt exist. I know what I said so you can stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Server market AND those people who regularly perform really large calculations or regularly work with really large files. That's a pretty restricted range of applications, and they're not generally ones which equate with personal or household computer usage.
Whilst 64-bit computing certainly isn't wholly and solely about access to larger amounts of installed RAM, it is the need to access larger amounts which will make 64-bit Windows essential, and thus cement it, rather than 32-bit Windows, as the desktop 'standard'. And there's simply nothing in the home usage arena which looks likely to mandate such a thing. Multimedia? Not many people actually use their PCs to edit home movies and author DVDs from them. Gaming? Good grief, PC gaming is already marginalised so far that it's suffering. Drop the requirement of a server/workstation-style PC on top of the expensive demands for graphics hardware and PC gaming is likely to drop stone-cold dead!
I quite honestly believe that we're several years away from any scenario whereby ordinary users need such PCs. I quite honestly believe that most "enthusiasts" adding such large amounts of RAM to their systems are currently doing so simply because they can, rather than because they 'need' to. (Not that it's a bad thing, of course. I'm simply being honest here.) Heading down the 64-bit/4Gb path, just at present, can improve your system's productivity in a very restricted range of specialised applications. For the most part, though, all it can do is add a few very expensive extra 'points' to bench tests, with little to no appreciable productivity improvement.
And I quite honestly believe that it's a misconception to assume that anybody visiting a message board to ask questions is necessarily a [H]ard(kore) enthusiast who cares about little else other than bench test scores, even if that message board has an [H] in its name! Anybody assuming that mustn't be reading the posts made very carefully at all!
Whilst 64-bit computing certainly isn't wholly and solely about access to larger amounts of installed RAM, it is the need to access larger amounts which will make 64-bit Windows essential, and thus cement it, rather than 32-bit Windows, as the desktop 'standard'. And there's simply nothing in the home usage arena which looks likely to mandate such a thing. Multimedia? Not many people actually use their PCs to edit home movies and author DVDs from them. Gaming? Good grief, PC gaming is already marginalised so far that it's suffering. Drop the requirement of a server/workstation-style PC on top of the expensive demands for graphics hardware and PC gaming is likely to drop stone-cold dead!
I quite honestly believe that we're several years away from any scenario whereby ordinary users need such PCs. I quite honestly believe that most "enthusiasts" adding such large amounts of RAM to their systems are currently doing so simply because they can, rather than because they 'need' to. (Not that it's a bad thing, of course. I'm simply being honest here.) Heading down the 64-bit/4Gb path, just at present, can improve your system's productivity in a very restricted range of specialised applications. For the most part, though, all it can do is add a few very expensive extra 'points' to bench tests, with little to no appreciable productivity improvement.
And I quite honestly believe that it's a misconception to assume that anybody visiting a message board to ask questions is necessarily a [H]ard(kore) enthusiast who cares about little else other than bench test scores, even if that message board has an [H] in its name! Anybody assuming that mustn't be reading the posts made very carefully at all!
Catweazle said:
I know I don't. Yes I run benchmarks when I first build, but that's about it. I mostly care how it works with the games and apps I run. Now I will say that EQ does load zones much faster with 2gb (which is why I did the upgrade), but for most people, I think 1gb is more than enough.
Games may drive hardware, but most computers aren't for games and fewer still for video editing.
My next machine may have 4gb of ram....but my guess is my next build is 2 or 3 years off....I'll swap processors. I'll change video cards, but I doubt I'll switch from 939 to AM2 or Core2 before then...and I'm not buying 4gb if I'm not on DDR2 or DDR3.