Submitted by Among the factors to consider, as companies ponder Windows 7 migrations, is whether to run a 32 bit or 64 bit version of the operating system. IT Expert Voice looks at the reasons why and what companies are saying about their intentions to adopt each version.
Without even reading the article, I would say 32bits for most of us, and 64bits if you do video/audio encoding or use more than 4GiB of memory. Otherwise there’s really no need for more bits. More registers and the advanced security features available in 64 bits mode of the processors are nice, but we really don’t need more bits. We need better software, that doesn’t eat all your memory, and for that there’s a need for better programmers. That Qt4 ad right on top of the page should tell non C++ programmers something (I do believe Qt4 and C++ beats any other framework+language, including java and .net, specially for end user apps).
BTW, something’s wrong with the login function. I tried to post the comment and it redirected me to a login form. I logged in and then it redirected me to another (different) login form. I had to login 2 times.
Edited 2009-12-03 00:09 UTC
I always find it somewhat amusing that people immediately assume the only advantage to 64bit is the increased memory address space.
One major advantage to x86-64 is the increased number of CPU registers available for processing – something the x86 architecture has long suffered from. This provides significant performance advantages in some situations…
edit: hmm… maybe you added that note to your comment after i read it?
Edited 2009-12-03 01:46 UTC
I find it somewhat amusing that people don’t finish reading a complete post and jump in to comment exactly what’s already stated by the parent poster.
I said that, didn’t I? And the applications that use them the most are video/audio processing, cryptographic systems and other heavy numerical processing applications. Most other applications won’t benefit at all.
I’d swear it wasn’t there when I posted my comment…but I’ve had a long day, so who knows.
Hmm.. last I looked, gaming and video playback fit well into that category… and on a lower-powered device, the extra registers will help immensely.
I agree, but 64bits in the business desktop? There’s no reason for it.
Depends on what is business usage in your opinion. Using word/excel? Fine in 16 bits actually! But what about other usages?
Photography? 64! Video/audio? 64! Software development? 64! Data analysis? 64! It is 64 for most business tasks, actually.
I am curious to know what you think a business desktop is? If you are thinking of the secretaries and such who do not use anything but email and an opffice package, then I would agree. If you are talking about engineers who develop software, design electronic circuitry, use CAD environments, and other such things, I will highly disagree. All of those are “Business Desktops”, so there would definitely be a use for 64 bits.
A minority compared to all the secretaries and other officers like accountants, legal, etc.
Such majority can use ChromeOS today already! And they will be pretty comfort with EeePC and Google Docs. This majority is actually a minority in business processes – they simply don’t do anything. I mean anything that really requires a PC.
Engineers requiring lots of raw power generate most of revenue for hardware and software manufacturers. There can be single specialist utilizing large rendering farm. One professional photographer uses more PC power and more photo equipment then a hundred of secretaries.
So talking about business usage you generally should omit this “majority”. Business is not them.
You’re describing a Business workstation ( in my terminology), not a desktop.
I have heard that before as well, and used to subscribe to that. Where that falls through is the exact same machines are generally used for the secretaries as is used for the engineers. To me that makes them all desktops. They have the same hardware, cost the same, they all run the same operating system, etc. They are also used for the same office purposes, with the addition of any specialized apps like CAD and such. With the computing power available in base computers these days, there is no longer a need to have the separate classes. If you look you will notice that some workstation class machines being sold by the likes of Dell and HP for a larger sum of money, have lower hardware specs than the regular desktops. Workstation class used to mean the machines were more powerful than the desktop class, that is just no longer the case in my experience.
I hear what you’re saying, but are the machines for the office workers really the same as those that run CAD? That’s not the case in my workplace. The CAD beasts have more memory, larger HD, quad core cpus and multiple monitors. But, yeah you don’t just call up dell and say you need 3 workstations and two desktops. They won’t maintain as clear of a distinction.
The problem with the extra 64-bit registers in Windows is that, since all of the programs are compiled in 32-bit mode, they can’t use those registers. Those registers were the primary motivation for reinstalling my desktop Linux as 64-bit. Linux programs are all custom-compiled for their architecture, so they will see those extra registers and perhaps use them.
Windows does not have this benefit, so I removed my 64-bit Windows and reinstalled with 32-bit, to remove confusion with the duplicate browsers.
Any native 64 bit program will use them, it’s just the 32 bit apps running in WOW mode that won’t. I think most of the applications that could actually benefit have or will soon have a 64bit executable.
I think this is a good time to look at switching over, because companies that are going from XP -> 7 are already making a pretty large jump, and if they don’t do it now they may not want to do it again for another 5 years. By that time, the 64 bit OS may be more important than it is today.
I’m running a 64bit windows 7 system, and haven’t had any serious problems with compatibility. I have had a couple minor problems, though, like installers adding incorrect shortcuts to the start menu. (c:\windows\system32 instead of c:\windows\syswow64)
Edited 2009-12-03 02:32 UTC
What? Several Windows applications are available as 64-bit versions. This kind of reminds me of the absurd assumption that only Linux (applications) can run on ARM.
Edited 2009-12-03 07:23 UTC
When you compile most Linux apps (or other platform) for 64-bit, most of the time they don’t take advantage of 64-bit processing, except for the increase in memory available. So the vast majority aren’t faster, they just have access to more RAM.
Not so. Regardless of Linux or Windows, when you compile an application for 64-bit, the compiler optimizes the code to utilize the extra general purpose and SSE registers. As silly as it sounds, often just compiling code to run on a 64 bit processor will show a not insignificant performance increase regardless of it’s memory footprint.
What is a problem though is that many low level performance optimizations will likely have to be re-worked or re-thought in order to leverage the architecture effectively. Compilers are pretty good these days though often just a simple source-level re-compile for x64 can show a pleasant boost.
Which, in the general case, makes surprisingly little difference. Or so it seems to me. Of course, the larger binaries hurt the effectiveness of the processor caches, thus offsetting the advantage to some degree or other.
Traditionally, we’ve been told that x86 was a register starved architecture. And yet it appears that it was not all that starved.
You should probably read the article then and try again.
Interesting that businesses are taking 64bit seriously. I guess moving to a new OS like 7 brings the question back up again. Wondering why printer drivers are an issue when (I know why now…), OK, how about doing what I do and have a print server manage drivers (32bit whatever) with the printers and desktops/laptops use generic drivers (raw/postscript) to print to print server? CUPS is great.
I have already installed 64 bit versions in all my 3 desktop machines and my laptop and I had not a single compatibility problem with any 32 bit software. Microsoft’s WoW64 does an excellent job at running 32 bit applications (I have Ubuntu Karmic Koala x64 and MacOS X Leopard running fine too).
Right now we have been living with 32 bit operating systems for how much? 15 years? I think its even absurd to talk about installing a 32 bits OS in 2009 unless you have something that absolutely force you to do it, like very old apps or legacy 32 bit drivers. And in the case of old apps, most of your problems will be more due to security/permissions conflicts than due to 64 bit stuff.
I remember when everybody was eager to do the jump from 8 bits to 16 bits, or from 16 bits to 32 bits, but the jump to 64 bits is taking much too long, keeping in mind that almost all current CPUs have been full 64 bits for the last 4 or 5 years.
I agree that XP 64 bits was a lemon (due to really crappy, often inexistent, driver support), and that Vista 64 was the necessary stepstone that forced a lot of driver makers to begin supporting a hardware technology that, in computer time scale, can be said it is already old, but now the x64 driver support is quite strong.
I think that the “under the hood” 32->64 bit transition of MacOS X, instead of having completely separated 32 and 64 bit versions of Windows (and Linux), has been a very nice move from Apple, but anyway they have to deal with a very limited subset of hardware/driver makers compared with Windows or Linux.
For the typical office desktop the benefits of having extra registers are negligible. It really only matters for work that involves heavy number crunching.
The same goes for having 4+ gigs of RAM which would only be noticeable to workers in specialized fields.
For businesses that mostly use MS Office + IE I don’t think it is worth messing with. The risk of a single incompatibility isn’t worth the effort.
I run a small business. I made the choice to update two of my workstations to Windows 7 Pro, and I elected 32 bit, even though both machines have 4GB.
The specialized accounting and tax software I run has not been made fully Windows 7 compatible yet. IMO, any business that needs to run specialized software should stick with 32 bit in order to minimize operational software incompatibilities. Driver support is also better in 32 bit systems, essential when your business needs to utilize scanners or other specialized hardware.
I have nothing against 64 bit OSes. I use Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit at home. I hope Windows 8 comes out in 64 bit only. But, for the next year or so, 32 bit seems to me to be the best choice for general business machines.
My parents don’t have the 64bit version of Windows 7 but they do have the 64bit version of Windows Vista which I upgraded them to. It is like night and day – it as though it is an entirely different operating system. How did the dropping of Win16 support produce such a radical improvement?
The hardware support will improve since all WHQL for Windows Vista drivers require that the vendor provide 32bit and 64bit to get certification. It is, after all, a matter of time before people replace their hardware and drivers are already available and mature.
Edited 2009-12-03 05:36 UTC
perhaps the main reason to move to 64bit is to get your organisation ready for the eventual change over.
The jump from 16 to 32bit was done quickly, as the memory celing was reached rapidly. However this time things are different, we have more of a warning of the impending move and also we have access to the OS and tools in 64bit flavours much earlier on than we had for 16 to 32 bit (also i should note most of this is directed at Windows as i know other unix based OS’s had already moved 32bit/64bit).
So perhaps upgrading to 64bit with Windows 7 will give you an initial headache with some apps / hardware, however you will be ensuring that your organisation is ready to migrate to pure 64.
I have found that Microsoft has handled the move from 32bit to 64bit better on the servers (i.e. All new hardware for a long time has been 64bit) and they have put a line in the sand, Exchange 2007 is 64bit only in a production environment and now Windows 2008 R2 is 64bit only, pushing companies to move away and to stop clinging onto older tech.
We have Office 2010 moved to 64bit so i would expect quite a few other vendors either move to 64bit or to ensure that their products are compatible with 64bit.
Personally ive been using Windows 64 for a while, Windows XP x64, Windows Vista x64 and now and windows 7 x64
Is your computer likely to have more than 4GB of memory now or in the future (given that business desktops last 2-5 years)? If so, 64-bits.
Do you run special applications that can benefit from 64-bit math (and are programmed to take advantage of it)? Then yes, 64-bits. For most, this is probably not the case.
The biggest reason IMHO is that most people have no reason NOT to move to 64-bit, and the only way to push software makers to create more *native* 64-bit applications for Windows is for most of the users to run 64-bit Windows. Of course those dependent on arcane hardware without proper 64-bit drivers (those hardware product seldom have Windows Vista/7 drivers anyway though), should run 32 bit. Else, why bother. 32-bit being better or more stable is generally a myth remaining from the days of Windows XP 64-bit. My experience with Windows Vista and Windows 7 both 32 and 64 bit is that the 64-bit version is generally more stable mainly due to better drivers.
Also, if you have 4GB of ram, you mostly cannot utilize more than approx. 3.5 GB with a 32-bit Windows.
It isn’t just the amount of physically addressable RAM or even extra registers that makes a difference. For windows users especially, 32 bit apps only get 2GB of virtual space with shared kernel taking up the other 2GB. Other OS’s like *nix, it’s similar but with a different amount of virt mem allocation between kernel and user space for an app.
In addition, there are many other problems due to data structure limitations in 32-bit Windows, like number of GDI/window handles. It’s 16-bit limited with 65k handles. This is apparent when you have many explorer file manager windows open (all of those little elements, including text elements all take up a handle).
Other issues include limitations in the VM subsystem. Paged and non-paged pools, and other pools have similar constraints due to types/data structures used.
Moving to 64-bit windows resolves those limitations. I don’t know why it was like that to begin with for 32-bit windows, but I presume some of those were inherited due to legacy support.