Methink you have a problem with not being right. This time you are not right. The Windows 64bit OS has a BIG advantage over 32bit. In the article that advantage was 9 minutes to render versus 68 minutes. I'll take that reduction in time whether or not CS4 is threaded, processed or just chopped liver.
@RickyF: I admitted I was wrong (even though I don't like to ), I just went into detail to show you how press releases don't tell the whole story, and to show anyone interested exactly why cheating helps sell computers. Video encoding has always been the "one" thing people point to when they say "look real-world x64 benefit!" It would just be nice if they saw what they were missing while they counted their 59 minutes of thrill.
@Tuxman: the inevitable switch to x64 OS's (or 128 or whatever). Basically the death of x86 architecture. Long and slow as it may be.
This discussion is particularly relevant to me, as I only just recently upgraded from XP SP 3 32-bit (still solid after all these years) to Windows 7 64-bit. During this process, I also upgraded from 4 to 8 GB of RAM just for kicks. Was I hesitant? Absolutely. I have/had all of the same reasons for sticking to XP 32-bit as nikos and others have mentioned. Then again, I'm extremely opposed to change in any form, so I went forward with this upgrade on the principle that if I didn't do it now, I may never do it.
The experience has been pleasant and without issue thus far, which makes me doubly glad to have waited several years for the driver kinks Vista users experienced to start sorting themselves out. These kinks are rooted more in the newer driver model (WDM) versus the bit-ness of the OS, so I think some of the aforementioned points about bugginess of 64-bit drivers are in need of substantiated proof.
You guys seem focused primarily on per-process addressable memory rather than the interplay between the OS and swap space. Isn't it true that with an increased amount of RAM to play with, the OS can be less conservative with its management of virtual memory? If I'm right, x64 + additional RAM would make for small-but-noticeable improvements when switching between tasks (most apparent when these tasks have visible windows). I can't definitively prove this because I'm not comparing apples to apples (Windows 7 SuperFetch and user-mode window management obscure these factors a bit and I'm too lazy to research it properly).
On another note, I'm currently running Photoshop CS4 64-bit. Pretty spiffy, and I hope other vendors continue to take advantage of extra memory capacity where needed.
nikos, is xPlorer2 a C++ application? If so, I feel your pain. I'm in .NET development land (for business applications, mind you), so I can be blissfully naive about target CPUs and the like.
Tuxman wrote:Linux has been supporting 64 bit for decades IIRC.
Well, since 2003 for PC's anyway, when the Opteron first became commercially available for enthusiasts. The death of x86 is also the realistic death of XP (living on via virtualization). When Ubuntu passes on, no one will notice except spaceman Mark - and people who think brown is a nice colour. XP is the passing of an era.
DAndres109 wrote:Isn't it true that with an increased amount of RAM to play with, the OS can be less conservative with its management of virtual memory?
Yes, except Vista tried the "hmm, more memory, let me use it!" approach which annoyed the enthusiasts no end (itchy trigger-fingers after a decade of somewhat poor MS memory management) that Win7 had to tone it down a bit. So, like you say, "real world" improvements to task switching are difficult to gauge until x64 is the standard.
DAndres109 wrote:On another note, I'm currently running Photoshop CS4 64-bit. Pretty spiffy, and I hope other vendors continue to take advantage of extra memory capacity where needed.
Hence the source of the latter part of this discussion... is CS4 PS actually native x64? - I know many people have been requesting it, but Adobe's record with these things isn't great. Either way, the actual benefits to photo editing are limited, unless you edit a heck of a lot of 10mp photos at once! I use Gimp (native x64, though the builds are considered experimental), but only because I use virtually no plug-ins. As mentioned with IE, that's a sticking point for a lot of people, especially given the goliath that is PS - they might have to find a way to internally virtualize plug-ins before widespread industry adoption becomes practical, if they haven't already.
Kilmatead wrote:Yes, except Vista tried the "hmm, more memory, let me use it!" approach which annoyed the enthusiasts no end (itchy trigger-fingers after a decade of somewhat poor MS memory management) that Win7 had to tone it down a bit.
Windows 7 does not use significantly less memory.
Tux. ; tuxproject.de registered xplorer² pro user since Oct 2009, ultimated in Mar 2012
I was talking in the future tense about the death of XP (hastened by x64 environments), not the contemporary. A "contributing factor", if you will.
Everything that's "old" eventually becomes dead - or simply "comes around again", depending on which tune you hum as the cyclical noose of a Pythagorean cosmology tightens around your neck.
Tuxman wrote:Windows 7 does not use significantly less memory.
True, most of the gains come from MS limiting the services that start up as a matter of course. But what it does use, it uses (overall) with what I would call greater balanced efficiency. Just my impression from extended use of both (Vista/Win7) in x64. The original point was to allocated virtual memory, anyway, not used physical.
Tuxman wrote:Imagine someone who, let's say, uses Windows 98. Why should he upgrade to anything newer?
If he's not interested in using contemporary software or hardware, then there's no reason he should. Same reason people who buy Netbooks shouldn't expect them to run Photoshop.
He just shouldn't expect anyone to make something backwards compatible "just for him" - but there's always going to be that small minority who think that's the way it "should be" anyway. Bless their little hearts, and wipe the boot-print from their little noses.
Kilmatead wrote:True, most of the gains come from MS limiting the services that start up as a matter of course.
You can also do that on Vista.
Yes, but "out of the box" Win7 is lighter on services, whereas on Vista you had to do it yourself, which most "normal users" wouldn't do.
Win7 services need pruning as well, but at least they're less intrusive to begin with (default to 'Manual' rather than 'Auto', etc). None of this is x64 specific though (an attempt to stay on topic, whatever it once was). As I stated in my original post on this thread, MS goofed by not making the whole backward compatibility issue virtual - then the x64 "issues" become irrelevant. Except not all machines can effectively run virtual environments, so in the interests of user-upgrades, we're stuck comparing everything in sight. It all could have been much simpler.
Last edited by Kilmatead on 2010 Apr 11, 16:50, edited 1 time in total.
