x64 bit CPUs, why are they being sold with x32 bit OS's

[vic20]

1. Ability to address 4GB of RAM (32 bit can only address 2.5-3Gb approx)

32 bit windows can address 4GB of RAM. The physical address size of most IA-32 chips is 2^36.

I think what you mean to say is that a single process in Windows cannot address more than 2.5-3GB. This is because most operating systems combine the kernel address space with the current process address space (this makes things MUCH faster). Obviously, the process cannot address the kernel part.

So in summary, 4GB is not wasted on a 32-bit windows install.

4GB is definitely not wasted on a 32 bit install for someone who needs more than 2GB.

Ryan

I agree, but you must be careful. Many motherboard BIOSes (including current ones) reserve RAM and have a maximum useable amount.

Also, Vista 32 does not use all 4GB of RAM.

In case I was not clear, my point was that even if the system allows you to use only 3-3.25GB, for someone who is able to utilize more than 2GB, there is a benefit to having 4GB of RAM in the system, but only a 32 bit address.

Ryan

I thought that point was rhetorical, sorry. 😛

 

[mad_murdock]

Are you serious? Do you really need explanation as to why many people benefit from 64 bit OSes? Check out programs like 3D Studio Max, Maya, Solidworks, etc. I never claimed it was a big percentage of users though

But that's exaclty the point. Pointing out CAD users having a need for 64bit OS and greater than 4-8GB is a niche market. The question being asked, is why doesn't HP\Dell\gateway\e-machines offer a 64bit OS

In half that time, 4GB will be the requirement for many more apps and games...... So if the trend over the past 4 decades continues for the next 2-3 years (which I think it will), 4GB will not only be standard, but required for many apps.....

I basically disagree. Other than gamers and high end folks, 4GB will not be a requirement from the greater majority. Do you know there are still plenty of people out there running their XP systems on 256-512MB ? No one told them, they were suppose to be at 4GB already

A survery I still get a kick out of looking at, is the STEAM hardware survery. The majority of those gamers are still under 1GB of ram.
Granted it would be really nice if Blizzard did a sampling of their 8 million subscribers and release that info.

Based on their track record, I'm not holding my breath for Vienna

Just remember, Win2000 was released Feb 2000 and Win XP was released Oct 2001. Microsoft as stated they plan to go more with Apple's style of OS upgrades and that it will be a while before their is another "Major" os release. Apple, drops a new .1 releae every 2 years and I think Microsoft is counting on the "Must have new verison" syndrome, which I predict after Vienna, people will say screw all that.

I will agree, that as long as computer memory and disk space gets cheaper, and bigger at it's current rate, getting 4-8GB in 2010 will seem fairly normal.

That is a silly excuse against Vista x64. How many games have been released in the past where it had issues on an nVidia card because of driver and not on an ATI card or vice versa?

Well, it was an example, not really an excuse and the problem was EA\Westwood's, not ATI or Nvidia. Their game didn't talk correctly or ask the question correctly to Vista64. One EA\Westwood released their patch, the problem went away. Though if you cehck the forums, Vista64 is still not official supported.

There are other example of Vista64 doing strange things that Vista32 doesn't in games. Even in Microsoft games like flight Sim 10. Obviously, most people talking in this thread, are technically minded and can work around most issues. In regards to Joe user, they are the people who will be stuck, as a fair number of my friends who play games, don't know anythign about game support forums. They would actually call EA Tech Support, looking for answers.

Since I have about 10 family members I have to do Tech support for. I think in terms of what's going to get me the least number of phone calls. Vista64 at this point in time (only 4 months into it's release) is just too early\new to hand off to people and say good luck. Heck, I don't even like suggesting Vista, adding the 64bit unknown it, is a headache I don't want.

If they want to go with Vista64 on their own, I won't talk them out of it. But I'm not going to say, "OH, you have a AMD64\Core 2 Duo you need to be running Vista64 !"[/list]

 

[rninneman]

Are you serious? Do you really need explanation as to why many people benefit from 64 bit OSes? Check out programs like 3D Studio Max, Maya, Solidworks, etc. I never claimed it was a big percentage of users though

But that's exaclty the point. Pointing out CAD users having a need for 64bit OS and greater than 4-8GB is a niche market. The question being asked, is why doesn't HP\Dell\gateway\e-machines offer a 64bit OS

In half that time, 4GB will be the requirement for many more apps and games...... So if the trend over the past 4 decades continues for the next 2-3 years (which I think it will), 4GB will not only be standard, but required for many apps.....

I basically disagree. Other than gamers and high end folks, 4GB will not be a requirement from the greater majority. Do you know there are still plenty of people out there running their XP systems on 256-512MB ? No one told them, they were suppose to be at 4GB already

A survery I still get a kick out of looking at, is the STEAM hardware survery. The majority of those gamers are still under 1GB of ram.
Granted it would be really nice if Blizzard did a sampling of their 8 million subscribers and release that info.

Based on their track record, I'm not holding my breath for Vienna

Just remember, Win2000 was released Feb 2000 and Win XP was released Oct 2001. Microsoft as stated they plan to go more with Apple's style of OS upgrades and that it will be a while before their is another "Major" os release. Apple, drops a new .1 releae every 2 years and I think Microsoft is counting on the "Must have new verison" syndrome, which I predict after Vienna, people will say screw all that.

I will agree, that as long as computer memory and disk space gets cheaper, and bigger at it's current rate, getting 4-8GB in 2010 will seem fairly normal.

That is a silly excuse against Vista x64. How many games have been released in the past where it had issues on an nVidia card because of driver and not on an ATI card or vice versa?

Well, it was an example, not really an excuse and the problem was EA\Westwood's, not ATI or Nvidia. Their game didn't talk correctly or ask the question correctly to Vista64. One EA\Westwood released their patch, the problem went away. Though if you cehck the forums, Vista64 is still not official supported.

There are other example of Vista64 doing strange things that Vista32 doesn't in games. Even in Microsoft games like flight Sim 10. Obviously, most people talking in this thread, are technically minded and can work around most issues. In regards to Joe user, they are the people who will be stuck, as a fair number of my friends who play games, don't know anythign about game support forums. They would actually call EA Tech Support, looking for answers.

Since I have about 10 family members I have to do Tech support for. I think in terms of what's going to get me the least number of phone calls. Vista64 at this point in time (only 4 months into it's release) is just too early\new to hand off to people and say good luck. Heck, I don't even like suggesting Vista, adding the 64bit unknown it, is a headache I don't want.

If they want to go with Vista64 on their own, I won't talk them out of it. But I'm not going to say, "OH, you have a AMD64\Core 2 Duo you need to be running Vista64 !"[/list]

I generally agree with most of your points.

What I was trying to express in a long round about way for emphasis, was that the vendors are not using Vista x64 because they are not forced to yet. If M$ decided that Vista was 64 bit only, vendors would have no choice but to make their products work well with the 64 bit version. Yes, that would be best for consumers in the long run; the only reason M$ has a strangle hold on the market is because of legacy support. Without it, people would be more likely to look at alternatives. Thus, the rest of us are left to deal with the slow progress that is a side effect of M$'s legacy support.

Ryan

 

[mad_murdock]

To give Microsoft some credit, I think they are doing a pretty good job of psuhing 64bit computing. Their Games for Windows requires games also work on Vista64.

To be fair to the companines and developers, they now have another OS to support and in this current tend of cutting cost, thelast thing any company wants is to add support issues.

I think EA\Westwood not making C&C 2 a Games for Windows product also says something. Maybe they were just snubbing Microsoft or maybe some of teh GFW requirements wasn't very valuable to them.

I still think Vista64 is the testing grounds and the warm up for Vienna being a 64bit only OS release. They already said Windows Server 2008 was going to be the last 32 bit OS, So I see Vienna getting tabbed that as well. It gives all the developers a user base to test their 64bit code on, without getting flooded

I'm sticking with 2010 as the year of mainstream 64bit computing and 4GB of memory in every new PC.