46 replies to this topic

[Bart]

Consumers won't change the market; businesses will.

Not if the software is consumer software (games, for instance).

[Beowulf]

You won't see a 64-bit game for a very long time to come. The development architecture is a bit different and seems to be a little more complicated. Though, I'm not really for sure on that since I don't write desktop applications.

[Caspa]

There's a few x64 games out there already.

[Beowulf]

Exclusively 64-bit or do they run on 32 as well?

[Bereneth Túrien]

I would assume Caspa's talking about 64-bit compatible games.

[Caspa]

I meant genuine, x64 native games, such as the x64 version of Far Cry, WWII Tank Commander and Chronicles of Riddick : Escape from Butcher Bay.
Not x86 games running in x64 compatibility, but actual x64 games. They do exist, but they're few and far between. x64 is pushing through though and
will eventually become the standard.

EDIT: Also, Unreal Tournament 2004 x64

Edited by Caspa, 02 October 2009 - 02:15 AM.

[Jeeves]

x64 can run any x32 compiled code without a hitch, the only issues arise when wanting to use a x64 program with a x32 plugin, as the two cannot coexist in an application. So really you've got nothing to loose and you'll get better performance out of your x64 compatibles, and if you use anything like PS or Max, Maya, etc. this makes a big difference.
Been using 7 x64 since Beta without a hitch. XP is useless, but definately go with 64-bit for Se7en, you have nothing to loose and even if you don't think much to gain, its going to become more and more widely used.

[Clement]

Processors are build to use x64 architecture since a moment now. The only problem are still applications, because the dveloppers have generally to make a version for the x86 system (32 bits) and one for the x64, so two core of the applciations have to been programmed, which is a lot of work.

But x64 is the way to go, because you have nothing to loose, and because applications are slowly moving to this architecture.

And the x64 version of windows seven is perfect, I have it and it runs perfectly.

[JUS_SAURON]

And the x64 version of windows seven is perfect, I have it and it runs perfectly.

Yes ,UPGRADE
never downgrade or stay stagnant
I have not yet gotten windows 7 as I am waiting for all the De-bugging to finish (like vista64)
but good to know its working fine ...
BTW .. Windows 7 or any 64OS is very power /Ram hungry
It takes alot of system resourses ...(according to my computer Technician Friend )
So ensure your RIG can handle it before you upgrade

I am sure you will upgrade anyway just to see how it performs

[Caspa]

BTW .. Windows 7 or any 64OS is very power /Ram hungry
It takes alot of system resourses ...(according to my computer Technician Friend )
So ensure your RIG can handle it before you upgrade

Wrong. x64 is no more RAM or power hungry than x86. x64 can simply use more RAM.
The only precautions you need to take is ensuring your hardware is x64 compatible.

[Bereneth Túrien]

Yes ,UPGRADE
never downgrade or stay stagnant

I wouldn't feel bad about 'staying stagnant' as you put it if I felt as if I didn't need the new hardware. By your reckoning I should upgrade just because a newer version is available? If I wasn't looking for 64 bit technology I'd stay with my perfectly fine copy of XP. Heck, I still have a computer running Windows 2000, simply because I don't need anything more.

I have not yet gotten windows 7 as I am waiting for all the De-bugging to finish (like vista64)

Debugging is what they did back when it was still in development. Software is improved after release but all the debugging happens beforehand. Do you even know the meaning of the term? Not to mention at the beginning of your post you said "never downgrade or stay stagnant" and yet you aren't upgrading your own system?

It takes alot of system resourses ...(according to my computer Technician Friend )

The same one who said onboard graphics were choppy and worse than a less-powerful dedicated card, I suppose? Yeah, this makes me really believe this. [/sarcasm]

So ensure your RIG can handle it before you upgrade

Considering that's it can be less system-intensive than Vista in some circumstances I don't think that will be a problem.

I am sure you will upgrade anyway just to see how it performs

I have already used the RC you know...

The only precautions you need to take is ensuring your hardware is x64 compatible.

That shouldn't be a problem since my drivers and applications restore CD already has 64 bit drivers for everything. When I bought this system I bought it making sure I could upgrade later if it became necessary.

Edited by {AE}Manveru, 11 October 2009 - 12:51 AM.

[JUS_SAURON]

I edited my post ....
Did some internet searching and most people are NOT upgrading their OS just yet
Due to Compatability issues with programs


This_may_help

Edited by JUS_SAURON, 11 October 2009 - 02:39 AM.

[Jeeves]

Thats Ubuntu, and from Feb 07. I can assure you Ubuntu has fantastic x64 support these days.

x64 does however use a little more memory, but it shouldn't be prohibitory for any system with a x64 processor. The difference is 1GB vs 2GB's of RAM, and unless you're running a netbook, its a safe bet you have 2GB+, so will benefit. And given an Atom isn't a x64 processor, the amount of memory available becomes irrelevant.

I have a copy of Windows 7 Ultimate x64 and x32, but I can promise you the x32 disk can stay in its package. Windows 8's even rumored to be a 128-bit OS...

[Bart]

128 bits? I don't think we'll have reached 64's 16 million terabyte RAM limit when Windows 8 comes out.

[duke_Qa]

Just installed win7 on my "new" pc. its a far-cry to use this one compared to my old 32bit dual-core with 2gb of ram and a filled-to-the-brim-winXP. 8gb pc8500 ram just feels right

now, if i only could figure out what makes it blue-screen to death once every day. then it might just turn into my main-computer and not just some hardware gathering dust since may. But after Win7 things seems alot smoother.

[Nertea]

So, a 64-bit question for the techies who know more about this than I do.

I have a number of programs that were written quite a while back (mostly archive extraction tools) that seem to be designed for a 16-bit system. I'm running Vista 64. This seems to invalidate their use - obviously the OS can emulate all the 32-bit stuff I need, but just tells me that these older programs can't run at all.

Now, evidently I'm by no means an expert, but if the system can run things in a 32-bit environment, wouldn't it be equally trivial to run my two little older programs? Failing that, couldn't it emulate a 32 bit and use that to emulate 16-bit ? I've seen a couple programs that advertise the ability to do something like that, but I'm a bit more interested in the technical reason for this than the solution right now (if I must, I will attempt to get my old 32-bit laptop working again).

[Beowulf]

If you were running XP x64, you would not be able to run 16-bit applications. But as far as I'm aware, Vista x64 can run 16-bit applications.

But I gotta ask... what 16-bit applications are you still running? :|

[Bart]

16 bit? I don't think I even used computers back in those days

[Caspa]

128 bits? I don't think we'll have reached 64's 16 million terabyte RAM limit when Windows 8 comes out.

Thats no excuse to stagnate

[Nertea]

If you were running XP x64, you would not be able to run 16-bit applications. But as far as I'm aware, Vista x64 can run 16-bit applications.

But I gotta ask... what 16-bit applications are you still running? :|

Maybe it's 8-bit . I'm trying to run a couple viewing/extraction/conversion tools for old Interplay (circa 1995) games... revolving around the .hog, .pig archive formats and a couple of model formats (.oof, .ogf).