LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Relatively even split; 64-bit looking to dominate.
Read more.Relatively even split; 64-bit looking to dominate.
About time if you ask me, I jumped to 64bit with Vista and have never looked back. As it gain traction more native 64bit programs will be great.
I love how the tables has a "total" column
I ran Windows XP 64-bit. Around 4 years ago I started running 64-bit Linux.
With so many new Windows installs in 64-bit now, you'd think Adobe would get around to delivering 64-bit flash, wouldn't you? /broken record.
Wouldn't you also need 64bit browsers to take advantage of that? That would leave you with IE8 as far as I know.Originally Posted by Steve
Also, what would be the advantage of 64bit Flash?
Same reason as 'mercans needing to hear the punch line of a joke even though to us its obviousI love how the tables has a "total" column
Cheers, David
Finally, hope Windows 9 will be x86-64 only.
True I do think at some point we need to leave the old hardware behind and make 64bit the only version.
Trouble is this line is being blurred by the surge in mobile apps, and there's really no point in having 64-bit embedded CPUs.
What we want is portability. I can easily spit out a 32-bit or 64-bit version of a program for Linux. Seems like it's somewhat harder for Windows... otherwise more people would be doing it. But I know very little about compiling software for Windows.
And yes I realise I've sidestepped the issues of embedded CPUs not using the x86 instruction set and the fact that they don't run Desktop Windows either. :\
Err, I am going to feel like a luddite but...
Right now, this year, and the year after 32bit is fine for 90%+ of PC users.
There I said it.
These are the same ones whom an ATOM CPU with 2GB of ram is overkill. They just want a small laptop, some a larger one to watch films on (obviously not bluray) and thats it.
Youtube doesn't require 64bit instruction set.
Email doesn't.
Why should we force people over by dropping that version of windows?
The biggest driver for 64bit is that many apps will run faster, but this is NOT due to the 64bit addressing, but better instruction set design and the fact that most CPU manufactures lean towards 64bit performance at the expense of 32bit.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Righting it for a mobile phone and a desktop?
Why not just spit out one version of the code in the love fest that is .Net, let it all take care of it for you, multi-targeting is so 1990-late.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Screw Flash - HTML5 and a 64bit browser.
Kalniel: "Nice review Tarinder - would it be possible to get a picture of the case when the components are installed (with the side off obviously)?"
CAT-THE-FIFTH: "The Antec 300 is a case which has an understated and clean appearance which many people like. Not everyone is into e-peen looking computers which look like a cross between the imagination of a hyperactive 10 year old and a Frog."
TKPeters: "Off to AVForum better Deal - £20+Vat for Free Shipping @ Scan"
for all intents it seems to be the same card minus some gays name on it and a shielded cover ? with OEM added to it - GoNz0.
Yeah, that'll do.
Because there's next-to-no advantage using 32-bit? The only one that springs to mind is slightly lower RAM usage but RAM is so cheap these days that if you're worried about a performance drop by using 64-bit, you'd benefit from more RAM anyway. Gone are the days where more RAM = more performance.
I don't know the specifics of programming for 32-bit or 64-bit, and it may be very easy, but why should we force developers to write programs for two architectures when 64-bit offers everything 32-bit offers and more? Anyway it's hardly forcing people over, it's just removing an unnecessary option when they're upgrading their computer, it's not like anyone's going round forcing fresh installs
I'm more on the if it ain't broke side!
Don't get me wrong, its obviously the future, but it must take more die space, and for many people 32bit is already more than enough. Shouldn't we be looking at lower cost, lighter, longer battery lifed, better connected machines for more of the population instead?
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I'm with you there, to an extent. But the issue I have is that with an x64 upgrade you risk losing driver support for certain bits of hardware. Apps can still run, so why not have just a 64-bit OS and avoid the driver mess? Granted, things are a lot better now. I think of MS had had the balls to make Vista 64-bit only things would be different (retrospectively, seeing as Vista had so many things wrong with it, the "driver disaster" of forcing everyone to 64-bit would probably have been a drop in the ocean, heh).
I can see from my writing that I'm not making a very compelling argument for a move to 64-bit, and that's because I agree with you. I guess the reason I want a transition to 64-bit is so that users who are 64-bit aren't penalised. I'd be OK with it if it was bleeding edge but AMD64 has been with us since 2003.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
