Moderators: fgagnon, nikos, Site Mods
Wasn't implying anything, VS2008 was more of a suggestion for financially dodgy yet interested hobbyists who are frustrated with the 'Express' version's lack of x64 compilation and absent MFC support. Ever tried to create (let alone manage) a window "the hard way" using only the basic API? Suicide is painless.nikos wrote:just to clarify i don't stick with VS6 because i'm cheap (i have VS2007)
), 64-Bit: More than Just the Ram is the best article I've seen explaining the nebulous subject. A little technical, but readable and informative nonetheless.what's the world becoming? the end is nigh :shock:A much as it pains me to create a "brief", "terse", "castrated" post
Hi,nikos wrote:as you probably realize i don't see much in this 64 bit thing -- although i spend my days and nights trying to make x2 work on it as we speak. Unless you need the extra address space to manage huge databases or what have you, what's the point?
From that I draw the conclusion that I don’t really need 64-bit right now. And maybe not before long…A 32-bit operating system can only properly address exactly four gigs, which must be shared between kernel and processes as well as holding further virtual memory addressing. Because of that, Windows XP users can never see the full 4GB of memory - it will always be approximately 3.2GB with Service Pack 2.
AMD64/Intel 64 brings quite a benefit to the x86 world. For starters, x86-64 contains a huge step forward for programmers with the introduction of "relative pointers." Without going into an entire programming explanation, pointers are reference points in code (in this case we are referring to the translated machine code, or assembly) that tell a program where to go next or look for its next piece of data. These pointers previously needed to be absolute, meaning that you needed to know the exact memory address or register that you were wanting to access. This type of programming can be very inefficient, as it requires an absolute understanding of which addresses and registers are free at the time. If that for some reason was already full or was otherwise unable to be written, the program would crash due to a general protection fault. It also meant that little program pieces were strewn about free memory addresses and registers rather than intelligently organised. By making use of the relative pointers, each program is capable of running in its own "virtual space" rather than in an absolute position within the CPU and memory. This makes program loading and unloading significantly more efficient and organised at the machine-code level, which can speed up memory- or computation-heavy processes significantly as compared to 32-bit execution.
One of the most controversial features of the x86-64 instruction set has been the addition of an instruction known as the NX Bit. This is a kernel security feature, and is short for "No eXecute". By using the NX bit to flag various registers and memory addresses, it is possible for an operating system to prevent code from being executed without a fault - think of it as a "write protect" switch for registers and memory. The NX bit was implemented to help prevent one of the weaknesses of the x86 architecture ever since the 286 - buffer overruns.
On top of this, there are even some benefits to 32-bit code executed on 64-bit systems. Both Intel and AMD processors have the ability to "double up" certain 32-bit instructions, running two commands at once instead one command per clock. Though this isn't universally functional for all instructions or data, it can provide some nice little speed enhancements over the aggregate of a program running.
All of the instructions, increased maximum data sizes and memory addresses won't do any good without the ability for the rest of the system to transport the same size chunks of information. In particular, data has to be able to flow between the northbridge, RAM and CPU with at least the same data width in order for 64-bit extensions to function well. Fortunately, bus width is something that seems to largely stay a step ahead of the curve. All northbridge chipsets on the Intel side since the G915 have supported a full 64-bit bus, as have most A64 chipsets since Nvidia's nForce3 chipset.
Of course, as with every massive step forward, there are some weak points to 64-bit computing. Probably the greatest weakness of all is that in order for something to gain any of the benefits of it, the software you use must be made for it.
All major operating systems these days come with a 64-bit version. Windows Vista is considerably more advanced in 64-bit features than Windows XP x64, it is worth noting, but both are what are known as hybrids. You can also add Mac OS-X (Tiger and Leopard) to this list. Each OS provides both a 32-bit and a 64-bit execution path, allowing both instructions simultaneously and thus not requiring specially coded 64-bit versions of all programs.
Linux/Unix/BSD users are given a whole different choice. The 'nix universe has developed kernels designed specifically to run only 64-bit, and the vast group of coders in the OSS underground have created programs to suit. This leaves Linux as a natural choice for people looking to see exactly how vastly improved 64-bit computing can be. Users have found speed boosts, security improvements, compiling benefits and a myriad of other little gains.
Once into the applications, users of Mac and Windows systems will find themselves a little shorter of options, but far from barren. The latest offerings from Adobe all feature 64-bit instructions, as do some of the newer modelling/rendering software. You can even find 64-bit "enhancements" in games all the way back to Far Cry, and Valve's Source engine has some significant speed improvements for those running a 64-bit OS.
No step forward is without at least one little step back, of course, and 64-bit computing is absolutely no exception. If there is one thing that is slowing the uptake of 64-bit, it's the support by manufacturers in the form of drivers (or modules, for those in the 'nix community). A trip around even some big-name websites like Linksys and Creative will leave you with a sour taste from the word "go," wondering where all the love has gone.
Modern processors, chipsets and now finally operating systems have started to make the move, and as the technology filters down into the "average home," the software will follow. Until that time, those who use 64-bit systems can enjoy the perks - slightly sped-up processes on double-executed 32 bit code, a full 4GB of RAM, protected execution, more stable and accurate code due to the increased data size and enhanced overall system efficiency due to relative pointers just to name a few. And for the software that has already come to pass with the likes of Adobe Photoshop, Maya, Vue Infinite, some CAD programs and quite a few games, you'll have plenty of toys that get a little boost right now.
With that being said, it's still not quite a perfect system - the steeper hardware requirements in processing power and memory versus the lack of current software leave it more to "If you have it, you should use it" rather than "I need this now!" But whether you are intrigued enough to take the plunge into Vista, a new 'nix build or stick with your good old Windows XP, one thing is for certain - 64-bit is here to stay, it's going to grow, and it's more than just the RAM.
Windows Answers by Cloudeight - Windows x64 vs. Windows x32
David asks about 64-bit Windows vs 32-bit Windows
I've read some articles in other newsletters saying you shouldn't even consider upgrading to Windows Vista unless you upgrade to 64-bit Windows Vista. I'm using Windows XP and I'm wondering whether to get the 64-bit or 32-bit version of Windows Vista. From what I've read, I'd be better off to go with the 64-bit version. If anyone can help me decide with some "straight talk", I know you guys can. Appreciate all your advice! Thanks, David.
Our answer
I think we know the newsletter that published that article with the headline "Don't upgrade to Vista unless you go 64-bit". If we're talking about the same newsletter, that article and its headline smacked, to us at least, of National Enquirer sensationalism. Two weeks later, that same newsletter (different author) wrote an article completely opposed to the first article espousing the wonders of 64-bit Vista.
We will just stick to the facts. Here they are. If you're going to be doing a lot of intensive database work using SQL or other types of professional database applications, or you're doing very resource-intensive 3D graphics work such as used in game programming, you might need the extra processing power, speed and the extra RAM (up to 8 GB) that 64-bit Windows Vista allows.
But, if you're an average home user, you need to know that there are not a lot of 64-bit software applications available. If you have a lot programs you use and like, it is highly likely that these 32-bit applications do not have 64-bit counterparts. While Windows Vista x64 does run 32-bit applications, it does not run 32-bit applications well.
The 4GB RAM limit of Windows Vista x32 should be plenty for most normal home users. We're using both of our Vista 32-bit computers with 2GB of RAM and do some resource intensive graphics work on the, and we haven't experienced any "RAM-outs" at all.
And then there's the problem of hardware; 32-bit drivers will not load on a 64-bit system. So, if your hardware manufacturer doesn't offer 64-bit drivers for your hardware, your hardware won't run.
If you're considering upgrading to Windows Vista, and you use your computer as most home users do, we think that the 32-bit version would be the better choice. You'll find much more software available in 32-bit versions, your hardware drivers will work, and you can have up to 4GB of RAM installed which should be more than enough.
To sum up: The majority of users will be very disappointed if they install Windows Vista x64. The lack of 64-bit drivers for most current hardware will continue to be a problem for the foreseeable future and will be a source of frustration for most people. Yes, it's true that 64-bit operating systems are the future, just like 32-bit systems were the future in the age when most of us used 16-bit systems. But, for those considering Vista x64, the future is not yet here. The performance gains promised by 64-bit will not really be seen until 64-bit versions of software and 64-bit drivers become the norm.
Note: This answer applies to upgrading a current system from Windows XP to Windows Vista x64. If you buy a computer with Vista x64 pre-installed the system will come with 64-bit drivers and 64-bit software installed. The problem comes later with factory-installed Vista x64- when you add hardware to the system or download software you would face the same issues as a person upgrading to Vista x64.
Spoken like a true descendent of the now (self-admitted) extinct ancient Greek doctrine of intellectual scepticism. Oh where, dearest Agrippa, hast thy conscience fallen? To pessimism? To a sad silent waveless sea? Whilst being no fan of Descartes assumptive epistemology myself, I will admit a certain sophistic intent.nikos wrote:I'd like to see the end result, some comparative benchmarks for everyday programs, that should settle the issue for us luddites
)
