| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Who wants or needs 64 bits? | |
|
||
| Time: 14:53 EST/19:53 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
It looks like the world isn't clamoring for 64-bit desktops just yet. Nearly two and a half years have passed since 64-bit processors started going into PCs. But the software to take full advantage of these chips remains scarce, and customers aren't buying much of what's out there. The 64-bit chips provide greater performance than their older 32-bit counterparts, but that's because of speed upgrades and other architectural enhancements. Except for a few workstation users, almost no one is getting much from the 64-bitness of these computers. "64-bit is sellable as bigger, faster, but in terms of what it does for you, there is very little at the moment," said Roger Kay, president of analyst firm Endpoint Technologies. <%=GetPoll(103)%> | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:10:28 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/6/2006 11:00:27 AM |
| It may do little for most consumers at the moment, but I think as 64-bit systems arrive, developers may be anxious to exploit the extra memory available for better performance. RAM is relatively cheap for the improved productivity that it could offer in terms of extra performance, but these days the 2 GB/4 GB address space is quickly becoming a true limitation. Unfortunately, most of the desktop/laptop machines sold--even if they're x64 systems--don't offer much memory expandability beyond 2 or 4 GB anyways. |
| #2 By 1401 (65.255.137.20) at 3/6/2006 3:42:15 PM |
| I have three 64 bit systems and each one of them has full 64 bit driver support. Both XP x64 Professional and Server 2003 x64 are solid 64-bit version of Windows. Server 2003 x64 is smoking fast on my best system - probably the fastest OS I have ever run... |
| #3 By 21055 (72.153.184.111) at 3/6/2006 4:03:23 PM |
|
Bluvg...stupid question: what apps max out 4 gb of RAM? (I don't do photo editing).
And I'm sure someone will come up with a class of apps that takes advantage of the power 64 bit systems have. Maybe when fiber optic connections become more common, there'll be media stuff that needs it. |
| #4 By 2459 (24.175.147.11) at 3/6/2006 5:33:32 PM |
|
I'd say some content creation (3DSMax/Maya) or software development tools depending on project size. Also large databases. In any case, applications don't get access to the full 4GB of address space under 32-bit (usually only 2 - 3GB). 64-bit allieviates this limitation, but for x64 over x86, there are architectural changes that lead to performance benefits beyond increased address space. In some cases, there are performance benefits even running 32-bit code on a 64-bit OS.
Edit: Also, depending on what you do, the cumulative number of applications running simultaneously (particularly apps that run as services) could impact performance such that an increase in memory beyond 4GB is warranted. This post was edited by n4cer on Monday, March 06, 2006 at 17:51. |
| #5 By 21055 (72.153.184.111) at 3/6/2006 6:13:20 PM |
| Thanks. Kinda makes my Dell 800 look even more pathetic ;). |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/6/2006 7:04:26 PM |
|
kyfho23--n4cer beat me to the punch, but I was talking mostly about running concurrent apps. There are some apps, of course, that will take advantage of that kind of memory all by themselves, but that will affect somewhat of a niche market. However, I know that I easily hit limits with my usual set of apps on my 512 MB work machine, and that 1 GB would not be far behind. n4cer pointed out that, unless you run in a special mode (and I think this is only available as a startup switch on most 2003 Server editions and 2000 Enterprise), you only get a maximum of 2 GB to divy up for apps. Keep in mind too, that the OS also is similarly limited in what it can use, which has its own implications.
I just see that we're quickly running out of address space for apps (concurrent primarily), so the time to move is now. |
| #7 By 21055 (70.146.109.53) at 3/7/2006 10:50:06 AM |
|
It's not a limit that I'd come anywhere near to hitting...I try to avoid having too many open apps at once, but a lot of the background stuff soaks things up, too.
But if I, pretender to knowlege understand you, even with 4 gigs of RAM, only 2 would be used by apps? What would the other 2 GB be used for? A massive distributed computing project to figure out Bill Gates' taxes? :D (Seriously...he said the IRS had problems processing his return. And the government got mad at HIM for running a monopoly...) |
| #8 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 3/7/2006 1:25:44 PM |
|
kyfho23--the other 2 GB is set aside for the OS. On a 64-bit Windows system, however, 32-bit apps do have access to 4 GB. Incidentally, OS X still has this limitation for all non-CLI apps (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/); Windows does not for 64-bit apps. Photoshop, for example, will use a maximum of 3-3.7 GB. This is an unfortunate limitation for a platform that is strong in those apps that potentially could take advantage of that extra RAM.
Another common scenario where RAM is quickly burnt up, though, is on a home machine with multiple user accounts using Fast User Switching. If this is the type of machine you want to leave on and each user leaves several apps open all the time, you'll run out of RAM in a hurry. Even 2 GB doesn't seem like an inexhaustable amount for everyday apps in that scenario. I've often seen Firefox alone eat up 150-200 MB, and IE is no slouch, either (usually I end up with several IExplore processes running simultaneously, so I'm not sure what total IE RAM utilization has been historically). Add Outlook at 50 MB, Word at 20-30 MB (even if only used as Outlook's email editor), etc., multiply it by several accounts (though it's not direct multiples, since there will be some reuse), and you're sprinting towards real memory limits. |
| #9 By 21055 (70.146.109.53) at 3/8/2006 2:17:29 AM |
|
"the other 2 GB is set aside for the OS."
are we somewhere near the day when a swap file won't be needed? <<revealing my ignorance>> |
| #10 By 1401 (69.27.196.125) at 3/8/2006 3:08:13 PM |
| #10 - potentially we are - but again, we need aps written to take advantage of the vast amounts of RAM available |
| #11 By 899255 (216.152.251.66) at 4/2/2013 7:58:43 AM |
| pot party is a friendly and rewarding spot for UK that Stimulate you go further in the game and win. http://www.onlinecasinoburger.co.uk/ - online casino uk <a href="http://www.tasty-onlinecasino.co.uk/">online casino</a> On-line games represent an significant office in our life, :$1000 100% deposition bonus :$777 Playthrough12x B+DSpin clock time Casino is an in a higher place average casino from the onrush. http://www.tasty-onlinecasino.co.uk/ |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 164 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:10:28 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
