I’m looking forward to not running into the 2 gigabyte limit anymore on development.
Was speaking of 32 bit OS version !!!
WinXP 32 bits have these 2gb application limit ( can be increased to 3 gb using tip and trick )...
The 32 bits Linux kernel 2.3.23, from 1999, have introduce the use of 64 gb ram...
The 32 bits MAC OS X 10.5 Leopard, from 2007, have introduce the use of max 32 gb ram...
Some old version of 32 bit windows support a lot of ram too : Windows 2000 32 bit datacenter with 32 gb ram, Windows server 2003 32 bit Enterprise with 64 gb ram, windows server 2003 32 bit datacenter with 128 gb ram, windows server 2008 32 bit Enterprise/datacenter with 64 gb ram...
Seem that if we remove all desktop 32 bit OS from Microsoft, all other 32 bit OS ( Windows, Linux, MAC ) are able to use at least 32 gb...
The 2 gb limit only appear on the desktop version of windows 32 bits... it is not a hardware limit but a license limit... if a 32 bit windows version from 2000 was able to use more that 2gb, why it is not possible today...
Of course, if a gamer have more that 128 gb ram ( in some case, 64 gb ram ), the need to use x86-64 become a fact... to my knowledge, there is not yet desktop motherboard able to reach these limit... same my workstation motherboard have a limit of 96 gb...
So, what is the point to move from 32 bits OS to 64 bits OS when 32 bits OS can access a lot of memory... each time, the "2gb limit" is used like a excuse for push people to buy new OS... there is numerous good reason why it is interesting to use a x86-64 OS but the "2gb limit" is a false one...
Now, how does linux builds from 2002 (when winXP was released) compare to current operating systems in 2010?
Why do you wish compare a linux from 2002 to OS from 2010 ? If you wish compare something, compare Linux 2010 to other OS from 2010 !!!
By the way, these is a difference between "linux" and "linux distribution"... a linux distribution is a kernel + a desktop ( GUI )... windows is make of a kernel and a desktop too...
In the last 10 year, Microsoft have work more on the desktop ( GUI ) section that the kernel part ( who is the real OS )... on linux distro, you have a bunch of desktop ( gnome, KDE, Xfce, LXDE, etc )... kernel part of Linux evolve in function of the commercial release of new material or protocol...
At the kernel level, as today, Linux seem to be better... almost support all hardware, same old one ( not like windows )... support a lot of various disk operating system and processor... this happen due to the open source thing, not because linux dev are better... by example when you have the source of a old printer driver, it is easy to upgrade it or convert it to x64...
At the desktop level ( GUI )... it is all about taste and color... i like KDE but some like Gnome... there is GUI who make look a linux distro like a Win xp desktop, or a MAC desktop, or what you wish...
A lot of desktop thing introduce in Vista/win7 are in fact coming from Linux ( who itself is based on Unix )... lot of people have find the new right system ( administrator, user, etc ) to be a plague on recent win OS... well Linux/Unix user know this from long time... the aero desktop was introduce after the beryl/compiz 3d desktop was released on Linux...
At the software level, a lot of Linux software have make release for windows : Gimp, wings3D, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc...
As today, it is somehow difficult to compare Linux and Windows OS... both have their quality and default... due to the open source thing, Linux can become very powerful but only if you can compile software... same on my powerfull computer, it take several days of compilation for build linux from scratch... but final result is a kernel ( os ) build only for my material and who will use all the power... not really something for a Joe user
Oh yeah? Especially like all the security apps that notoriously stop working if it's a 32-bit app? You have to remember that companies are out to save money on spending so they can make a bigger profit. For the vast majority of companies, it makes no sense going to 64-bit OS - they don't need all that memory anyway, it's risky when using decades old applications designed for XP 32-bit, evaluating new security apps, etc.
There's literally no reason to risk a transition to 64-bit, and all the reason not to.
And that is your arbitrary choice.
Windows was available in 64bit since 2003.
My point was that you comparing windowsXP to current linux is like comparing 2002 build of linux to the latest from MS.
1. Those use a driver.
2. All of those had to be rewritten to work with vista 32bit anyways.
Your windows XP 32bit anti virus could not work on 32bit vista or 64bit vista without modification.
1. There is absolutely no risk.
2. You got it wrong, there is no reason to upgrade the OS for most of those cases... but if you DO upgrade the OS anyways there is every reason to go 64bit.
Strawman argument, memory is the least important feature of x86_64 architecture... It has a theoretical max speedup of 4-5x (very much depending on the app... 23% 7z compression speedup, 60% divx compression speedup, 0% h264 speedup, 400% hash caculation speed...)
Windows XP is from 2002, that is 8 yeras... decades old apps were NOT designed for windows XP.
And there is no "etc". The security apps (aka, "anti virus") is as simple as getting the 64bit version from your supplier... on the very VERY rare case that you use a driver based program (example, riva tuner) and there is no updated driver then you can't upgrade your OS period. Going from windows XP to windows vista requires a new driver, whether its 32bit vista or 64bit vista. You can NOT use 32bit windows XP driver in 32bit windows vista. (however, new drivers that were updated for vista32bit also include windows XP 32bit driver in the same package)
One could make a very compelling argument not to upgrade your OS period, just stay with XP instead of going to vista or win7 and save some bucks... but if you are already paying to upgrade, it costs you the exact same to go to 64bit win7 and you get better performance too and there is no extra risk cause any program that will not work on 64bit win7 will ALSO not work on 32bit win7.
Annatar11, ... Where I work, we have over 100,000 computers, ...
...Students can also upgrade really cheap, and a huge percentage of the people out there will just pirate it...
Well, business like these where work Annatar11 cannot use pirated version...
100000 computer with Windows 7 Ultimate x64 at 316.99 $$ make a total of 31 million $$$... yes, for Windows 7, there is no client access license... for professional, it is best to forget windows 7 and use Windows server 2008 x64 R2... a license for 10 computer of the last cost only 1209$... in the Annatar11 case, cost will be 12 million in place of 31 million !!!
Windows 7 64bit is an EXCELLENT 32bit platform... it can run any 32bit app with no problems, unless it requires 32bit driver,...
Well, you have wrote it several time and i have not comment it... Since you are wrong, i feel the urge to reply...
32 bit driver is one of the problem but not the only one...
A 32 bit application use WoW64 for run on a x86-64...
A bug in the translation layer of the x64 version of WoW64 renders all 32-bit applications that rely on the Windows API function GetThreadContext incompatible. ( http://www.woodmann.com/fravia/iceman1.htm , chapter 6 )
Garbage collection code ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_collection_%28computer_science%29 ) is incompatible under Wow64...
And the list go on...
As the 15 november 2010, Microsoft have say that bugs are well know but that no fix or work around is yet planned... for info, these problem with WoW64 are know since 2000... 10 year after, bug are not yet resolved !!!
Again, you're completely thinking from the average home consumer mindset. The corporate world is very different. Okay, let's say among the hundreds (literally) of unique executables we use here, there are no compatibility issues - and by the way, an app can work in 32-bit and not work in 64-bit that's not just a driver issue. And speaking of drivers, I'm assuming you realize that it's not uncommon for companies to upgrade all their devices very rarely? As a prime example, I'm typing on a 1gb RAM, 1.66 GHz company laptop. What about the couple thousand of printers we have mapped (and not the cheap inkjet ones either) just at this location alone? If their drivers don't work on 64-bit, who's going to rewrite them?
Your over-generalizing of the "safety" of upgrading a mass amount of computers effecting a mass amount of applications and devices would make any IT project manager tasked with the upgrade cringe
Take a look at the top of these page, you will find the post of the topic starter :
Draginol ask us to move to Windows 7 64-bit, so he will not be running into the 2 gb limit... well the 2 gb limit is related to desktop 32 bit windows OS only... other windows 32 bit OS, along 32 bit Linux and 32 bit MAC OS have not these 2gb limit...
Finally, i agree with you... yes, x86-64 have a lot of various advantage... memory limit not being one ( for now )... but if you look at the original post from these topic, memory was the only argument...
It is time that dev use real argument like your text that i have quote up that false one...
The 64 bit integer register, the amount of 128 bit SSE register doubled, x87 code upgraded to 80 bits allowing 64 floting point math, etc... all thing who improve the speed ( if code is build only for 64 bit system in case of native application or build for AnyCPU mode in case of managed application )
I've fixed systems that have 3 GB of RAM and running Windows XP 32 bit. No tricks were needed. XP saw all the RAM. As far as I know a 32 bit system can see 3.5 GB of RAM.
Well, home consumer don't realize that business/industry are these who generate the more income for device builder, software company ( OS and application )... in fact, the only sector who is almost only for home consumer is game application...
What about the couple thousand of printers we have mapped (and not the cheap inkjet ones either) just at this location alone? If their drivers don't work on 64-bit, who's going to rewrite them?
Well, one of the reason why i have move from usual home desktop to a workstation was that professional material have a very long term support... by example my old printer ( HP colorlaserjet CM1015 MFP ) have driver for Linux, MAC OS X, SAP, UNIX, windows OS from windows 2000 to windows7 x32/x64... Same thing for my supermicro X7DA3+ motherboard...
From my personal experience, at the driver level, support is better for professional material that these for home use...
Well, see the positive side, the IT guy who make the upgrade will have a job for a long time
I was replying to taltamir, Thoumsin - it wasn't meant as a reply to your post.
On the issue of "Well, why not just keep XP 32-bit", because sooner or later (sooner) MS will just cut all support for it. Already only SP3 is supported, but once Win8 hits they'll probably stop supporting even SP3. I'm sure our upgrade people would love to stay on XP and save themselves the hassle, but it's a sinking ship, we'll have to upgrade even if we don't want to in order to keep up on security fixes if nothing else (hospital/patient data not quite a good thing to have compromised ).
The 2gb limit (according to the OP) was for Applications, not the OS itself. XP can use up to 4gb.
People will still use XP even after MS quits supporting it. There are some out there that still use 98SE and 2000.
For example Fry's Electronics stores still use DOS.
A the basic level, 32 bit system have a 4gb physical address range... from these 4gb, you remove all address range from your material... in your example, 3.5 gb but in my case it is 2.1 gb ( lot of material )...
On a usual 32 bit system, PAE can be used for put the material address range over the 4gb limit... with PAE, the result will be 4 gb...
Now, these 4gb, 2.1 gb, 3.5 gb are physical address range... it is not the address range who can be used for application...
Let see, with the 4gb result ( by using PAE )... a windows 32 bit will reserve 2gb for application and 2 gb for system... it mean that the more memory that a application can use is 2gb...
Using the 3gb allow a other memory allocation... 1 gb for the system and 3 gb for application... application will use these extra 1 gb only if it have ... the famous large address aware trick find in a lot of other topic here...
Now, the PAE trick is only possible on 36 bit processor ( any processor after the Pentium pro ) and will have a interesting result with 4 gb ram or more...
Well, english not being my main language, for more info, look at :
http://blogs.technet.com/b/askperf/archive/2007/02/23/memory-management-101.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796.aspx
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=291988
Well support for XP SP3 and XP x64 SP3 will end in April 2014...
Vista mainstream support will end in April 2012...
Windows 7 in January 2015...
Only a few month difference between the end of support for XP and Windows 7...
For windows 8, take a look at http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win8_leak.asp ... old news but it is the more recent leak !!!
Personaly, when my XP pro x64 become obsolete, i will simply use my Linux and/or Solaris OS... have windows now mainly for game... and since a lot of new PC game are only adaptation of console game, i will move on to a console in place of a new windows OS... or maybe only upgrade my laptop ( who is already using Vista x64 )
Windows is just for gaming and other non-productive stuff. For everything else, there's Linux.
You are assuming that I am assuming...
I am saying that there is very good reasons for corporations not to upgrade AT ALL... that is, stick with winXP.
BUT, I am saying that IF the corporation is upgrading from winXP to win7, then they might as well make it 64bit win7.
The winXP to win7 transition is much more serious than the 32bit to 64bit transition.