Why are so many PCs now 64bit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmDesktop
  • Start date Start date
J

jmDesktop

I was looking at a new PC the other day and they were all Vista
64bit. I thought that 64bit was something that was notorious for
problems, lack of drivers, etc. I am speaking only about Microsoft
Vista in this case.

Thanks.
 
jmDesktop said:
I was looking at a new PC the other day and they were all Vista
64bit. I thought that 64bit was something that was notorious for
problems, lack of drivers, etc. I am speaking only about Microsoft
Vista in this case.
Click to expand...

Apparently Microsoft is pushing it.
 
jmDesktop said:
I was looking at a new PC the other day and they were all Vista
64bit. I thought that 64bit was something that was notorious for
problems, lack of drivers, etc. I am speaking only about Microsoft
Vista in this case.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

OK, you need to understand that Microsoft had nothing to do with the switch
to 64-bit. The switch was inevitable. You can process a lot more
information, 64 bits at a time, than you can if you are only crunching
numbers at a 32 or 16 bit rate. If Microsoft is offering 64-bit operating
systems, that is Microsoft just keeping up with changes in hardware. These
changes were inevitable.

The problem with 64 bit is that the software is (in some cases) still trying
to catch up. This includes drivers for some hardware components, and it
includes many (popular) software applications.

Still, if you've got the hardware to support it, you SHOULD be running a
64-bit operating system of some kind. If that's a microsoft product, then
vista 64 bit is a good choice. It makes sense, therefore, to have most new
computers sold with a 64-bit version of vista.

But just because your computer comes with a 64-bit vista doesn't mean you
have to run a 64-bit vista. If your hardware will run 64-bit vista, it
should be able to run 32-bit vista, or a 32-bit windows xp, or even a
non-microsoft operating system. -Dave
 
OK, you need to understand that Microsoft had nothing to do with
the switch to 64-bit.
Click to expand...

And games use only a single core CPU... and other fairy tales.
The switch was inevitable. You can process a lot more
information, 64 bits at a time, than you can if you are only
crunching numbers at a 32 or 16 bit rate.
Click to expand...

Same goes for 128 and 256, but that fact is only relevant in a
vacuum. Most applications probably don't need more than 32 bits of
precision. Few applications will ever need more than 64 bits of
precision.
If Microsoft is offering 64-bit operating systems,
Click to expand...

It's not just being offered, it's the default preinstalled.
that is Microsoft just keeping up with changes in hardware.
Click to expand...

Currently the main reason is to surpass the 4 GB memory limit, even
though the vast majority of users don't need more than 4 GB of RAM
yet. Or maybe Bill Gates uses a 64-bit system, and he thinks everyone
else should be using the same right now. Microsoft doesn't do anything
it doesn't want to do.
These changes were inevitable.
Click to expand...

Going to 64-bit might be inevitable for some applications, but that
doesn't mean everyone requires it on a new computer.
The problem with 64 bit is that the software is (in some cases)
still trying to catch up.
Click to expand...

Software is what you buy a computer for. If your applications don't
work, the computer doesn't work.
This includes drivers for some hardware components, and it
includes many (popular) software applications.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, some of the motherboards being sold in Dell desktop
computers and 64-bit Windows Vista only support 4 GB of RAM.

Go figure.
Still, if you've got the hardware to support it, you SHOULD be
running a 64-bit operating system of some kind.
Click to expand...

You should be running what your applications can use. Nobody cares
whether their computer is 32 or 64 bit. What matters is whether
their software works.

Yes, moving from 32 to 64-bit is inevitable, but the question is why
64-bit Windows is the default preinstalled on most new computers.
 
John Doe said:
[...]
that is Microsoft just keeping up with changes in hardware.
Click to expand...

Currently the main reason is to surpass the 4 GB memory limit, even
though the vast majority of users don't need more than 4 GB of RAM
yet.
Click to expand...

Well, 4GB address space is 3GB of real memory, typically. But mostly
the change provides a convenient excuse for dropping some of the
suckiness in x86, so the 64 bit instruction set is cleaner, has more
registers, etc. And (thanks to AMD) it can still run 32 bit x86 code,
so in terms of building a machine you don't lose much.

[...]
Going to 64-bit might be inevitable for some applications, but that
doesn't mean everyone requires it on a new computer.
Click to expand...

True enough.
Software is what you buy a computer for. If your applications don't
work, the computer doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Indeed so. I confess I'm really impressed by what my EeePC 901 can
do: by current standards it's horribly wimpy, but it works; my guess
is it does upwards of 90% of what many users want from a computer.

[...]
Yes, moving from 32 to 64-bit is inevitable, but the question is why
64-bit Windows is the default preinstalled on most new computers.
Click to expand...

A cynical consumer might suspect that some manufacturers might want to
encourage people to upgrade (aka repurchase) their software, and
perhaps hardware where 64 bit drivers are unavailable.
 
A cynical consumer . . .
^^^^^^^
sensible

The perfect con, get you to spend more money and hope you feel it was worth
it because your computer can now access 12 gigs of memory.

Marketing at work, if there is no need to fill then create an artificial
need and sell it.

--g
 
Indeed so. I confess I'm really impressed by what my EeePC 901 can
do: by current standards it's horribly wimpy, but it works; my guess
is it does upwards of 90% of what many users want from a computer.
Click to expand...

Agree!

I feel same way abt my Dell Mini 9!
 
jmDesktop said:
I was looking at a new PC the other day and they were all Vista
64bit. I thought that 64bit was something that was notorious for
problems, lack of drivers, etc. I am speaking only about Microsoft
Vista in this case.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

How do you define "now"? 64-bit consumer-grade hardware has been
available for a decade (circa 1998). Guess you never considered an
Itanium processor with Windows 2003 or Windows XP 64-bit Edition (circa
2003). 5+ years is a pretty wide window for "now".

It is highly unlikely that you were looking at Windows Vista 64-bit and
a 64-bit hardware host. More likely you were looking at Vista 32-bit on
64-bit hardware. Few 64-bit versions of Vista are sold due to the
driver problems (i.e., lack of 64-bit drivers). Drivers must match up
with the OS but not necessarily the applications (32-bit apps run fine
on 64-bit XP, Server 2003, or Vista but not 16-bit apps). Because of
the driver issue, that vast majority of pre-installed Vista hosts are
the 32-bit version of Vista. If you want the 64-bit version, you have
to explicitly order it.

You've had almost a decade-wide window regarding bit-width handling by
the OS to get a later release of an application to have it support the
newer OS. The compatibility problem is with the drivers, and mostly for
unsupported hardware. Manufacturers aren't going to waste their
resources to develop drivers for products they no longer support. Since
64-bit versions of Windows have been around 5+ years, a hardware maker
that doesn't have a 64-bit version of their driver typically means you
are asking about unsupported hardware (or sometimes a product that
Development no longer wants to support but Sales can still generate some
revenue; i.e., one hand wants to stay clean but the other hand doesn't
care about getting dirty).

If your hardware is still supported by its maker but doesn't yet have a
64-bit driver to allow its use in an OS that's been out for over 5 years
and for hardware that's been available for a decade then complain to the
hardware maker.

Have a read of a related newsgroup thread at:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....+windows+64+bit+32+16+driver#c5ab73b5d0129dd1
 
Why worry about lack of drivers for the hardware when obviously there are
drivers for the hardware provided in THAT box???
Click to expand...

True when you don't plan to insert additional hardware into that PC....

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04.2) Linux 2.6.28.2
^ ^ 11:02:01 up 2 days 41 min 1 user load average: 1.19 1.24 1.11
¤£­É¶U! ¤£¶BÄF! ¤£´©¥æ! ¤£¥´¥æ! ¤£¥´§T! ¤£¦Û±þ! ½Ð¦Ò¼{ºî´© (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
 
jmDesktop said:
I was looking at a new PC the other day and they were all Vista
64bit. I thought that 64bit was something that was notorious for
problems, lack of drivers, etc. I am speaking only about Microsoft
Vista in this case.
Click to expand...

Not what I found out.... most branded PCs came with 32-bit Vi$ta Home
Premium or Basic....

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04.2) Linux 2.6.28.2
^ ^ 11:03:01 up 2 days 42 min 1 user load average: 1.07 1.20 1.10
¤£­É¶U! ¤£¶BÄF! ¤£´©¥æ! ¤£¥´¥æ! ¤£¥´§T! ¤£¦Û±þ! ½Ð¦Ò¼{ºî´© (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
 
I was looking at a new PC the other day and they were all Vista
64bit. I thought that 64bit was something that was notorious for
problems, lack of drivers, etc. I am speaking only about Microsoft
Vista in this case.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Welcome to 2009. This hasn't been true for nearly 2 years now. I would
not be surprised in Windows 7 is the last one with native 32bit support. I
really think Vista would have had that honor had it not sucked so much.
 
Well, that's what happens when you design an OS more as an anticipated
cash cow
than as a solidly unquestionable improvement over the previous OS.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many marketing levels they will pull out of Win 7?

home basic
home
home ultimate
home premium
business
bussiness ultimate
bussiness premium
business advanced
business advanced premium
business advanced premium ultimate
etc.

.. . . I see maybe 20 products there.

--g
 
John said:
Software is what you buy a computer for. If your applications don't
work, the computer doesn't work.
Point

Yes, moving from 32 to 64-bit is inevitable, but the question is why
64-bit Windows is the default preinstalled on most new computers.
Click to expand...

I am not going to 64 bit until there are 64 bit drivers that support my
ergo mouse. I refuse to use the computer without one.

I don't know why creating a 64 bit driver for a MOUSE is so freaking
difficult. Can somebody please explain that to me?
 
I am not going to 64 bit until there are 64 bit drivers that support my
ergo mouse. I refuse to use the computer without one.

I don't know why creating a 64 bit driver for a MOUSE is so freaking
difficult. Can somebody please explain that to me?
Click to expand...

It's not difficult at all. The problem probably boils down to money. See,
writing a mouse driver is very easy. But to write a 64-bit driver, some
programmer would have to start from scratch. Which is time, and time is
money. There are probably very few (maybe even one) programmer working for
the hardware company that built your mouse. Guaranteed that one guy (or
girl) is busy coding drivers for newer hardware, some of it not released
yet.

Does the company that sold you the mouse have any motive to write a 64-bit
driver for it? Probably not. It's not like a mouse is a super-expensive
component that can't be easily replaced. Therefore, they are not likely to
lose too many (repeat) customers by refusing to support the older models.

Don't get me wrong, I think they SHOULD release a driver for your mouse.
But I can understand why it hasn't happened yet, and might not ever happen.
A new mouse might cost as little as 10 bucks. Yes, I know, you like your
current one, and I TOTALLY understand that. -Dave
 
[...]
The problem probably boils down to money. See, writing a mouse
driver is very easy. But to write a 64-bit driver, some programmer
would have to start from scratch.
Click to expand...

Well presumably they wouldn't need to start from scratch. They've got
the old drivers, and probably they're producing 64 bit drivers for
something (even if not old mouses).

However, once the driver's ready it'll need testing, and possibly some
approval process from Microsoft (which might well involve some cost,
and which will surely take time). And all that in return for
approximately no extra revenue.

(Makes <http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/> seem attractive, I hope!)

[...]
 
Well presumably they wouldn't need to start from scratch. They've got
the old drivers
Click to expand...

And likely they couldn't even use a single line of code from the old
drivers.
, and probably they're producing 64 bit drivers for
something (even if not old mouses).
Click to expand...

THAT much makes sense. From a programmer's point of view, it would likely
be easier to modify a 64-bit driver to support a different mouse than it
would be to convert a 32-bit driver to 64-bit.
However, once the driver's ready it'll need testing, and possibly some
approval process from Microsoft (which might well involve some cost,
and which will surely take time). And all that in return for
approximately no extra revenue.

(Makes <http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/> seem attractive, I hope!)

[...]
Click to expand...
 
[...]
From a programmer's point of view, it would likely be easier to
modify a 64-bit driver to support a different mouse than it would be
to convert a 32-bit driver to 64-bit.
Click to expand...

Sure, quite likely the required OS interfaces are different. (I seem
to remember some talk that 64 bit XP was wildy different for driver
writers to previous versions because they'd taken the opportunity to
remove some backwards compatibility stuff.)

But as you said, it's cost for virtually no benefit. Especially for a
mouse.
 
Not what I found out.... most branded PCs came with 32-bit Vi$ta Home
Premium or Basic....

--
  @~@   Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
 / v \  Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 8.04.2)  Linux 2.6.28.2
  ^ ^   11:03:01 up 2 days 42 min 1 user load average: 1.07 1.20 1.10
ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
Click to expand...

where? I couldn't find anything at the "big" stores that is 32 bit
vista.
 
| | (e-mail address removed):
|
| > I was looking at a new PC the other day and they were all Vista
| > 64bit. I thought that 64bit was something that was notorious for
| > problems, lack of drivers, etc. I am speaking only about Microsoft
| > Vista in this case.
| >
| > Thanks.
|
| Welcome to 2009. This hasn't been true for nearly 2 years now. I
| would not be surprised in Windows 7 is the last one with native 32bit
| support. I really think Vista would have had that honor had it not
| sucked so much.

Well, that's what happens when you design an OS more as an anticipated
cash cow than as a solidly unquestionable improvement over the
previous OS.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
Back
Top