What good is a 64 bit operating system when all the apps will be 32 bit?

At least with 64 bit Linux distributions (like the SuSE 64 bit desktop edition) all of the applications have been recompiled for 64bits (with the exception of a few 3rd party proprietary apps which they don't have source for).

When can we expect to see 64 bit versions of current and future Windows applications?

I think AMD CPU's and many of their chips are faster. My 1Ghz duron is as fast as a P-4 1.7 according to one benchmark program - (Fresh Diagnose). I have built many systems with both processors. There is something stable, slow, and steady about Intel Cpu's but I prefer the power and feel of AMD stuff. It's always been much cheaper too. I like AMD. I hate to see Intel have such a monopoly on the market, so I'm cheering when AMD has a breakthrough. Go LINUX!!! too. Windows is so full of holes....so many security patches...Are we in a hurry to dominate the market, desperatly keep our dominance, and make tons of money? Mr. Microsoft? Well, It's nice to see MS release software for this processer, and quickly too. AMD is going to continue to be a formidible force in the PC power world and big Bill knows it.

AMD inside, Intel outside?

I think both processors have been competitive, it always go down price that judge which is more superior.

At the moment, it may not be fair to compete hertz to hertz anymore like in the old days.

Its about price, compare a $500 with another $500, see which one performs better, now this is more realistic.

There are lots of myths spreading about saying AMD is not reliable, this and that, but they are all bulls***s.
In fact the power users tend to choose AMD, is not it?

http://www.thedilly.com/material/quality.htm

I would have gone with IBM's impressive "looking" Opteron system, however they haven't found a way to sell me one yet. First off, I had to argue with 4 people to find out which person I needed to talk to in order to BUY one of these machines. Secondly, I had to explain to him what it was so he could send me a heinous unreadable invoice with typo's that looks like it was slapped together much as a short order chef would a side of scrambled eggs. Last, when all was said and done and priced out I would have been waiting until November to even see the system and it had no OS setup for 64 bit build other than SUSE (which is great for desktop linux but I prefer RH for server).

So I ended up spending my 14 grand at Dell buying 32bit Xeons to make up for the lack of 64bit availability from even the big cats.

I need 64bit. I will buy 64bit. But in the end, if there isn't a major player putting together the systems I wont get 64bit. This is why it's kick a** that MS is adopting AMD64 for desktop. With the spread of AMD64 chips to desktop this will open up larger numbers of distributers for the 64 server platforms for people with cash in hand.

Booooo IBM.

yeah I had the same problem with IBM, but I found another reputable vendor who sells these system and it was very cheap, I spent less than $2 grand and I got Windows 2003 64-bit for extended systems a single 2ghz opteron 246 3200+ on a nForce3 Pro150, Radeon 9800pro, 1GB 533MHZ 4200 DDR, 250GB Serial-ATA150 HDD, Soundblaster Audigy2 PlatinumEX, and a Sonata 550W case with 120

The operating system and everything else hardware, etc. runs pretty stably for a beta and just like my old 32-bit Win2003. The support has been excellent

I think the email was Sales@redpc.cjb.com and the website was http://redpc.cjb.com

i need a web server not a gaming machine ;)

Looks like these are shipping, they had some available today and now are 2-4 weeks out:

http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=-840&storeId=1&categoryId=2583808&langId=-1&dualCurrId=73

click on customize and add to cart! Put in info., credit card and go!

example:
Your shopping cart

Quantity Part No. Description Availability Item Price Line Total

eServer 325

883521X eServer 325
Customize
Within 2-4 weeks ** $3,527.00
Integrated Mirroring - 2 HDD's required In stock **
IBM 36.4 GB 10K rpm Ultra320 SCSI Hot-Swap HDD Within 2 weeks **

24P8189 Opteron (TM) processor Model 240 Within 2-4 weeks ** $699.00 $699.00

73P2267 1GB PC2700 CL2.5 ECC DDR SDRAM RDIMM Within 2-4 weeks ** $659.00 $1,318.00

Update Subtotal (update) $5,544.00

"In theory, AMD's 64-bit architecture and Intel's
split core technology are BOTH impressive. In the
real world, though, the two chips come out about
even. Go with price !"

Well that would be AMD then wouldn't it ;-)

The thing I think we have to keep in mind is that we don't spend 500$ for Athlon 64 or even more for the extreme edition of the P4 to use it for one month do we ?

We keep our computers for several years and I think you have to look at what CPU will be the best choice in say one and two years if you buy one now.

I would for certain go for the the Athlon 64 if I was buying today because I am sure that in say two years time it will turn out to have been a better choice then a boosted p4 (xeon?).

"Well that would be AMD then wouldn't it"

Quite so.

The DataRat and MrsRat use only AMD in their machines !

"I would for certain go for the the Athlon 64 if I was
buying today because I am sure that in say two years time
it will turn out to have been a better choice then a
boosted p4"

Per benchmarks, they're for all practical purposes
equivalent. The only other performance differential
(as opposed to price differential) is if -somewhere
within the chip's lifecycle- 64 bit apps become
widely available.

If ~that~ becomes the case, the AMD64 is the clear
winner.

But this remains uncertain. If Microsoft puts out a
64 bit edition of Office in the next 12 months, there'll
be lots of other 64 bit apps in the next three years.

If Microsoft doesn't develop a 64 bit version of Office
in the next 12 months, then widespread availability of
other 64 bit apps could take five or six years ...well
beyond the lifecycle of the AMD64 chip !

The Computer Rodent's advice, then: It's really not
a good time to upgrade your CPU unless you have to.
Wait a few months and see which way things go.

Upgrading your CPU will make more sense by the middle
of next year than it does now. ( Besides, prices will
only come down ! ) By then, motherboards shall also be
more optimized for 64 bit chips.

Early adopters are frequently stuck with hardware that
was ahead of itself.

Your Pal,

The DataRat

What exactly is your reasoning for such a claim?

Whether or not Microsoft makes a 64bit version of Office has no effect. Heck, Office wouldn't even benefit from a 64bit version.

The only advantage of waiting to upgrade is prices may drop slightly. Thereis no point in waiting to 'see where things go' simply because this chip fully supports x86, which will not be abonded for probably a few more years.

Excel could possibly benefit from it.

Well, you'd have to be one hell of an Excel user to get an advatage from it.

"So how does the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition stack
for processing of todays applications?"

Benchmarks that the Computer Rodent has seen have
the AMD-64 coming out a little ahead over the P4-EE
overall.

This is typical. Disregarding raw processor speed
(gHZ) and internal bandwidth (32-bit v. 64-bit),
AMD usually has a slight performance edge over
Intel.

THAT reduces the issue to price point. The DataRat
would go with whichever (AMD-64 or P4-EE) was cheaper.

In theory, AMD's 64-bit architecture and Intel's
split core technology are BOTH impressive. In the
real world, though, the two chips come out about
even. Go with price !

The DataRat

What you say on this thread makes good sense.

In the long run, 64 bit will be as much better than 32 bit as 32 bit was better than 16 bit. But it will take a number of years before the benefits are fully realized.

Windows 95 was a big jump over Windows 3.11, but it was flakey and liable to crap out any time. It took the software at least 4 or 5 years to take real advantage of the hardware, and the hardware needed some more work too.

So, I would be inclined to wait a few years to make the jump unless things move a lot faster than I expect.

"What you say on this thread makes good sense.
In the long run, 64 bit will be as much better
than 32 bit as 32 bit was better than 16 bit.
But it will take a number of years before the
benefits are fully realized."

Indeed so.

There's a lot of pieces that'll have to come
together before 64-bit desktop computing really
starts humming.

"So, I would be inclined to wait a few years
to make the jump unless things move a lot faster
than I expect."

Absolutely correct.

Everybody who jumps onto the 64-bit bandwagon
at this juncture is going to be disappointed.

As you pointed out, 64-bits shall be better
than 32-bits ...just like 32-bits was better
than 16-bits.

Yet, it'll take a while.

Get an AMD-64 because it's slightly faster,
and probably significantly cheaper, than the
Intel P4-EE.

But, ~don't~ expect much just because it's a
64-bit chip. Right now, THAT don't make much
difference.

Your Buddy,

The DataRat

And exactly so.. 64 bit right now only means a small jump in floating point operations, and the removal of the 4 gig memory barrier.
Who cares.
Jeez. Save your money.
Everyone here is like "well the athalon is cheaper than it's comparable intel product." like that matters. Go look at motherboard prices for their respective cpus and matched memory. That's where your money's gonna get sucked away like a bad cocaine habit.

In the end, 64 bit is cool, and has a certain "geekiness" factor, but in the real world, it means crap. Nothing. Zero, zilch, nadda.

NTIL windows and/or linux support full blown 64 bit, which alphalinux.org has been working on for many years yet, then it's basically worthless.

You say I need an explination on how computers work, that I may be inexperienced. I have been working with and repairing computers for more than 20 years. Probablly longer than you've been alive.

To say that I don't know what I'm talking about after seeing one post is ignorant, arrogant, and presumptive.

I pitty people who think like you. Please, for the sake of the IT industry, look at alternative solutions before you jump an a bandwagon, any bandwagon. Intel and AMD are NOT the only alternatives.

Google "64 bit processors" sometime.

"You say I need an explination on how computers work,
that I may be inexperienced"

No. The Computer Rodent said you have a "reading-comprehension
problem" ...an observation borne out by your comment quoted
above !

Your Pal,

The DataRat

Ok first of the Ahtlon 64FX will be more expensive and in it current state(940 pins), it can only use ECC memory wich slow it down(and its really expensive and inpossible to get in DDR400 speed atm).
Now the Ahtlon64 3200+ performs quite well but the P4EE beat it pretty much every time.
Now the FX with 939 pins should be another story...
Better performance and cheaper ram.
As for the early adopter of the 64 bit technology, these are the people who gonna help to jumpstart the 64, maybe they will be disapointed but at least they are starting the trend.

Keep in mind that lots of people bought some 865/875 intel chipset so upgrading to a P4EE would give them a good perfomance boost without changing anything else than the cpu wich is a lot cheaper than buying the (not yet mature) nforce3 ECC DDR400 and a AMD fx51...

Bottom line is 64 is much to expensive at this moment and wont bring you much in the near future and once the 64bit really kicks in in 2-5 years from now your cpu will be obsolete...

The labrat says the databrat should read a bit more hardware review b4 making statment that the AFX is cheaper than P4 EE...

"As for the early adopter of the 64 bit technology,
these are the people who gonna help to jumpstart the
64, maybe they will be disapointed but at least they
are starting the trend"

Yes. Absolutely. It's like charity work. 64-bit desktop
computing will be a great thing, and everybody who gets
into it now won't get much out of it personally ...but
sort of subsidizes all of us getting something from it
later.

As long as people don't presently think of it as anything
other than a "donation" to a good cause !

Yeah, give to the Red Cross, the Heart Association, and
AMD.

If the Computer Rodent was rich, he'd buy a hundred
AMD-64 cpu's ...not to put into computers... but just
as a contribution to a good cause. ( Like buying Girl
Scout cookies you'll never eat. )

In fact, thinking along those lines: Maybe AMD could
package their 64-bit chips in boxes like Girl Scout
cookies, and have midget geeks in uniforms sell them
in front of the entrances to grocery stores !

Your Pal,

The DataRat

"I think 64 bit will take a few years to be useful"

It will.

Afterwhich 32-bit shall seem like 16-bit today.

It's going to take 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS running
on a 64-bit machine to make this worthwhile for most
of us.

How soon ? A ~lot~ depends on when Microsoft puts out
a 64-bit edition of MS Office. When THAT domino falls,
others will quickly fall behind it !

Right now, however, having a 64-bit box running a 64-bit
OS ...with no 64-bit apps... is nothing more than bragging
rights.

Unless, of course, one intends on upgrading to over
4-gigs of RAM. For most of us, though, "breaking the
4-gig RAM limit" is a solution to a problem we don't
have !

Your Friend,

The DataRat

Despite the fact that the AMD64 CPUs are faster all around anyway. So you might as well get one.

It's all just dependent on what you do with your system. 64-bit computing isn't necessarily supposed to be faster (as in GHz). It's that it can handle more intense application processing. These are most useful in higher-end workstations; those that might be used for graphic design or video editing, for example. Most home users don't need this.

Of course, needing and wanting - or a perception of needing - is all relative. ;)

There ain't anything compelling right now about
running 32-bit apps in emulation on a 64-bit OS.

At the momoment, the most 64-bit computing does
for users is break the 4-gig RAM limitation.

Yet most users would be overjoyed just to have
a whole ~one~ gig of RAM on their motherboard !

The real advantage won't come until development
of 64-bit applications. And, the Computer Rodent
wonders if ...by that time... AMD won't have
pioneered the migration just to have Intel come
to the party late and take over.

The DataRat

There are many others things about 64-bit processing. There actually is a performance improvement because of extended registers. This doesn't give more bandwidth, just more headroom for a 64-bit optimized OS to work with. Once programs that are 64-bit compliant are released, then you will see that 64-bit will be far superior to 32-bit software.

"Once programs that are 64-bit compliant are released,
then you will see that 64-bit will be far superior to
32-bit software"

~Exactly~ what the Computer Rodent was saying !

Without 64-bit apps ...but with a 64-bit OS that runs
32-bit apps in emulation... a 64-bit CPU has no real
advantage.

El Raton fully concurs that 64-bit computing will be
wonderful once we have 64-bit applications in addition
to the just released 64-bit edition of Windows XP.

In fact, English-language readers will say that THIS
was The DataRat's point all along !

The DataRat

Is it really necessary for you to speak of yourself in the third person? Using multiple alias' as well.

"Is it really necessary for you to speak of yourself
in the third person?"

Yes.

Your Friend,

The DataRat

I agree. For a minute I thought Bob Dole had sneaked into the forums.

Is it just me, or did everyone forget about the Alpha processor.... again... Digital had a 1Ghz 64Bit processor supported by Windows 2000 RC2...

And the Alpha 64 bit 1Ghz processor has been around for years...

This is nothing new.

Don't compare with Digital Alpha.
Compare with Intel.

what exactly was your point with that comment?

"did everyone forget about the Alpha processor"

Yeah. Everyone forgot the Alpha processor. And,
you know why ? Because nobody uses an Alpha for
their desktop box.

The AMD Athalon-64, and WinXP-64, are the start
of a migration of regular everyday computing to
a 64-bit OS and 64-bit applications.

It's NOT about SuperGeeks with their over-priced
esoteric boxes and expensive specialized software.

Instant replay for
the reading-comprehension
impaired:

It's NOT about SuperGeeks with their over-priced
esoteric boxes and expensive specialized software.

____The DataRat

Alpha is an enterprise processor. Athlon-64 is a consumer grade processor.

You've never heard of the PCLX or SX series alpha boards? Desktop boxes all the way. Not meant for enterprise. How about the multia? They're all very capable boards and processors, and cheap besides... go ebay a DEC alpha box sometime.

Can you run Windows on them?

Some people will never learn.

Along with this technology, AMD has changed the way the system interoperates with IO.

I can tell you don't think before you go off on a rant, and you don't read everything about a product before you go knocking it. 64 bit technology is not the point of AMD64, but some people can ONLY see what is presented to them (that'd be you). Intel has 64 bit, but they won't release it, I remember development of it in 1995. Intel only cares about money, capital, and gains. They would cut technology's throat for a dollar, and they already rape it.

AMD 64 brings along with it, the removal of all bottlenecks, and ability to run 32bit applications concurrent (not emulated), in the same system. Bottlenecks, allow me to educate you, exist on your prized and probably developed by an equally "in the box" thinker, at :

the northbridge.
the southbridge.
AGP-PCI bridge.
DDR Controller.

But I guess all you know / care about is the processor, if you know that much at all. And clearly don't read-up before you speak-up. I'd advise you to learn what makes a computer system work, and either understand it, or let the people who DO actually comprehend it do so.

You know, it could also just be a desperate grasp by a failing company. AMD did lose over a billion dollars last year.
I see others saying that Intel is just interested in money. Kind of a good thing for a business I think. And, one thing that causes is the refusal to bring things to market that consumers aren't ready for or don't need.

When I start seeing 64 bit components (video, sound, etc) and/or 64 bit drivers I may come take a look again.

Right now, the biggest thing I see AMD and others saying is the removal of the 4 Gb memory limit. Me and my 1 Gb RAM see no critical need to remove that limit.

I wish AMD luck, competition is good for the enduser. But this seems like a non-event in my opinion.

"Can you run Windows on them? "

Yep, since 1992 when the Alpha and NT were both introduced...(Actual release dates were in 1993)

NT was the OS Alpha used to show off the CPU, especially on the desktop and workstation level.

"64 bit technology is not the point of AMD64"

Huh ? Why they call it the "AMD64", then ?

"some people can ONLY see what is presented
to them (that'd be you)"

Can only see what is presented to them by AMD ?

"Intel has 64 bit, but they won't release it,
I remember development of it in 1995. Intel
only cares about money, capital, and gains"

Intel is a non-profit public charity ?
THIS is a major breaking news story !

"AMD 64 brings along with it, the removal of
all bottlenecks, and ability to run 32bit
applications concurrent (not emulated)"

The AMD64 does indeed have the "ability" to run
32-bit apps without emulation.

Unhappily, WindowsXP-64 does not ! So ...unless
you're using an OS other than WinXP-64... all your
32-bit apps will be run in emulation.

The DataRat

"Is it just me, or did everyone forget about the
Alpha processor.... again..."

It's just you.

NOBODY cares about the Alpha processor.

Except you.

What's your problem ? You put a lot of money into
one ...and, are trying to figure out what to do
with it ?

Listen: No one cares about Alpha processors. Not
for the desktop.

Sell your Alpha box to somebody who needs a server.
Then take the money you got and buy a real PC.

Your Buddy,

The DataRat

WinXP has nothing do with it. The 32bit app will not run in emulation.

Do you have any clue?

By the way, quit being a jerkoff. Make less spaces in your comments, and quit referring to yourself in the 3rd person.

"WinXP has nothing do with it. The 32bit app will
not run in emulation. Do you have any clue?"

Did you even read the article ?

"This new 64 bit-Windows platform provides
customers with new levels of compatibility
and capability," a Microsoft spokesperson
told BetaNews. "Customers who invest in
64-bit technology with the AMD Athlon 64
or AMD Opteron processors can run their
current 32-bit applications on the 64-bit
operating system due to Microsoft's Windows
on Windows 64 (WOW64) emulation technology."

Instant re-play for the reading-comprehension impaired:

"run their current 32-bit applications
on the 64-bit operating system due to
Microsoft's Windows on Windows 64
WOW64) emulation technology."

Duh ? Maybe you know more about what WibXP will run,
and how it runs it, than Microsoft knows?

Or, perhaps, Microsoft was just lying to BetaNews ?

Sheesh !

The DataRat

Maybe not more than MS, but more than you wouldn't be a far cry from truth. Windows emulates lots of different systems you either don't access or don't see. This is just an extension of those for 64bit applications. It could be compaired to OS9 to OSX (for the mac fans) or the any one of the many other systems in the OS (posix, dos, win32, wow64, etc)

It's just a name to sell a product.

"...and quit referring to yourself in the 3rd person."

Thank you.

if i rember reading correctly , MS is rewriting the WOW64 code for the amd64 so the it's not ran in emulation but still uses the same interface for programs that the current WOW64 for the itanium chips use. keeping it stadard for programers, but again not emulated

BTW, for all of you guys that state that the 64bit architechure is good to bypass the 4gb RAM limit.....
First of all, since the PentiumII there has been a thing called PAE (Physical Adress Extension) which bumps the addressing of the CPU up to 36bits. And secondly, on most consumer motherboards, there are only 4 memory slots; Unless they are buying 2GB cards, it wouldn't make a big diffrence.
Also, with a 64bit CPU, the memory usage of a instruction is larger. For example, to do a 32bit Add instruction on a Intel CPU, it would take 128 bits of information:
mov eax, 123123 (32 for data, and 32 for instruction encoding)
add eax, 666666

So bigger is not always better. The Alpha version of NT4.0 has a much larger memory footprint then the x86 build, just due to the associated size diffrence for code.

Enjoy!