In the end it all depends on the usage you're getting from doubling the addresses. I also think 64bit client side windows aren't stable enough to be used for common daily usage, but we're reaching (well actually that point has been reached in 2008 in my opinion) a turning point where 64bit is a hardware requirement rather than a software one. For instance, mozilla might, and I said might, launch a 64bit version of firefox at the end of this year. This is coming from a well known community which pushed all efforts to embrance new technologies, and yet it took more than 5 years after the first commercial 64bit cpu had reached the market. What I'm trying to say is that even if I had a low end core duo/quad/ hexa with at least 6gb of ram, I would never use 32bit as I find the idea of unused resources unacceptable. This point was one of the things that did make me like vista, despite all the fud, haters and whatnot. The fact is that vista's architecture, not vista itself as 7 proved it very well, did come to stay or at least to be a true stepping stone into the future. I also understand that 64bit has the issue of maintaining 32bit in its own layer for compatibility, but what if for at least a few future windows the model changed in a way that it had a single version that switched from 32 to 64bit given the required hardware conditions were met? And if not it simply ran at 32bit.
On Jun 7, 10:02 am, AngelicTears <[email protected]> wrote: > yeah, im aware of that, my laptop CPU also cant handle 64bit.... > im not saying that it will be permanent now...64bit OS commonly still have > bugs compare to 32bit OS... > but it's a fact that it is mainstream now....with RAM's getting more > cheaper, even the low end cheap Atom processor support Intel-64..no doubt > 64bit is mainstream nowadays... > but still, i myself havent use any 64bit OS ever...im still concern about > compatibility and resource usage... > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 4:48 PM, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > To tell you the truth, I'm a bit more concerned about the jump to > > 64bit being permanent, as I do have a relatively mid to high range > > core duo with vt-d and everything, but has no 64bit instruction set, > > which already stopped me from getting server 2008 r2 which is 64bit > > only, not to mention being limited to almost 4gb of ram. What if in a > > couple of windows versions 32bits completely vanishes? It doesn't > > sound so farfetched given the fact that even low powered cpus are > > 64bit compliant. And its not like there will be any 64bit emulation > > layer or anything like that, and even if there was it would be such a > > strain for the whole system that it would invalidade the whole point, > > probably being also limited to software emulation, cutting even more > > the little possible positive things about it. > > > On Jun 7, 9:40 am, AngelicTears <[email protected]> wrote: > > > multicore does have it's future...now with 64bit came mainstream and > > > multi-threaded application became more and more common...also im not > > saying > > > that no one thinks more clock are better, more clocks mean better > > > performance...but starting 2009 (i guess) multicore and extreme processor > > > clocks become together...extreme i7 and Phenom II series with almost 4GHz > > > stock clock per core...means 1 core beats a single core high end P4....so > > if > > > multi-threaded applications will dominate all developers..then single > > core > > > will be ancient... > > > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:44 PM, yayyap159 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Windows 7 Ultimate > > > > 3GB RAM > > > > 1 TB Hard Drive 7200rpm 32mb cache?? (WD Caviar black) > > > > --------------------------------------- > > > > Processor : 7.3 > > > > Memory (RAM) : 6.9 > > > > Graphics: 7.5 > > > > Gaming Graphics : 7.5 > > > > Hard Disk : 5.9 > > > > > -- > > > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > -- > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
