Who needs 64-bit?

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Steven — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:42:00 GMT

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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Stephen Pierzchala — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:07:00 GMT

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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Sentinelle — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:20:00 GMT

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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Chris — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:24:00 GMT

Sorry guys, I disagree. You're still looking at it the wrong way. Anyone remember Bill Gates statement about how no one would ever need "x" amount of memory? Well, he was wrong. We did, and we need ever increasing amounts of it.

Moving to 64 bit isn't really about increasing processor performance. Thats a side benefit. Its really about the ability to address ever larger amounts of memory. With the average joe now starting to use PC's to record HDTV, to store their lives, etc., memory requirements are skyrocketing.

Most PC's now come with a minimum of 512Mb of RAM. I can easily see in two or three years that going to 1 or 2Gb, especially with the advent of Longhorn (Sorry MS, you guys still do suck up alot of RAM but OSX aint gravy either). I don't need more than 1Gb of RAM for most of the stuff I do, but I know when I load up my 6MP images from my camera, and manipulate them, I'd happily take mroe RAM

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Steven — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:38:00 GMT

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).

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Brandon Paddock — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:42:00 GMT

Memory will become more and more important was long as Microsoft and other companies (Sun, etc.) push toward managed execution environments (.NET, Java, etc).

Processor architecture will become less and less important, as Java and .NET code is portable to any system you have a JIT on.

I think this should scare the bejesus out of Intel (and AMD as well, though slightly less so*). There are already signs of MS putting resources back into the PowerPC architecture... apparently resurrecting the long-dead PPC version of NT for the Xbox 2.

A PPC version of Windows might seem a little far out, but if it happens anytime in the next few years, it could be quite a coup for IBM.

Of course, porting Windows back to PPC could be dangerous for microsoft, as it's likely to encourage systems that are capable of running Windows and the Mac OS (making the jump, or even experimentation easier). This would be a huge boon for consumers, though, as I think the increased competition would only drive Microsoft to produce even better products.

* I say AMD might be slightly better off because they're already buddies with IBM. But who knows.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

J. Daniel Smith — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:51:00 GMT

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?

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Alejandro Perez — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:03:00 GMT

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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Alejandro Perez — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:03:00 GMT

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Neil — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:10:00 GMT

Even if application does not need 4GB of virtual memory, the Windows OS certainly does. With the improvements in hardware performance, companies are demanding to run more and more applications on one box. This means that for the OS it needs to manage all the resources ( threads, processing, disk IO, cache, etc, etc ). It is becoming a struggle to manage all of this in the small 2GB system limitations of Windows 32bit land, the OS needs to breath again and be able to support the demands of both the existing 32-bit or new 64-bit applications.
IF YOU APP DOES NOT NEED IT, YOUR OS DOES!!!!

Network apps need 64bits

Christopher Baus — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:13:00 GMT

For me the need for 64bits is coming quickly. The reason is simple. I need to address more than 4gigs (or the 3 usable gigs) of RAM. High performance network processing pretty much boils down to one problem: cacheing large amounts of data in memory. Now that memory is so cheap, 4gigs doesn't seem as infinite as it did a few years ago. Plus most of us never really consider the amount of data that would be pushed around the networks.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Alexander B. Scoble — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:18:00 GMT

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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Alexander B. Scoble — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:22:00 GMT

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. :)

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Larry Osterman — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:30:00 GMT

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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Yaytay — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:06:00 GMT

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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

John Serris — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:41:00 GMT

Who needs 64-bit? People like me working with digital audio!

http://www.cakewalk.com/x64/whitepaper.asp

Personally I can't wait! :)

re: Who needs 64-bit?

CN — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:44:00 GMT

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.

Memory Mapping, Virtual Address Space arguments

Seun Osewa — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:20:00 GMT

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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Dru Nelson — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:33:00 GMT

Lots of great comments so far. So I'll toss my opinion in on this. (For the summary, skip down to the bottom line: You guys picked the LLP64 Model!)

The vast majority of consumers will find no need for 64 bit hardware. This will be the case for at least 5 years. I think the only reason people will move to the OS is because
the only processors available will be 64bit
and you'll need Win64 to run since that will be
the only OS that is 'supported' or released.
Of course, by that timeframe, we may actually have 8 gig memory DIMMs (again, 5 years)

The examples touted above don't fit the typical PC consumer.
Database? Yes, sounds good, not a consumer.
HDTV PVR?? Consumer, does this need a 64 bit chip... no, that is just a clock/IO problem.
'Network server with cached data'?? No, not consumer.
People aren't mmap'ing files?? Really bad arg :-)

The argument above about the OS needing 64 bit
types is interesting. That may make a host OS easier to write. Then again, it's just the memory, and there are hacks to make that work
quite well for the client 32 bit processes.

Do you need 64 bits to run a web browser, excel, word, media player, photo editor or games? No.

Look at Google, are they straining due to the lack of 32 bits?? No.

Then again, what if we just have more multicore processors. Can you fit more 32
bit processors on a die versus 64 bit? Yes.
(will that happen, no. Why? Chip companies
are not going back to 32.)

Overall, this gives me the following thoughts:

1. Volker is doing the right thing and believing in his product and 64 bit.
2. There will be some markets that need 64 bit on windows. (SQL Server - nice market)
3. Nice of Microsoft to finally support this just in time for Intels AMD64 chips.
4. The vast desktop landscape will be fine on 32 bit for quite a while.
5. 64 bits for the host OS isn't necessary, just a larger address space for the VM system.

Bingo.
People are talking about accessing more memory not ALU widths. None of the arguments are showing that 64 bit registers. IN FACT,
Microsofts Win64 is using LLP64 for their 64 bit model. Int's will stil be 64 bit. Just the pointers would change.
*It's just nice for memory access*

So. Good work Volker, I'm glad you guys had this stuff going before that 5 years hits. (Hey, wait a minute, didn't you guys have NT running on the DEC Alpha, a 64 bit chip from the early 1990's??? Of course, you ran 32 bit on there. :-)

Note:
Me, sure, I'm getting a 64 bit chip next week, but only because the Sempron3100 was more expensive.

If everyone was running 64 would I be happy?
Sure. It would make writing a neat little VM with full 32 bit data types a lot easier. :-)

re: Who needs 64-bit?

nw_owl — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:53:00 GMT

> 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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

nw_owl — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:53:00 GMT

The inevitability of 64bit computing

Paul Fallon's WebLog — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:44:00 GMT

re: Who needs 64-bit?

nobody — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:40:00 GMT

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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Dru Nelson — Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:50:00 GMT

Re: nw_owl and photoshop needing 2 gigs.

Reality. Consumers don't use photoshop, professionals do. Consumers view photos and movies. The tools they use will fit fine
in a sub 2Gig system.

HD movie editing and super nice cameras are all bleeding edge. I've been watching things for a few years (25). Trust me. Some things just take time.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Tomo — Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:18:00 GMT

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

Id

Christophe Lauer — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:55:00 GMT

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Tom Maioli — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:08:00 GMT

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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

eXtreme — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 04:14:00 GMT

We need a 64 Bit OS to act as the vm manager for multiple 32 bit os's to run. :-)

Mr

Tracy Eckels — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:22:00 GMT

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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Martin — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:34:00 GMT

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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Chunky Dunky — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:35:00 GMT

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 ;)

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Volker — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:51:00 GMT

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

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Joe Anthony — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:24:00 GMT

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.

re: Who needs 64-bit?

Porkus — Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:55:00 GMT

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?