Question: 64-bit System and Applications

I'll preface by saying that I've been running a 64-bit OS for almost a year now and have absolutely ZERO complaints. No driver issues or any other compatibility issues exist and the OS has been stable.

There has been much debate as to whether or not it is advantageous to upgrade to a 64-bit OS now. The two main arguments seem to be a) driver issues and, the one that is the purpose of this question, b) a lack of 64-bit applications. In lieu of the latter, when do you all believe that software developers will begin to adapt to 64-bit? In other words, when will those who haven't already done so begin to make 64-bit versions of their software so that the people using a 64-bit OS can reap the extra benefits?

I know that few, if any, have an exact date. I'm just looking for a rough "guess-stimation," based on current trends.

 

I think around the time Windows 7 comes out we will be seeing most software available in 64 bit flavors. Of course some will take longer, some will never adopt, this is just my "rough guess-stimation"

 

Hep!, always good to read your posts. Your "rough guess-stimation" is what I was looking for. I would really like to see if there is a noticeable difference with 64-bit applications.

 

Given that software developers have been slow to create 64-bit versions of their programs, I'd guess it will take at least another 5 years before 64-bit programs because mainstream. I really think that until Microsoft releases a 64-bit only OS, most software will still remain 32-bit.

 

Wow, 5 years?! I tell you, |crash|, that is not at all what I thought I'd see, but what you say makes sense. I guess the next logical question, not to derail this topic, would be when do you (or anyone) think that Microsoft will, in deed, release a 64-bit only OS?

 

Windows 8 will be 64-bit only, since Mac OS is. At least I hope so. Or maybe not since that would mean that Netbook and Mid processors need to be upgraded, so maybe it won't be?

 

I've been running 64bit for about 4 months now, it's snappier, reliable, and I haven't had any driver / software issues.

I don't see myself ever using 32bit again, On my main computer anyways.

 

I think when Windows 7 comes out, they are going to seriously push 64 bit.
Of course it's only speculation, but there is no hardware coming out anymore that is 32 bit only. In fact, 99% of processors that have come out in the past three years or so have been 64 bit compatible. Considering it's not at all odd to see computers coming standard with 3+ GB these days, I doubt many copies of Windows 7 X86 are going to be preloaded on new PCs. Instead, all OEMs will be X64 for the most part, and Windows 7 Home Basic Ultralight Suxxor Edition will be available in a 32 bit flavor for older, non-64 bit compatible computers (kinda almost like WinFLP is to Windows XP). It makes sense that currently companies like HP would ship 32 bit Vista on their computers, time, as you can buy a DVxxxx with a crummy celeron chip only supporting 32 bit, or you can buy it with a full blown, 64 capable Core 2 Duo. The same image gets pushed onto either computer, regardless of the CPU, driving down costs (since you don't need two images - sorry for the over explanation, I think I'm rambling). Since the celerons are dying off, replaced by 64 bit Pentium Dual Cores, even now 32 bit hardware is diminishing on the low end.

With hardware fully enabling 64 bit applications, Microsoft will make a push towards 64 bit, as it has proven to be more stable and more capable (including more capable for future expansion - 32 bit has reached its peak). I'm not saying the day Windows 7 is released Symantec, Adobe, all the big names in software will suddenly release 64 bit - no. But I would be downright shocked if these companies did not follow Microsoft's example in the 64 bit push. After all, it's all about marketing and publicity. If Microsoft says "We're giving you 64 bit because it's going to make everything better. Now you can use 64 bit coded applications!" Dick and Harry are going to walk into Best Buy, inquiring if their copy of Paint Shop Pro is 64 bit enabled. Of course many stores will just say it's 64 bit capable (because Windows 7 X64 will of course be backwards compatible to those 32 bit apps, just like Vista X64 was 32 bit backwards compatible, and XP and 2000 were 16 bit backwards compatible). Anyway, I'm sure consumers will demand to see 64 bit applications which will drive software developers to make the switch as well. Besides, 64 bit is the future. I don't think anyone's really resisting it, there just is not yet that demand for it.

 

I'm with crash on this one. Until Microsoft makes a serious push for 64-bit, no one will. (Windows 7 is obviously not that serious push.) This is because Microsoft basically controls the software industry. Ok, maybe no controls, but has an incredible influence on it. Microsoft has put off a 64-bit only OS several times - twice to be exact - but I don't think they can do it again. In other words, yes, when Windows 8 (or whatever they decide to call it) comes out, there will be a big push for 64-bit. Or more precisely, before it comes out in preparation for it.

 

As far as drivers, it's been covered before but this issue has pretty much been resolved. Microsoft has an aggressive policy for hardware certification on Vista that it must have 64-bit drivers.

Applications.. This is more tricky, since it's not a cut & dry thing. The vast majority of general purpose applications, including even many games, simply do not have the demands that warrant being 64-bit. The majority of Vista x64's included software is 64-bit. Let's take a look at one of these.. Notepad. Yes, in Vista x64, NOTEPAD is a 64-bit executable. Do you believe, truthfully, that Notepad needs to be 64-bit? Does it gain some benefit from being so? Modify any 2GB+ text files lately?

The beauty of the x64 architecture and things like WoW64 is that this is a total non-issue. Windows x64 will happily run the vast majority of 32-bit apps without any perceivable difference to the user. Grandma can still email the grandkids without having to know it's a 64-bit OS running 32-bit Thunderbird. x64 allows the *user* to determine when they want to move to a 64-bit version of an application.

That being said, there's more to x64 than just RAM.

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1

Given that re-installing Windows can lead to activation woes and whatever else, anyone who intends to hold on to their new rig for the next 2-3 years should probably look into just going x64, so that should a mythical future Office or game be 64-bit and truly use that power, they aren't faced with the task of installing a new OS just to use it.

 

Yea, unfortunately I believe Microsoft won't make the switch to a 64-bit only OS until the next version of Windows (we'll call it Windows 8) at the earliest . Assuming that Windows 8 is 64-bit only, then before its release, companies will probably rush to create 64-bit programs. So, that's where I get my estimate of 5 years

There's no proof that Windows 8 will be 640-bit only, but feel free to prove me wrong. I'd love to be wrong about this

I do agree, however, that Windows 8 will be 64-bit only, I just haven't seen any proof that it will be. Almost all processors made today at 64-bit processors so I don't see how, from a hardware standpoint, having a 64-bit OS would be a big deal (especially in 5 years).

I agree. Many OEMs are selling Vista x64 already, and with Windows 7, I think many of them will sell Windows 7 x64 off the bat coupled with 4 GB of RAM. This will (hopefully) show Microsoft that consumers are ready for a 64-bit only OS and (hopefully) companies will see/realize this and develop 64-bit software before the release of the next Microsoft OS.

Yea, Microsoft will need to use it's tremendous influence to have 64-bit computing become mainstream.

As you said, while the majority of applications don't need to be 64-bit, there are small improvements that they too can benefit from (even if it's largely unnoticeable by us). If anything, having one standard will make it easier for companies to develop software since they will only have to make sure it runs in a 64-bit environment and not necessarily a 32-bit one also.

 

Exactly. We just need to move on. 32-bit has hit its peak and we just need to advance to the next level. We're basically all waiting on Microsoft to make that advancement. Even though most (all?) Linux distros are already 64-bit, a lot of the devs that develop cross-platform software have been reluctant to switch. Take Firefox for instance. Sadly, it's still 64-bit. Firefox 4 may or may not have a 64-bit version. This is basically all because they can get by with only a 32-bit version. (The most used OSes - Windows - are 32-bit.)

 

Wait, what? Firefox runs in 64bit, Linux and Windows. They don't have an officially compiled version on mozilla.org, but you can still download a 64-bit Firefox for Windows build, and any 64-bit Linux distros that have Firefox have the 64bit version (see attached screenshot, including earlier version of this post). I'm using it to post this (and I also have the Adobe 64bit Flash plugin... they don't have that out for Windows, unfortunately)

 

Yes, I know the 32-bit version runs perfectly fine on 64-bit, and I also know there are 64-bit builds. However, they are not official builds and therefore it has not been optimized for 64-bit. I'm talking about an official Mozilla-compiled 64-bit build of Firefox that gets updated at the same rate as the 32-bit build.

 

So if you want a proper 64bit system, your only choice is apparently Linux

 

Agreed.

Mac OS is 64-bit only? Wow, I can't believe that I didn't know that until now. Microsoft is slippin'.

I, like you, don't ever see myself going 32-bit ever again, whether it's advantageous or not. I've been using 64-bit for almost a year now and it's solid as a rock. I've had no driver issues either or anything like that.

That's sad to hear. I was really hoping the switch/push would happen with Windows 7.

Yeah, I agree. My roommate just bought a new laptop to start the engineering program and it came equipped with Vista x64 and 4GB of RAM. I was perusing the machines at Best Buy the other day and 9 of the 11 I played with were x64.

 

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html It is.

 

Microsoft isn't slipping. When you're the hardware manufacturer, operating system engineer, and primary software manufacturer, it's not hard to make sure everything is compatible. Microsoft has no such luxury since they are only making an operating system meant to be installed on a wide range of hardware. If Microsoft had a say of what CPU was put in every computer that would have Windows installed, it would be X64 only as well, for sure.

I think this fact is a testament to Windows 7 being when X64 gets pushed. I don't understand why people are saying it will be Windows 8 - I really don't see all versions of Windows 7 being even available in 32 bit flavors (IE, "Ultimate, Home Premium"). Sure, Windows 8 might be when they do X64 only, but I don't think it will be that long before it's X64 primarily. Microsoft has already made some pretty aggressive moves in promoting Vista X64. I think Windows 7 will be all that and more (perhaps requirements for OEMs that if hardware is X64 capable, it must be loaded with Windows 7 X64, etc)

 

Oh, I never doubted you, Jay . . . not at all.

Oh, I was mainly joking. Sorry about that. I know the challenges that Microsoft faces. I guess the problem with reading comments rather than hearing them is sometimes you don't get the sarcasm/facetiousness.

I hear you. I, personally, don't even care when Microsoft decides to push a 64-bit only OS. Whether they do or not, my mind is made up that that's what I'm going to use. I'll configure my laptop to include a 64-bit OS. I was more concerned with when the software manufacturers would follow suit and start making 64-bit applications to go with the 64-bit architecture. Some have already, but the overall migration seems to be at a snail's pace right now.

 

Sorry, it's hard to pick up sarcasm. With all this sudden apple fanboyism for no reason I can't help but defend Microsoft. They get a bad wrap for no reason. So does Vista.

I am only mentioning when MS is going to start making a big push toward 64 bit only because it's pretty agreed that when MS makes the push, that's when other software vendors will start to do the same.

 

Believe me, Hep, you don't have to explain anything to me. All I've ever owned is Windows, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, although I have absolutely nothing against Apple.

I don't disagree at all with anything you've said. I understand all of it. I was just saying that for me, personally, I could care less when MS makes the push if it were only for the OS. However, since the software developers will be making the decision to make 64-bit apps based on Microsoft does, then I do hope that Microsoft makes the strong push sooner rather than later. Heck, they could do it with Windows 7 and I'd be happy, however unlikely that scenario may be at this point.

 

Agreed. 64-bit Vista (on my desktop) has been just fine for me

Me too. Hopefully once Microsoft stop having to defend Vista left and right it can focus on making 64-bit the standard for hardware and software by making it a big focus in its next OS (architecture and marketing).

That's good to hear. I'm glad 64-bit is beginning to take off. If only software companies would take heed...

Yes, Microsoft does a great job in making their OS compatible with almost any combination of hardware, but to be fair, most all hardware made/sold nowadays is 64-bit or has 64-bit drivers. All it would take is Microsoft to put a big emphasis on 64-bit in their next OS by making it 64-bit only and significant marketing to make software developers create 64-bit programs.

I think that you're right in that having a 64-bit Microsoft OS will become much more common, but as long as a 32-bit version still exists, then software companies will, on the whole, hold off making 64-bit programs until they need to.

Yea, especially with the poor economy right now, it seems that unless companies are "forced" to make 64-bit programs, they probably won't invest in doing so.

I didn't really notice any Apple fanboyism... It's a fact that Apple has a 64-bit OS and has had it for a while now. We all know it takes Microsoft a while to copy Apple's ideas

90% of the computing world is with you.

Yea, currently there are 32-bit builds of Vista 7 and I don't see them being pulled before release

 

I really wish there was a better way to run 32bit applications on a 64bit OS. Currently it takes up a lot of HD space to basically install 32bit version along side the 64bit version. But I think it is difficult to argue against the potential that 64bit offers, it will only be a matter of time before all software developers take advantage of this in order to compete with each other.

 

It's been a misconception for a while that the MBP is a very good gaming machine for the money it costs. It's been midrange for games and costs about double what it's worth. The sleekness of the new unibody MBP combined with a fairly powerful graphics chip has farther increased this misconception, and many Windows users have been buying the MBP and installing Vista, to use the machine for games. It's fanboyism, because it's ill-educated.

Currently there are only 32 bit versions of Windows 7. But that doesn't mean the final release won't be primarily 64 bit, with lower end versions being available in 64 bit.

Since when do you have to install two versions of an application in order to get backwards compatibility?

 

....looks like you don't play 18+ games made by japan.....there are some non-run-able games under 64x due to the compatibility issue of some japanese 16x games and 64x OS....... as far as i know other things about 64x OS are great............no driver issue, no issue with most (96%+) of the application i tried........

 

I think that there will be just as many 32-bit versions of 7 on the market as 64-bit versions based on current conjecture. However, I would like to pleasantly surprised if Microsoft does make a big push for 64-bit when 7 is released.

 

No no. Not the application, the OS. Vista 64 bit is much larger installation compared to the 32 bit version.

 

Haha, I was just kidding around with my comment

But, just because somebody is ill-educated DOESN'T mean it's fanboyism. Fanboyism is when somebody is presented with facts and refuses to accept them because they would clash with one's obsessive loyalty.

I doubt Microsoft would beta test only 32-bit versions only to put primarily 64-bit versions on the market. That doesn't make any sense. It's more likely that Microsoft is only beta testing 32-bit versions because that's what it intends to sell the most of.

I agree. The number and type of versions is probably going to be similar to Vista. It may even be exactly the same.

Really?! By how much (approximately)?

 

I venture to say twice as big. I think it installs the 32bit files along side the 64bit and uses the 32bit files when running a 32bit program.

 

So... 4 vs 8GB? I'll live missing those 4GB. After all, I did just buy a 1TB drive.
Also I can't find any documentation on this.

 

Yeah, I'd like to see something more concrete regarding the issue. If anyone does uncover something, please post it.

 

Well i have installed both versions of vista. 32 and 64. And there is a difference. Granted its like you said about 4gigs, but to some this might be a problem. Although with technology as cheap as it is these days i doubt it. I use 64 bit and love it and feel the 4gigs is worth it. I dunno about finding documentation, this is just what i have experienced on fresh installs.

 

I'm not doubting you, I just find it's interesting that there's no documentation on this.

 

Were the two test systems identical hardware wise, including peripherals?

 

I'm really late to this thread and it's all been said, but I'll chime in with my opinion anyway.

I tend to agree that until Microsoft distributes a 64 bit-only OS then there's little incentive for many manufacturers to develop 64-bit versions of their apps. Many do today of course, but many do not and will not until forced to do so. of course, even a 64-bit OS wouldn't actually force them into it, but I think it'll be the catalyst for most.

I'm sure I read awhile back that Server 2008 would be the last server version to have a 32-bit option, and while clearly Windows 7 will be offered in 32-bit I'd not be surprised to see the next version 64-bit only. It'll have to happen someday, unless we want to be constrained by 3.5 GB RAM forever. It's only a matter of time until the bigger apps will require 4+ GB RAM. That'll necessitate a move to 64-bit.

But Microsoft has to drive it. With virtually every system sold in the last couple of years being 64-bit capable, the next version of Windows following 7 should easily be able to orphan older hardware without creating very much fuss. I mean, no one cares that Vista isn't available in 16-bit, right?

 

The "revolution" has really just now begun with most mainstream PC manufacturers offering (especially in gaming PC's from what I've seen to utilize that RAM bonus) 64-bit OS's pre-installed.

As for when it will be "mainstream"...I think it will just continue to be an evolution as with the 32-bit movement (Windows 95 if I'm not mistaken to Windows XP where it was 32-bit was truly "mainstream"). There are still some (yes, very very few) people using 16-bit programing for their software...

 

Yes. It was the exact same computer (laptop). I was just bored and wanted to see if there were any noticeable differences. That was (size) the major difference I noticed. I also noticed that it runs a little bit quicker (more responsive) but maybe that is just my imagination.

 

It does look like it's going to be a slow migration, but I'm really hoping for a surprise.

 

Mid processors are 64bits... I's been almost 5 years that everything is 64bits...
Windows 8 should be 64bits only, Win7 was supposed to be but in the end only the Server edition will be 64-exclusive.
The latest revision of Celeron M, used in first-gen EEE PC, are probably 64bits too. If not, the current Intel Atom used are.

 

What happened to change that?

 

I'm guessing lack of 64-bit software. Notably, some important ones like Cisco VPN Client which is used by many businesses.

It's just an educated guess though. I have no sources to back me up

 

I hear you. Thanks, |crash|.