Are we moving from 32 bit to 64 bit desktops soon?

[zalzon]

This is a question I'd like answered before I contemplate upgrading my
computer.

M$ is coming out with Windows 64 sometime in early 2005 (?) Would 32
bit machines be able to run on Windows 64? What I fear is buying a
cheap 32 bit machine today only to find out 12 months down the line
that I have to upgrade to a 64 bit system YET again.

Now I know you will say "what do you need the computer for, 32 is
fine..etc". But I want to buy a system that will be able to run
future software (the latest OS) i.e. 3 yrs down the road.

I HAVE to keep up with the technology (especially in OS) since my job
depends on it. I can only buy that which lasts me a long time.

My current system has lasted me 7+ years!.

Please advise.

 

[philo]

This is a question I'd like answered before I contemplate upgrading my
computer.

M$ is coming out with Windows 64 sometime in early 2005 (?) Would 32
bit machines be able to run on Windows 64? What I fear is buying a
cheap 32 bit machine today only to find out 12 months down the line
that I have to upgrade to a 64 bit system YET again.

Now I know you will say "what do you need the computer for, 32 is
fine..etc". But I want to buy a system that will be able to run
future software (the latest OS) i.e. 3 yrs down the road.

I HAVE to keep up with the technology (especially in OS) since my job
depends on it. I can only buy that which lasts me a long time.

My current system has lasted me 7+ years!.

Please advise.

a 32bit machine will not run a 64bit OS....however

64bit machines are already available if you are really worried about it...

but again... no matter what you get today... it will be obsolete tomorrow

 

[Dave C.]

This is a question I'd like answered before I contemplate upgrading my
computer.

M$ is coming out with Windows 64 sometime in early 2005 (?) Would 32
bit machines be able to run on Windows 64? What I fear is buying a
cheap 32 bit machine today only to find out 12 months down the line
that I have to upgrade to a 64 bit system YET again.

Uhhh . . . the athlon 64 is out today. If you want one, buy one. Until
now, I wondered what the fuss was about. I mean, the hardware is out at
least 3 years ahead of the OS/Software for it. I guess it's for people who
don't upgrade as often as the average (2 years).

But if you built a 32 bit system today, I'd be almost willing to guarantee
you that it will run any OS that Microsoft releases in 2005. There's no way
Microsoft is going to release an OS that will only run on about 25% (if
that) of personal computers. -Dave

 

[zalzon]

But if you built a 32 bit system today, I'd be almost willing to guarantee
you that it will run any OS that Microsoft releases in 2005. There's no way
Microsoft is going to release an OS that will only run on about 25% (if
that) of personal computers. -Dave

your reply contradicts the guy "philo" above you.

does anyone know for a fact whether windows 64 will be able to run on
a 32 bit machine (e.g. athlon xp 2600) ?

I don't see the logic behind buying a high priced pentium EE chip only
to have it become obsolete in 1.5 yrs. Obsolete meaning you cannot
upgrade to win 64. Ditto for people who buy expensive 32 bit laptops
today.

 

[Cuzman]

" What I fear is buying a cheap 32 bit machine today only to find out 12
months down the line that I have to upgrade to a 64 bit system YET again. "


Any gamer buying an Athlon 64 now may not be happy playing the latest games
when they finally go 64-bit.

There are always *minimum* and *recommended* CPU speeds for games, and many
high-end games today recommend a 2Ghz CPU. The Athlon 64 3400+ is currently
the fastest 64-bit CPU at 2.2Ghz. By the time 64-bit gaming arrives, many
high-end games will surely require more than 2.2Ghz as a recommendation, and
some may require more than 2.2Ghz as a minimum.

It could be a timebomb for AMD if clock speeds on future Socket 754 chips
don't stretch to the recommendation of those 64-bit games. Much of their
system may well be suitable, but a new socket CPU means a new motherboard,
and for many that can mean a whole new PC altogether.

I've expressed my concerns from the viewpoint of a hardcore gamer, but you
need to look into this from your own needs. The question for everyone is:
Will the clock speeds of current 64-bit processors hold up to your needs
once you finally have to go 64-bit?

 

[JAD]

I believe the 64 bit systems will be the introduction of TCPA on the hardware level. I think that the next generation will
eventually make obsolete all 32 bit(pirating era boom) hardware and software. If you catch my drift.

http://www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html

 

[zalzon]

I believe the 64 bit systems will be the introduction of TCPA on the hardware level. I think that the next generation will
eventually make obsolete all 32 bit(pirating era boom) hardware and software. If you catch my drift.

http://www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html

Hmm... interesting stuff. Would Asia which includes China, Japan &
India agree to buying hardware which locks them into such an
environment?

The software part sounds implimentable even with current technology.
Win XP has a feature that registers the software with Microsoft before
it can be used.

There is no way they can stop mp3 from being played regardless of what
tricks are used at the software level. If it can be heard, it can be
recorded to a destination where such restrictions don't exist.

More worrying is the hardware aspect. I've heard there are moves in
some quarters to make an "open source chip".

 

[JT]

your reply contradicts the guy "philo" above you.

does anyone know for a fact whether windows 64 will be able to run on
a 32 bit machine (e.g. athlon xp 2600) ?

I don't see the logic behind buying a high priced pentium EE chip only
to have it become obsolete in 1.5 yrs. Obsolete meaning you cannot
upgrade to win 64. Ditto for people who buy expensive 32 bit laptops
today.

Win64 requires a 64bit processor to run. You will probably see a situation
similar to what you saw in the days of WinNT4.0. There were CDs for both
X86 (32bit) and Alpha (64bit) versions of the OS. Expect the current XP-64
to just be Win XP with 64 bit code stuck on for larger memory addressing
and marketing. By the time Longhorn gets released, it will either have 2
cds, one for each platform, or come on a DVD and select the install based
on what it finds.

64bit apps for windows will trail the OS by a long time. Expect all of the
standard Internet apps, and office aps to stay 16 bit, as IE and Word won't
really benifit from 64bit code. Their server apps will be upgraded to
64bit, but even that will take some time. Expect the Games, Multimedia, and
Open Source software to lead the way into 64 bits.

JT

 

[zalzon]

Will the clock speeds of current 64-bit processors hold up to your needs
once you finally have to go 64-bit?

Speaking from a non-gamer prespective, the clock speed does not matter
to me. I don't care if it runs slow. I just want it to run. I'd get
a cheap 32 bit system if I knew it could run 64 bit apps & OS in
emulation mode or something. I don't know that so I'm not sure what
to get.

I doubt very many applications can take advantage of 64 bit unless
they do a lot of graphics processing. (i.e. games, animation/graphics
apps and maybe very large databases).

Certainly nobody needs a 64 bit word processor.

Other than that, 64 bit is just a scam to get us all to waste money on
upgrades yet again.

 

[zalzon]

By the time Longhorn gets released, it will either have 2
cds, one for each platform, or come on a DVD and select the install based
on what it finds.

Hi, do you know this for a fact or is this speculation?

According to Bill Gates, a huge amount of money is being invested in
Longhorn. He makes the comparison to the cost of sending a man to the
moon today. Surely there must be more to it than just increasing an
array size for the memory addressing. Am I wrong? Its suppose to be
a big revision over the existing Windows .. .or so he claims.

64bit apps for windows will trail the OS by a long time. Expect all of the
standard Internet apps, and office aps to stay 16 bit, as IE and Word won't
really benifit from 64bit code.

I am sure that won't stop MS from releasing Office 64 with a 64 bit
word processor.

Expect the Games, Multimedia, and
Open Source software to lead the way into 64 bits.

How about compilers?

In your opinion, should I invest in getting an AMD 64 for the future?
Is it worth it?

 

[somebody]

This is a question I'd like answered before I contemplate upgrading my
computer.

M$ is coming out with Windows 64 sometime in early 2005 (?) Would 32
bit machines be able to run on Windows 64? What I fear is buying a
cheap 32 bit machine today only to find out 12 months down the line
that I have to upgrade to a 64 bit system YET again.

What is to fear, if you truly buy a *cheap* 32-bit machine? Then you
can still afford the 64-bit upgrade. 12 months from now AMD will not
make much else than 64-bit cpus, and I bet you can get one real cheap
then. I also bet Intel will at least be busy, pushing something out of
the garage.

A machine does not get cheap from being 32-bit. A 2.8GHz to 3.2GHz P4
is $200-$400 and mobo is $150-$200. An Athlon64 3000+ costs $219, and
a mobo is about $150.
"Is 32-bit (only) worth the extra cost"?

Now I know you will say "what do you need the computer for, 32 is
fine..etc". But I want to buy a system that will be able to run
future software (the latest OS) i.e. 3 yrs down the road.

Why do you want to keep a computer for 3 years? But ok, - no, 32-bit
will not hack it. To little virtual address space! It's as simple as
that, and I'm amazed that people are so thick they don't get it. Is it
really so easy to be fooled by Intel's disinformation?
(but then - people are buying Dell Celerons, aren't they?)

We're running full speed headfirst straight into that old 640KB wall
again! Don't compare it to the 16-32 bit changeover. Because 64-bits
are not like that at all. 16/32 bits were about going from a paged
memory model to a linear. 32/64 bit is about space. Compare it to the
old 8086 - 640KB memory limit instead! Because that's exactly what we
have ahead of us. - The 2GB limit!

I HAVE to keep up with the technology (especially in OS) since my job
depends on it. I can only buy that which lasts me a long time.

My current system has lasted me 7+ years!.

Please advise.

I feel completely inadequate, to advise someone who has been able to
keep a system for 7 years .

 

[somebody]

Hi, do you know this for a fact or is this speculation?

According to Bill Gates, a huge amount of money is being invested in
Longhorn. He makes the comparison to the cost of sending a man to the
moon today. Surely there must be more to it than just increasing an
array size for the memory addressing. Am I wrong? Its suppose to be
a big revision over the existing Windows .. .or so he claims.


I am sure that won't stop MS from releasing Office 64 with a 64 bit
word processor.


How about compilers?

In your opinion, should I invest in getting an AMD 64 for the future?
Is it worth it?

Words like "invest in, for the future" should IMO never be uttered in
relation to computers.

Is it worth what? What is it you spend or give up, by getting AMD 64?

And why don't you want to upgrade your system more often than 3 years?

Ancra

 

[somebody]

Any gamer buying an Athlon 64 now may not be happy playing the latest games
when they finally go 64-bit.

There are always *minimum* and *recommended* CPU speeds for games, and many
high-end games today recommend a 2Ghz CPU. The Athlon 64 3400+ is currently
the fastest 64-bit CPU at 2.2Ghz. By the time 64-bit gaming arrives, many
high-end games will surely require more than 2.2Ghz as a recommendation, and
some may require more than 2.2Ghz as a minimum.

- ! - You really think GHz and clockspeed have anything to do with
anything at all ?!

Those 2GHz recommendations "today" are for 'Intel-P4-GHz'. (and
possibly *corresponding* amd rating). For games, a 2GHz P4 is about
equivalent to a XP1700+ at 1.46GHz, according to:

C & C Generals
Gunmetal
Halo
Simcity4
Unreal tournament
Warcraft3
Wolfenstein

A 2GHz Celeron, in turn, is only about half as fast as the 1.46GHz
XP1700, or as fast a 1GHz Duron.
So much for your "recommended 2GHz CPU".

The Athlon64 3400+ will be just fine when 3.5GHz is "recommended" for
32-bit games. That's what the "+" means. As for 64-bit games, it will
run them a good bit better.

Still, your main point is valid, in so much as that everything gets
obsolete eventually. However, there is an excellent reason to buy an
Athlon64 today. For 32-bit games today! It's the fastest thing in
existence for even current games, and still cheaper than the best P4s.
Why buy a 'slow' 3.2GHz P4 for $385 when you can have an Athlon64 for
$219?

Ancra

 

[S.Heenan]

This is a question I'd like answered before I contemplate upgrading my
computer.

M$ is coming out with Windows 64 sometime in early 2005 (?) Would 32
bit machines be able to run on Windows 64? What I fear is buying a
cheap 32 bit machine today only to find out 12 months down the line
that I have to upgrade to a 64 bit system YET again.

Now I know you will say "what do you need the computer for, 32 is
fine..etc". But I want to buy a system that will be able to run
future software (the latest OS) i.e. 3 yrs down the road.

I HAVE to keep up with the technology (especially in OS) since my job
depends on it. I can only buy that which lasts me a long time.

My current system has lasted me 7+ years!.

I'm not sure if using the same machine, even with upgrades, for seven years,
is keeping up with technology.

AMD currently has both the Socket 940 and Socket 754 64-bit processors.
According to their roadmap, AMD will move to Socket 939 some time in the
first half of 2004.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040112225451.html

http://www.overclockers.com/tips00464/

 

[Matt]

I HAVE to keep up with the technology (especially in OS) since my job
depends on it. I can only buy that which lasts me a long time.

My current system has lasted me 7+ years!.

Using a 7-year-old computer is not exactly "keeping up with technology".

Do you have a third personality?

 

[zalzon]

AMD currently has both the Socket 940 and Socket 754 64-bit processors.
According to their roadmap, AMD will move to Socket 939 some time in the
first half of 2004.

What reason would there be for anyone buying a Pentium EE then? Its
32 bits. Even prescott is. I really don't see the logic of people
buying 1000+ dollar computers only to have them become obsolete within
18 months.

I classify obsolete as being not able to run the OS of the day.

Even with a 500Mhz Pentium, you can run Win XP. With a Pentium EE,
you would not be able to run Win 64 even though the Pentium EE would
only be 1.5 yrs old.

 

[zalzon]

Using a 7-year-old computer is not exactly "keeping up with technology".

Do you have a third personality?

A 1Ghz Pentium can run Win XP. It can run most programs out there
today with the exception of high end games and graphic software. It
can run all major OSes.

The same will not be true if you buy a Pentium EE today and try to run
Win 64 a mere 12 months from now. That does not make any sense
especially given its cost. Yet Intel continues to put 32 bit chips
out the door.

 

[jeff findley]

What reason would there be for anyone buying a Pentium EE then? Its
32 bits. Even prescott is. I really don't see the logic of people
buying 1000+ dollar computers only to have them become obsolete within
18 months.

I thought the definition of a computer was an expensive box that
becomes "obsolete" in 18 months.

I classify obsolete as being not able to run the OS of the day.

Even with a 500Mhz Pentium, you can run Win XP. With a Pentium EE,
you would not be able to run Win 64 even though the Pentium EE would
only be 1.5 yrs old.

That 500Mhz Pentium would do better running Windows 98SE. Microsoft
still supports this OS. It's what I run at home on my Athlon XP
1600+. I could run XP, but why? "Upgrading" doesn't get me anything
that I really need, so why bother?

At work I'm still running Windows 2000 Professional. They won't
"upgrade" me to XP until it becomes necessary. Until then, I'll
continue to happily do my work (software development) on my Win2k
box. It was bad enough when I was forced to "upgrade" to Visual
Studio .NET.

Jeff

 

[jeff findley]

A 1Ghz Pentium can run Win XP. It can run most programs out there
today with the exception of high end games and graphic software. It
can run all major OSes.

The same will not be true if you buy a Pentium EE today and try to run
Win 64 a mere 12 months from now. That does not make any sense
especially given its cost. Yet Intel continues to put 32 bit chips
out the door.

1. Win 64 isn't here yet
2. Some people need to buy a new machine *now*
3. Compatability with future operating systems isn't as important to
most people as compatability with current (or past) operating systems.
4. I find that most people don't want to be "bleeding edge" with
their hardware or software.

Jeff

 

[Dashi]

A 1Ghz Pentium can run Win XP. It can run most programs out there
today with the exception of high end games and graphic software. It
can run all major OSes.

The same will not be true if you buy a Pentium EE today and try to run
Win 64 a mere 12 months from now. That does not make any sense
especially given its cost. Yet Intel continues to put 32 bit chips
out the door.

I'm surprized that you aren't still using your Vic 20. ;-)

Wow where would computer technology be if we were all like you?

Dashi