Who needs 64-bit?
Wrong question.
Didn’t we ask ourselves a similar question years ago when we all felt (kind of) comfortable in the 16-bit world and this 32-bit thing eventually appeared in Windows? Yesterday I've seen my boss sending out a lengthy email response to an internal Microsoft alias where an honorable person (non-MS) asked the very question. My boss did a very good job BUT it’s still the wrong question. 64-bit is as inevitable for IT as rain is for the seasons. And man, 64-bit is not new, it is just relatively new to Windows and therefore it may look new to the masses.
Today, if you don’t see that you don’t have no choice anymore, you better plan for an early retirement. 64-bit is inevitable. Very soon (not in 2007 or later) there will be no more desktop and server systems that are not capable of running a 64-bit OS.
I’ve seen the early Itanium 1 days, Those were the days of huge COMPAQ 7-U rack mountable boxes with fans, noisy like starting jet engines. Those were the early days and the question has been asked many time, but today?
No doubt, you may not see an immediate need for 64-bit on on your laptop (it’s cool anyway) but I can tell from working with many, many of Microsoft top ISV and enterprise partners, they’re on the bandwagon since long ago and don’t ask this question for quite some time anymore.
Thoughts?
Comments
- Anonymous
February 11, 2005
In my mind, the better question is: how do the benefits and drawbacks of 64-bit affect me? Personally, I'm better off with 32-bit since I've never run into any limitations caused by being on a 32-bit architecture and don't want the extra memory overhead. If I were developing a DBMS or video editing tools, I'd be saying something else. - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
I agree with the previous caller: outside of computationally-intensive applications, 32-bit memory-mapping and CPU throughput is more than enough for the average end-user.
Until BUS speeds catch up to CPU speeds, a normal end-user will not be able to distinguish 32-bit from 64-bit. - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
Apparently you guys haven't learned from the lessons History tought us. It's obvious nobody needs it right now. But can you honestly affirm you won't expect anything better from any of your application in the future?
Oh and about bus speed... available technology are already much faster than the computers that runs it. - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
I didn't say 64-bit is a bad thing. All I said is that not everything needs it. Don't go 64-bit because it's cool, go 64-bit because you need to extra features it provides. How many programs run into the limits of 32-bit architecture? Not too many, I'd wager. For the ones that do, 64-bit is a blessing.
The question "who needs 64-bit" still applies, but it applies to programmers. For end users, the question is answered simply: everybody, because programmers will make use of the extra features if they need them.
Hence my database example. I can't imagine any serious database programmer not jumping at the opportunity to handler larger amounts of data more efficiently. On the other hand, I don't think 64-bit Solitaire will be any better than the 32-bit version. (Or the 16-bit version for that matter). - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
Few programs run into the limits of a 32-bit architecture because the programs are desgiend from the beginning with the limitations in mind. These limitations are so engrained, that few actually think of them as limitations.
For example, memory-mapping files still isn't that common because it quickly chews up gobs of virtual memory. So programs open files, copy the necessary data into data structures, and then close the file. Wouldn't it be nice if the file itself was the data structure? - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
I think 64 bits will work and will be useful. But I don't think the analogy that because we have passed from 8 to 16 to 32 bit will always apply. Because in some areas it hasn't happen. Maybe this is the wrong crowd. But consider Microcontrollers must of them have 8 bit power eventhought we have 64 bit processors now, because the extra money wasn't worth it in those proyects. :) Maybe we will reach that limit sometime in desktop computers, but we will find other things to do with computers. - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
I think 64 bits will work and will be useful. But I don't think the analogy that because we have passed from 8 to 16 to 32 bit will always apply. Because in some areas it hasn't happen. Maybe this is the wrong crowd. But consider Microcontrollers must of them have 8 bit power eventhought we have 64 bit processors now, because the extra money wasn't worth it in those proyects. :) Maybe we will reach that limit sometime in desktop computers, but we will find other things to do with computers. - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
Who needs 64-bits? Considering that the AMD-64 chips are the fastest CPUs that you can run Windows on, everyone can benefit from it right now. Oh and they are a lot more cost effective than the Intel 32 bit CPUs.
Even if Windows XP 64 is not out yet. - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
Oh, BTW, I should also note that most of the gaming consoles have been 64 bit for a while or so their marketing departments tell us. :) - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
Alex, the gaming consoles is a red herring. You've also got people who believe that a soundblaster AWE64 is a 64bit audio processor.
Big hint: it's not :) It's an audio processor with 64 MIDI voices.
For most consumers, IMHO, 64bit machines aren't a big deal. Three years from now, I'm likely to be saying something different, but for today, I just don't see the need for 64bit address spaces on the desktop.
On the server, absolutely. But on the desktop? Not yet. - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
No, not yet, but real soon now.
Part of the driver will be people buying what's 'cool' (more money than sense) and part will be a minority of programs that really do benefit from 64 bit.
But once that minority of programs starts to push the desktop move (and it'll be the video/photo side that push it) the rest will follow simply because of economies of scale.
32 bit Windows will probably die as slowly as 16 bit Windows did, but it's death starts now. - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
Who needs 64-bit? People like me working with digital audio!
http://www.cakewalk.com/x64/whitepaper.asp
Personally I can't wait! :) - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
I would say that 32 bit Windows has the possibility of dying at an even slower pace. The move from 16 to 32 bits also included that you had a fresh, new API full of features like pre-emptive multitasking, threading, new GUI controls that was only available in 32-bit mode and so on. Win32 != Win16 in 32 bits. Win64, OTOH, is much more similar, not to say identical -- at least for now. To benefit from a 64-bit architecture you either want the memory space, or other benefits from the architecture. Where performance matters, there is also still a bunch of apps that will slow down because of the larger pointers.
One thing that interests me is the size of the thunking penalty when running WoW64 (on x64). I've seen no clear numbers on that so far. - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
I buy the memory mapping (very good for performance), Virtual Address Space fragmentation management arguments. I might not need 4gig of ram, but I might be able to benefit from more than 4gig of virtual memory. - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
> The vast majority of consumers will find no > need for 64 bit hardware.
Interesting comments, but I suspect many here are a little bit out of touch with reality.
let's just look at the most common media experience consumers are interested in - digital photography
Today Adobe - related newsgroups/sites recommend at least 2GB of RAM to do simple editing in Photoshop. For better performance it is recommended to use /3GB switch and max addressable space given to PS.
Today this is for more sophisticated consumers, but tomorrow similar demands will drop down into regular photo editing. Average D-SLR these days is 8MPixel, load fw images and do simple editing with layers and you are going over 1GB commited application memory in a blink of an eye. This is just one app. Now, think about a little more advanced (but natural for many media consumers) scenario of merging photographs into slideshow with transitions and you start seeing how 64bit image editing application makes a lot of sense.
This is exactly the same as we faced back in 93, when single biggest reason for looking at migration to win32 was extending beyond 1MB of addressable space for most reaosnable application, dealing with larger buffer. It was easier to program and therefore result was faster to develop and more robust coming out.
Same now, programming modern consumer oriented media application had already pushed the limits of 32bit address space.Digital capture device progress is not stopping, but accelerating - with move to 32bpc imaging coming in 2-3 years our photo images will quadruple in size. In media scenarios capture and rednering devices drive the upgrade to the whole workflow chain.
And i haven't even touched scenarios editing HD video files, combining effects, stil photos and video streams, etc. All consumer stuff, mind you, people really want to make themselves creative....
So the vast desktop landscape has a good chance to move to 64 bit much sooner than many think. - Anonymous
February 11, 2005
> The vast majority of consumers will find no > need for 64 bit hardware.
Interesting comments, but I suspect many here are a little bit out of touch with reality.
let's just look at the most common media experience consumers are interested in - digital photography
Today Adobe - related newsgroups/sites recommend at least 2GB of RAM to do simple editing in Photoshop. For better performance it is recommended to use /3GB switch and max addressable space given to PS.
Today this is for more sophisticated consumers, but tomorrow similar demands will drop down into regular photo editing. Average D-SLR these days is 8MPixel, load fw images and do simple editing with layers and you are going over 1GB commited application memory in a blink of an eye. This is just one app. Now, think about a little more advanced (but natural for many media consumers) scenario of merging photographs into slideshow with transitions and you start seeing how 64bit image editing application makes a lot of sense.
This is exactly the same as we faced back in 93, when single biggest reason for looking at migration to win32 was extending beyond 1MB of addressable space for most reaosnable application, dealing with larger buffer. It was easier to program and therefore result was faster to develop and more robust coming out.
Same now, programming modern consumer oriented media application had already pushed the limits of 32bit address space.Digital capture device progress is not stopping, but accelerating - with move to 32bpc imaging coming in 2-3 years our photo images will quadruple in size. In media scenarios capture and rednering devices drive the upgrade to the whole workflow chain.
And i haven't even touched scenarios editing HD video files, combining effects, stil photos and video streams, etc. All consumer stuff, mind you, people really want to make themselves creative....
So the vast desktop landscape has a good chance to move to 64 bit much sooner than many think. - Anonymous
February 12, 2005
I think that the change to 64 bit will happen faster that 16 to 32 bit, beacuse AMD already is selling 64 bit proccesors that are backward-compatible, so people won't mind bying them. the computing world is just waiting for microsoft to catch up. - Anonymous
February 14, 2005
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
February 15, 2005
I think here is a need and there isnt. At this moment in time i dont think there is a need for 64bit processors because most apps only require 32bit for best performance. Also XP isnt doesnt support 64bits so we will all have to wait until longhorn comes out. If anyone could tell me when it is coming out i would be very grateful:D - Anonymous
February 18, 2005
Ok my 2 cents - short and sweet - we need more memory, more memory = better performance. If my 8 year old has a gig of RAM now (he does BTW), what will it be when he's 18? He has a computer that I dreamed of a few years back. Does he use every Mb every second of the day, no, but we do run United Devices client on it for a cancer cure. That extra horsepower might save your life someday. - Anonymous
February 18, 2005
We need a 64 Bit OS to act as the vm manager for multiple 32 bit os's to run. :-) - Anonymous
February 18, 2005
Here's a thought, I'm looking forward to 128bit processing. When every computer has a fiber optic connection to the internet and we can REALLY start to use the fiber backbone that exists in the world. In order to do that though, processors are going to have to be able to pump some bandwidth around and the computers local memory will be looking more like a processor cache than it's entire world. - Anonymous
February 18, 2005
In the business world we have needed 64 bit address spaces for at least a year now. As an example of the kind of problems I am seeing: yesterday we had a application run out of memory after processing only about 10% of its data. Of course they say it worked fine overseas where the application was created (with much smaller memory requirements). My point is that with 64 bit the costly and time consuming redesign that we are facing just would not have been needed. - Anonymous
February 20, 2005
Of course we will all move to 64-bit. Why?
Because your "average" PC buyer will see "AMD 64-bit CPU" and assume they need "Windows Blah 64", or the sales assistant at their local PC Megastore will tell them that's the only option.
Then when the latest version of Half-life, Quake, Doom will come out in an optional 64-bit version, so EVERY "KEWL" Gamer will just have to go 64-bit. So all of a sudden we'll get 64-bit drivers appearing for all the best hardware, and Voila! 64-bit will be mainstream. Lets face it, we live for upgrades. Besides what would we do if PC's just remained basically the same for years on end, like fridges, or washing machines. All us geeks would be jobless ;) - Anonymous
February 20, 2005
Financial Times today states "The 64-bit architecture has already become commonplace in the servers that form the backbone of many companies' networks." Read the full article (if you're a subscriber) at: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/5aa368b4-83ae-11d9-bee3-00000e2511c8.html - Anonymous
February 21, 2005
I know huge databases run better on Sun 64-bit systems; but does my desktop need all that processing power! The only reason they are pushing 64-bit PC's--it's just a way for everyone to make more money. The 64-bit PC's will be more expensive becuse the 64-bit processor is more; Windows XP-64 costs money than the 32-bit version; a minimum of 1GB memory is currently reguired for the Itaniam (more expensive memory required); new 64-bit software purchases; Visual Studio programmers req'd recertification; and the end of the $400 PC.
All my company's applications run off the servers anyway--is Word 64-bit on the desktop going to make my letters type faster?
Finally, both Intel and AMD are coming out with the dual core processor (32-bit)? That's got to be better and cheaper than 64-bit processors. - Anonymous
March 06, 2005
Here's what I wanna know... I'm a computer ignaramous and couldn't give 2 sh*ts about addressing virtual memory. If I'm buying a pc today, do I opt for an AMD 64 bit proc or should I go with an Intel to gain the benefits of the PCIe graphics cards (I'm one of those gamers who wants more more more)? My gut tells me that by the time XP 64 is fully implemented my hardware will be obsolete anyway whether I buy a 64 or 32 bit processor today. Thoughts, opinions?