Windows XP 64-Bit?

N

Night0wl

Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2000
Messages
876
So, those of us going to AMD64 or to the Opteron, what about the OS? I've recently placed an order for new 64-Bit hardware, a Tyan Tiger and Dual Opteron 240's.

Unfortunetly I have been intently researching hardware, and not entirely indepth into the software. Will XP 64 be needed, required, and or preferred? I imagine it will, but what information I can find on this is sparce.

What are you other 64-Bit owners doing?
 
Originally posted by Night0wl
So, those of us going to AMD64 or to the Opteron, what about the OS? I've recently placed an order for new 64-Bit hardware, a Tyan Tiger and Dual Opteron 240's.

Unfortunetly I have been intently researching hardware, and not entirely indepth into the software. Will XP 64 be needed, required, and or preferred? I imagine it will, but what information I can find on this is sparce.

What are you other 64-Bit owners doing?
Click to expand...
Running some form of Unix or Unix-like operating system. :)

Seriously, though...XP/x86-64 is a ways off still. However, XP/IA-32 (the XP we all know already) works fine on Opteron machines and will probably get the job done while you're waiting for XP/x86-64.

There's already a release XP/64...It just happens to be for XP/IA-64 (itanium).
 
And Windows XP 64 is delayed again since MS considers the SP2 more important. But hey even if Windows XP 64 bit comes out soon.

I wont care !! Where are my many APPS and Games for it ????

And since when is a first relase of windows a good one ??

Just wait .....as soon as MS comes our with a real 64bit OS, Intel will bring out a 64bit CPU too. They are to huge and large to ignore this. I read in another post where someone was saying that Intel will be left out since MS will only make a 64bit OS for AMD.

All I can say is "LOL" ...MS makes for the company with the largest market....and Intel is the largest. Did you all see the very fast implemantation of HT in windows xp ? I like the 64bit potential, but its not like many AMD Fans want it to be. Support will take time.

As soon as the largest fish comes out with a 64bit cpu, the other software houses will join in development.

-Florian

PS: 2004 should be interesting :) AMD has done a very nice job, with the A64. But will wait and see what really happens !!
 
I do regret not researching additional aspects of the 64Bit of things on software, but I do not have any regrets for buying the new board and procs, even if it will take me time to utilize them all fully.

This being more of a workstation for me I tend to get a bit more life out of it over time then any thing on a gaming side. This system will be around here for years on into the future when the 64bit side of software matures.

Even if it matures at a painfully slow rate, I will be there.
 
Intel already has a 64-bit CPU out. They just can't sell many. I guess you're referring to an Intel CPU that executes x86-64 code natively, though.

I've had a 64-bit workstation for a few years now. I don't see what the big hub-bub is all about. :)
 
Run a multi-terrabyte database or some high-end CAD/visualization software and you'll see what 64-bit computing is about. For desktop end users that extra 32-bits are pretty much useless aside from data compression and encryption, both large stream tasks. But yeah, it's just more marketing bull from AMD. Reminds me of the console wars in the mid 1990s where the companies put in multiple 8- and 16-bit chips so they could advertise that their console was 32/64/128-bit.
 
I'm not looking for someone to persuade me about marketting hype or software maturity levels.

I'm looking for information about what's available now, or that I should look for. There are no soap boxes here. ;)
 
I understand what you're saying. Even if you can't get apps in 64-bit, a 64-bit OS would be really nice. It's kinda like running an SMP aware OS but having little or no SMP aware software, at least you can manage multiple apps well. Hopefully some of the software vendors will get on the ball and get some software out the door. BTW - there are betas of XP 64-bit out currently. Like longhorn though, there will probably be a lot of in-house testing and beta testing before it is ready. I do believe XP 64-bit is scheduled for release prior to longhorn though.
 
Even on the 32-bit side with XP, the AMD-64 will have an advantage when SP2 is released. Memory protection features that are hardware based in the CPU that keep data from being written to executable areas and vice versa will be supported at that time (a lot harder to use a buffer overflow attack that way). These features are available and waiting on all AMD 64 based CPU's already.

Prescott's will be the first Intel processors to support it. Of course, they will be out by the time SP2 is as well. :)
 
I tried to resist, but I couldn't.

Due to their cross-licensing agreements with AMD in regards to the x86 instruction set, Intel does have full licensing rights to x86-64. It's just that Intel has publicly stated they aren't planning to realease such a processor. If they were going to do it anyway, they should have been moving long before now. Some vendors that have been exclusively Intel in the past are now brave enough to be releasing AMD-64 based hardware in the high margin server sector. To me that is the biggest indication so far.

Intel is betting that they can outperform AMD-64, while sticking with 32-bit code with extremely high core speeds and ramping their FSB speeds which causes HT to scale better as well, far enough into the future until they see the "killer app" appear on the horizon that really requires 64-bit code. By that time, they will have had several more iterations of the Itanium, and a pool of engineers with massively scalable 64-bit hardware down cold.

AMD is betting that the 64-bit killer app will arrive sooner rather than later and is designing to a hardware platform that doesn't have near the future scalability of Intel's current 64-bit hardware, beyond the processor, by sticking with x86 architecture. Who is right???

MS has been covering both bets by supporting Itanium development previously only on the server side, and starting AMD support on the consumer side. They can move support from one to the other very quickly as both are using the same kernel design at the core; as evidenced by a Server 2003 version with 64-bit support being on the way with x86-64 support.

Could the real reason for the slowdown on the delivery of Windws XP 64-bit be software engineers being transferred from XP 64 development to Server 2003 x86-64 development in addition to the stated focus on XP SP2? HMMMMM.

Could making home HiDef movies at 1080i then editing and burning them to Blue DVD be the 64-bit killer app?

Could it be to Intel, what the combination of IBM, MS-DOS, and Lotus 1-2-3 were to market dominators Apple, CPM, and Visiscalc when Apple's market share went from 90%+ to under 50% in a single year? And into the low double digits the next year after that?

Probably not, especially with the comparative sizes of the install base now as compared to then, but another app might...

We all get to wait and see.

Maybe the really scary part in all of this is Apple making the move to 64-bit consumer processors and starting into the 64-bit server market at the same time as AMD. :)

Or maybe I've been reading to much I, Cringely.
 
nessus

you do understand that MS has already released a workstation version of WINDOWS XP 64! it was released (iirc) about the same time as all the other XP's variantes (pro and home). But the Win xp 64 is for the i86 instruction set (read the itanium) and intel does make som workstation level boards in both single and SMP setups for the itanium (too bad they are hard to find, and cost too damn much) but they are there.


also keep in mind that when everyone went to a 32bit os it took years before companys stoped the 16 and even 8bit support for both hardware and software. I dont see the need or any program that will only run on 64 bit software for quite a while. I bet for atleast until middle of 2006 if not later all compaines will still make a 32 bit version of there software.


but i have been wrong before, so i might be wrong again.
 
Some of what I wrote was unclear, I shouldn't write at that time of morning. :)

MS has been covering both bets by supporting Itanium development previously only on the server side, and starting AMD support on the consumer side.
Click to expand...
should have been written as:

MS has been covering both bets by supporting Itanium development previous to XP/2003 only on the server side, and starting AMD support on the consumer side.

Also, I should have added one sentence that I thought was implied to the following paragraph.

Intel is betting that they can outperform AMD-64, while sticking with 32-bit code with extremely high core speeds and ramping their FSB speeds which causes HT to scale better as well, far enough into the future until they see the "killer app" appear on the horizon that really requires 64-bit code. By that time, they will have had several more iterations of the Itanium, and a pool of engineers with massively scalable 64-bit hardware down cold.
Click to expand...
The price of hardware equivalent to what they are using now will have dropped to consumer/small business affordable levels at that time.
 
Originally posted by dagamore
also keep in mind that when everyone went to a 32bit os it took years before companys stoped the 16 and even 8bit support for both hardware and software. I dont see the need or any program that will only run on 64 bit software for quite a while. I bet for atleast until middle of 2006 if not later all compaines will still make a 32 bit version of there software.
Click to expand...

Don't forget how long it took for 32 bit operating systems to arrive in widespread use. The i386 was when Intel shifted to 32 bit processing. DOS and the original Windows series were all 16 bit OSes. It took a few years for those extra bits to be utilized in OS/2 and WinNT. Win95 was when most desktop users first got 32 bit support. Just think, the i386 came around in 1986 or so, OS/2 supported 32 bit mode in '89 or so, and MS sat on it until well into the Pentium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top