# Why 64 bit software looks slowly enter the market



## micropage7 (Mar 27, 2011)

i just wanna ask about your opinion bout 64 bit software, since 64 bit offers us many advantages than 32 bit, and our pc and gadgets go complicated and ready for 64 bit. why the 64 bit software looks slow entering the market


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 27, 2011)

micropage7 said:


> i just wanna ask about your opinion bout 64 bit software, since 64 bit offers us many advantages than 32 bit, and our pc and gadgets go complicated and ready for 64 bit. why the 64 bit software looks slow entering the market



i would assume because MOST software has no use for 64bit.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Mar 27, 2011)

It's because the user market doesn't need it(yet).
Supply and demand is the case here as usual. Take the server market for example. There about 99% of the market is 64bit and the rest is dedicated 32/16/8bit.
When the consumer starts demanding 64bit, the market will adapt and provide. But frankly when most people don't even know the difference between 32bit and 64bit, you won't see that change any time in the near future...


----------



## Mussels (Mar 27, 2011)

unless a program needs to address more than 4GB of ram, 64 bit isnt needed.

to give you an understanding of how progress IS being made, the following short steps:


32 bit app in 32 bit windows = 2GB address space, maximum.
32 bit app in 64 bit windows = 4GB max.
64 bit in 64 bit windows = some ungodly number in the terabyte range.


the shift to 64 bit OS's has helped us double how much ram is available to modern programs, but until 4GB per program is common (meaning, the average prebuilt PC has more like 16-32GB of ram minimum) then 64 bit apps will be rare.


games should have taken off with 64 bit, but they havent thanks to the consoles. (this is sarcasm. they're holding us back)


----------



## micropage7 (Mar 27, 2011)

so it return to market demand, and it would be harder coz most wont notice any difference between them right? on the other side we are too familiar with 32bit software and it makes some think that why i need to move to 64 bit, 32 bit works well on me


----------



## Mussels (Mar 27, 2011)

micropage7 said:


> so it return to market demand, and it would be harder coz most wont notice any difference between them right? on the other side we are too familiar with 32bit software and it makes some think that why i need to move to 64 bit, 32 bit works well on me



well heres a question, how many apps do you use, that hit a 4GB limit?


i only have a few that breach 2GB, and outside of games thats usually because of memory leaks in the programs.


----------



## Laurijan (Mar 27, 2011)

I had problems with Fallout 4 in Win7 x64 with made the game crash very very often so I installed Windows XP x32 and this problem was past.
Now I am on Win7 x32 since I only have 4GB ram and I am in the believe it causes less problems or than x64 with 32 bit software.
Really, so few apps and games make use of 64 bits so its next to worthless if not for more than 4Gb ram usage.
If the next Windows would be only availible with 64 bit only, then maybe more and more apps and games would be 64 bit too.


----------



## Kreij (Mar 27, 2011)

There are many programs, such as drawing, editing, rendering, CAD, CAM, etc., that will use all the RAM you throw at them. This is when having a 64bit system makes a huge different.

For most peoples' "everyday" applications you will see little, if any, difference.


----------



## Laurijan (Mar 27, 2011)

Laurijan said:


> I had problems with Fallout 4 in Win7 x64 with made the game crash very very often so I installed Windows XP x32 and this problem was past.
> Now I am on Win7 x32 since I only have 4GB ram and I am in the believe it causes less problems or than x64 with 32 bit software.
> Really, so few apps and games make use of 64 bits so its next to worthless if not for more than 4Gb ram usage.
> If the next Windows would be only availible with 64 bit only, then maybe more and more apps and games would be 64 bit too.





Kreij said:


> There are many programs, such as drawing, editing, rendering, CAD, CAM, etc., that will use all the RAM you throw at them. This is when having a 64bit system makes a huge different.
> 
> For most peoples' "everyday" applications you will see little, if any, difference.



Yeah in for example CAD, photo-apps, video-apps and games even if the app itself is 32bit they benefit for Win x64 since the app can then use more than the 2GB ram limit per app in Win x32.


----------



## Kreij (Mar 27, 2011)

Laurijan said:


> If the next Windows would be only availible with 64 bit only, then maybe more and more apps and games would be 64 bit too.



They will not do this for awhile yet for two reasons ...
1) Not all computer in use are capable of running a 64 bit OS. This is especially true in the business world.
2) Without some kind of 32 bit support, all 32 bit application will cease to function. This would be a complete deal-breaker. Many large apps (like ERP and such) that businesses depend upon may not be compiled in 64 bit.

One could state that for those that need 32 bit support, simply remain at a previous OS, but that would be a very foolish move for an OS developer in terms of sales and forcing legacy support.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Mar 27, 2011)

The reason i dont use 64bit is enforced driver signing, some of my stuff dont have signed drivers and its not possible to get them to work on 64bit, unless there is a usable workaround?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Mar 27, 2011)

tigger said:


> The reason i dont use 64bit is enforced driver signing, some of my stuff dont have signed drivers and its not possible to get them to work on 64bit, unless there is a usable workaround?



yet it says you are using Windows 7 x64 in your specs?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Mar 27, 2011)

Forgot to update it lol. 2 ticks


----------



## Mussels (Mar 27, 2011)

tigger said:


> The reason i dont use 64bit is enforced driver signing, some of my stuff dont have signed drivers and its not possible to get them to work on 64bit, unless there is a usable workaround?



the solution is to get hardware newer than 2003, and not made by chinese manufacturers who have no idea what signed drivers are.


----------



## trickson (Mar 27, 2011)

Mussels said:


> the solution is to get hardware newer than 2003, and not made by chinese manufacturers who have no idea what signed drivers are.



I would like to see more products from the USA ( one reason I like Intel ) , But I do not think we will get much more than that from any electronics company for sure . 
I must say I love the 64 bit OS as for 64 bit programs they are out there just not in abundance at all . Thing is 32 bit is far easier and in more of a demand than 64 bit . If more people would take the time to LEARN about computers ( Man I know they teach this crap in schools now ! ) and buy wisely this would be a non issue . Console gaming is holding us back ! The cell phone industry is also holding us back !  What sucks the most from all this ? We never really get to see the full potential of our systems ever ! We are stuck with all this hard core supper powerful hardware and a 64 bit OS and get nothing but 32 it software to run on it ! Still holding the full potential of our systems back !


----------



## Kreij (Mar 27, 2011)

trickson said:


> Thing is 32 bit is far easier



What do you mean by easier here? Nothing hard about compiling a program for 64 bit use.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Mar 27, 2011)

One of my things is a VFD front panel display, no chance of a signed driver there, and the other is a 400x digital usb microscope (very useful for volt mods) from maplins. both very useful to me, so x86 it has to be for now.


----------



## trickson (Mar 27, 2011)

Kreij said:


> What do you mean by easier here? Nothing hard about compiling a program for 64 bit use.



What I mean is it is easier in the sense that you will only have to make one compiling for 32 bit and not 2 one for 32 bit and one for 64 bit . make sense ? 
In the end less time and money spent .


----------



## Kreij (Mar 27, 2011)

Yes, makes sense now. That's why I asked what you meant. Thanks


----------



## trickson (Mar 27, 2011)

Kreij said:


> Yes, makes sense now. That's why I asked what you meant. Thanks



Yeah some times it is hard to convey what I mean as my thoughts go faster than my fingers  .


----------



## Mussels (Mar 27, 2011)

tigger said:


> One of my things is a VFD front panel display, no chance of a signed driver there, and the other is a 400x digital usb microscope (very useful for volt mods) from maplins. both very useful to me, so x86 it has to be for now.



on the microscope, a 32 bit VMware could have handled that. bit clumsy for the VFD, however.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Mar 27, 2011)

trickson said:


> What I mean is it is easier in the sense that you will only have to make one compiling for 32 bit and not 2 one for 32 bit and one for 64 bit . make sense ?
> In the end less time and money spent .




And i guess as most common programs are X86 they will go the cheaper/easier option and compile for that.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Mar 27, 2011)

Mussels said:


> on the microscope, a 32 bit VMware could have handled that. bit clumsy for the VFD, however.



Maybe i could lose the VFD, but it just dont seem worth the reinstall tbh. i'll probs change at some point when i have to reinstall mebbe.


----------



## Kreij (Mar 27, 2011)

The actual compiling to 64 bit is not really any more costly. Where cost starts to enter the picture is that you would need to do twice the testing (once for each version), house both executable and make them available for download (or distribution), and have support for both versions.

If a product has no use for the advantages of 64 bit (ie. requiring > 2GB address space), and the OS fully supports 32 bit execution, it begs the question, "Why bother with a 64 bit version?"


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Mar 27, 2011)

Its not just purely a memory thing is it? Just so there is more addresable ram, for people using programs which need large amounts of ram.


----------



## trickson (Mar 27, 2011)

tigger said:


> And i guess as most common programs are X86 they will go the cheaper/easier option and compile for that.



Well if it is cheaper and easier then I guess they will . Thing is companies are out to make money not to loose it . If more people would get on the band wagon ( sorta speak ) ie. stop buying up console game equipment and go with computer games you would see a marked increase in higher performance games , But since the norm is a console with DX9 and 32 bit there is really no incentive to produce DX11 and 64bit games for the computer industry and if they do they will be based on what the " norm " is in most cases . so if there was a 64 bit console system with DX11 ( or what ever is out at that time ) then you would see the NEED for such compiling and with that MORE of them games / programs . So really it is what drives the market not what the market really has out at any given time . Not sure if this makes any sense but this is how I see things .


----------



## Mussels (Mar 27, 2011)

tigger said:


> Its not just purely a memory thing is it? Just so there is more addresable ram, for people using programs which need large amounts of ram.



there can/is performance boosts as well, depending on whats being done. it comes down to how much can be processed at a time, really. so not everything benefits.


the way most peopel see it is: 32 bit app = works in 32 and 64 bit windows.

64 bit app = faster, but only works on a small percentage of our customers... so why bother?


----------



## Kreij (Mar 27, 2011)

There are other reasons that a program may need to use a 64 bit execution path other than just how much memory (the working set) is required.
But if that is not the case, there is no real reason to compile it as such.

One could argue that a 64 bit execution path will result in greater performance (maybe), but will it even be noticable to the end user?

I'm all for games going over to 64 bit, as it means that a LOT more assets (models, textures, etc.) can be loaded into memory simultaneously, thus virtually eliminating things like zone crossing stutter or lag. The executable may not see an increase in performance, but this is something that would definitely be noticable to the end user.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Mar 27, 2011)

There is not a great deal of native x64 programs/games. I also think why bother, if only for more ram.

I also found a site which has thousands of x64 drivers, useful for people who might need them.

http://www.64bitdrivers.com/


----------



## Kreij (Mar 27, 2011)

A good example of games that would really benefit from 64 bit are the huge, free-roaming, open worlds (think Oblivion).
For GCs that support very high texture sizes (4k+) this would be a great advantage being able to load an almost limitless number of textures (dependant of course on the amoount of RAM in the system) for long distance, highly accurate LOD.


----------



## trickson (Mar 27, 2011)

http://www.howtogeek.com/56701/htg-...fference-between-32-bit-and-64-bit-windows-7/

I found this a good read .


----------



## HalfAHertz (Mar 27, 2011)

tigger said:


> One of my things is a VFD front panel display, no chance of a signed driver there, and the other is a 400x digital usb microscope (very useful for volt mods) from maplins. both very useful to me, so x86 it has to be for now.



Have you tried forcing the driver signature off like demonstrated here?


----------



## btarunr (Mar 27, 2011)

Because it will be a while before _Angry Birds_ will need over 2 GB of RAM.


----------



## Kreij (Mar 27, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Because it will be a while before _Angry Birds_ will need over 2 GB of RAM.



AHAHAHAHAHahahaha ... Thanks Bta.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Mar 27, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Have you tried forcing the driver signature off like demonstrated here?



Tried it, it just turns on again at next reboot, there's no way to turn it off permanently.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 27, 2011)

Honestly 64-bit is more for the professional and enthusiast market. Most people do not need it. I use it for my Photoshop needs.

Little bit of trivia: Did you know that CS5 was the first 64bit Photoshop on the Mac? PC users have been enjoying it since CS4. So when you hear that artists predominately use Apple computers you can call them on their BS as most artist in the know have been using PC's for years. They had too.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 27, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Honestly 64-bit is more for the professional and enthusiast market. Most people do not need it. I use it for my Photoshop needs.



i know of about half a dozen games that benefit from a 64 bit OS, as opposed to 64 bit games having any use.


just wanted to clarify OS vs apps there.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 27, 2011)

Mussels said:


> i know of about half a dozen games that benefit from a 64 bit OS, as opposed to 64 bit games having any use.
> 
> 
> just wanted to clarify OS vs apps there.



I only know of one or two games. Can you provide a list of 64-bit games?


----------



## Laurijan (Mar 27, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Because it will be a while before _Angry Birds_ will need over 2 GB of RAM.



LOL - Angry birds with 3D helmet will maybe



Mussels said:


> i know of about half a dozen games that benefit from a 64 bit OS, as opposed to 64 bit games having any use.
> 
> 
> just wanted to clarify OS vs apps there.



I my case Fallout 4 crashed in Win7 x64 so often that I had no other choice than to try with XP x32 and then it worked like a dream. 
Maybe it was only because its still a DX9 game and Win7 has DX11. 

XP just for Fallout 4 seems stupid but was better than Win7 since its nativly DX9. 
When I played thru the game I quickly installed Win7 x32 since I had my good share of Win7 x64 problems.



Kreij said:


> What do you mean by easier here? Nothing hard about compiling a program for 64 bit use.



I always was in the believe that you had to code more for both 32 and 64 version - it that true?


----------



## Kreij (Mar 27, 2011)

What double post? 

Specific coding for 64 bit application depends entirely on what you are doing. You can take a regular old 32 bit app and recompile it with a 64 bit target (OS).


----------



## Laurijan (Mar 27, 2011)

Kreij said:


> What double post?
> 
> Specific coding for 64 bit application depends entirely on what you are doing. You can take a regular old 32 bit app and recompile it with a 64 bit target (OS).



Ok if its so easy to do why dont they make more x64 stuff I wonder. 

One of the few things I know of programming that the pressing the compile botton in C++ is not too complicated - did I get you right?


----------



## HalfAHertz (Mar 27, 2011)

Laurijan said:


> Ok if its so easy to do why dont they make more x64 stuff I wonder.
> 
> One of the few things I know of programming that the pressing the compile botton in C++ is not too complicated - did I get you right?



That was already answered - increased product testing phase/costs and support costs


----------



## Kreij (Mar 27, 2011)

Laurijan said:


> Ok if its so easy to do why dont they make more x64 stuff I wonder.
> 
> One of the few things I know of programming that the pressing the compile botton in C++ is not too complicated - did I get you right?



You are basically right. If you read through the thread you will see that many times there is no real reason to release a 64 bit application when a 32 bit one is sufficient.

Also, if you have very complex code that is utilizing the 32 bit architecture, it may require a total rewrite to go to 64 bit for no real gain.

The move to 64 bit apps/games will happen over time, there is just no complelling reason for many developers to make that jump. As it stands now, if the application does not absolutely require it or it does not give a huge advantage, there are more reasons not to do so.


----------



## Laurijan (Mar 27, 2011)

If 64 bit programs sometimes need double the coding and increased product testing phase/costs and support costs I get why there are so few that are willing to code them.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 27, 2011)

Laurijan said:


> If 64 bit programs sometimes need double the coding and increased product testing phase/costs and support costs I get why there are so few that are willing to code them.



Well from what I hear BF3 will require a 64-bit OS. I sure hope this is true.


----------



## ctrain (Mar 28, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well from what I hear BF3 will require a 64-bit OS. I sure hope this is true.



require, no. support from the start, yes. XP support is dead, not 32 bit.



Kreij said:


> One could argue that a 64 bit execution path will result in greater performance (maybe), but will it even be noticable to the end user?



it can be if you're register starved. number of registers effectively doubles so there's less pressure. compilers may also have tricks up their sleeves that they are unwilling to do in 32 bit. certain assumptions about hardware can be made and they've probably optimized accordingly.

on the other end you burn more cache space due to increased pointer size, etc... but then there's also stuff like the FPU being depreciated. fun times. i'd imagine it's more than possible to see a very sizable performance gain in the right circumstances.


----------



## n-ster (Mar 28, 2011)

tigger said:


> Tried it, it just turns on again at next reboot, there's no way to turn it off permanently.



I don't get why though... I've spent COUNTLESS hours trying to do the equivalent but no such luck, yet if you press F8 at bootup and choose the right option it works... apparently some have made it work, but everything they say they did I did and no cigar


----------



## Wile E (Mar 28, 2011)

n-ster said:


> I don't get why though... I've spent COUNTLESS hours trying to do the equivalent but no such luck, yet if you press F8 at bootup and choose the right option it works... apparently some have made it work, but everything they say they did I did and no cigar





tigger said:


> The reason i dont use 64bit is enforced driver signing, some of my stuff dont have signed drivers and its not possible to get them to work on 64bit, unless there is a usable workaround?



ReadyDriverPlus http://www.citadelindustries.net/ReadyDriverPlus/

I use it to get PS3 controller support.



HalfAHertz said:


> Have you tried forcing the driver signature off like demonstrated here?



Doesn't work in x64.


----------



## n-ster (Mar 28, 2011)

Wile E said:


> ReadyDriverPlus http://www.citadelindustries.net/ReadyDriverPlus/
> 
> I use it to get PS3 controller support.
> 
> ...



LibUSB? xD That gave me so many problems after I forgot to install it as instructed, though I needed it for my ipod

Thank you, will try that later when... well idk when but in the next week lol


----------



## jamesrt2004 (Mar 28, 2011)

Only reason 64bit didnt expand it's user base a lot was due to M-$oft using 32bit aswell for the OS..

I assume Windows 8 wil be 64bit only and from there onwards 64bit will be king


----------



## n-ster (Mar 28, 2011)

jamesrt2004 said:


> Only reason 64bit didnt expand it's user base a lot was due to M-$oft using 32bit aswell for the OS..
> 
> I assume Windows 8 wil be 64bit only and from there onwards 64bit will be king



I'm not so sure about that


----------



## Mussels (Mar 28, 2011)

n-ster said:


> I'm not so sure about that



i'm thinking that the only OS they release will require x64 hardware, but like todays x64 OS it will support 32 bit programs.


----------



## Drone (Mar 28, 2011)

Teh mighty interwebz ain't 64bit yet. Interesting that small apps like utorrent already have 64bit versions. OS with 128 bit support are already in progress, I bet it's good. Because in that case no one ever will need that 64 bit and could just jump from 32 to 128.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 28, 2011)

Drone said:


> Teh mighty interwebz ain't 64bit yet. Interesting that small apps like utorrent already have 64bit versions. OS with 128 bit support are already in progress, I bet it's good. Because in that case no one ever will need that 64 bit and could just jump from 32 to 128.



theres no use for 128 bit for decades to come. just because people are working on it, doesnt mean it'll be ready or useful any time soon.




i can remember the jump from 8 to 16 bit, and 16 to 32 (and now the crawl from 32 to 64) and i just dont think people get how this works.

New OS's, new drivers new apps... its a whole new platform. its like convincing all gamers to move over to macs, it just aint gunna happen fast if it ever happens at all.


----------



## Drone (Mar 28, 2011)

Mussels said:


> theres no use for 128 bit for decades to come. just because people are working on it, doesnt mean it'll be ready or useful any time soon.


Neophobia never got anyone anywhere. People actually were modeling 128bit cpus and alus decades ago. I'm still perplexed why things never change.   



> New OS's, new drivers new apps... its a whole new platform. its like convincing all gamers to move over to macs, it just aint gunna happen fast if it ever happens at all.


It only shows that whole darn "system" should go away. People create machines so latter could do the work for humans and not visa versa. The entire principle didn't change (they just improve speed and power consumption) and it's really ludicrious and lame. Back in the day "users" had to program drivers themselves, today you download them and still need to jump through a lot of hoops.


----------



## n-ster (Mar 28, 2011)

Mussels said:


> i'm thinking that the only OS they release will require x64 hardware, but like todays x64 OS it will support 32 bit programs.



Now this is a strong possibility and would be a great move


----------



## micropage7 (Mar 28, 2011)

n-ster said:


> Now this is a strong possibility and would be a great move



yep. i guess it not about the benefit of 64 bit over 32 bit but how to make sure people, i mean the market to move. 64 bit with 32 bit support looks nice. its like when you wanna try something new but you afraid that it would ruin all
maybe thats the answer before all software go to 64 bit in the future


----------



## n-ster (Mar 28, 2011)

A sort of gradual step to acceptance of 64-bit


----------



## Mussels (Mar 28, 2011)

micropage7 said:


> yep. i guess it not about the benefit of 64 bit over 32 bit but how to make sure people, i mean the market to move. 64 bit with 32 bit support looks nice. its like when you wanna try something new but you afraid that it would ruin all
> maybe thats the answer before all software go to 64 bit in the future



the problem atm, is the choice.

XP, vista and 7 all have 32 bit.


if the next windows says '64 bit hardware required' but lets everyones favourite 32 bit apps run, then there is only one choice - and as adoption kicks up, pure 32 bit OS's die off in PC's.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 28, 2011)

n-ster said:


> LibUSB? xD That gave me so many problems after I forgot to install it as instructed, though I needed it for my ipod
> 
> Thank you, will try that later when... well idk when but in the next week lol



No, I used MotionJoy.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 28, 2011)

This debate has been going on for a few years now.  Looking at steam HW survey, for example, it shows that Win7 64bit having a commanding lead yet we are no further in seeing 64bit taking off then as we've seen when 32bit had a commanding lead.  With Win7 being out for a few years now (including the free beta trial period) it's clear that developers are the commanding force to bring 64bit into mass adaption, not the user base.  But it's also clear they don't find any need for it except those few occasions where the extra ram is needed, etc.


----------



## devguy (Mar 28, 2011)

As much as I'd like Windows 8 to only release with a 64bit version (that can still run 32bit executables), I doubt that will happen.  But I am hopeful that it will be the last Windows with 32bit support.  Windows Server 2008 was the last 32bit server OS from Microsoft, as the R2 release doesn't contain a 32bit version.

Also, if the developer is willing to do the work, then they can have their programs benefit from the 64bit in terms of performance, not just in terms of more memory.  The AMD64 ISA has some cool things you can use, but you have to be willing to do it, and most developers aren't due to additional development costs.

Also, a good compiler may use some of these instructions when compiling for a 64bit environment.  On Linux, many programs are run through 32bit & 64bit GCC compilations and the 64bit versions tend to be faster (not always, but often enough to make such a claim).


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 28, 2011)

From my opinion that won't work.  Also, the server version of the OS is not limited to 4Gig either. Check here and scroll down.  What would be a game changer for developers is "One SKU Type to Rule Them All".  No, not a 64bit OS only option, we have to dig a little deeper.  A OS SKU that incorporates both 32/64 bit without needing the monikers associated with them.  The day developers don't have to worry about making their .exe large address aware, partition between what's 32 bit and what's 64 bit, the removal of (x86) subdirectories, give the user the option to choice their own signature security options, etc and just develop their programs without other restrictions and conditions we would see mass adaption, IMO.  But by then the name 64bit would be dead as we know it for something that everyone can relate to: "Windows (insert version(s) here)".

But until then, from my point of view, the more you try the enforce a "64 bit's OS" image the more it will segregate itself from any real use of it.  The name and ideology must be dropped completely.  For example, business won't adapt a 64 bit only OS just to use the same software they were already using with the potential of added problems, etc. In other words the more compatible and flexible it is the more likely it will draw attention.  But the more you imply "Use this 64bit OS or nothing" the more the masses will choice "nothing". Which will bring us to either:
A. Slow adaption rate for the OS 
B. Same developer adaption rate we've been seeing all along. Even though users buy it.


----------



## Laurijan (Mar 28, 2011)

n-ster said:


> I'm not so sure about that



Me too! 

Microsoft is still M$ and you can install Win7 x32 on a decent old Socket A rig with was it 1,5Gb DDR ram - tried that some time ago. 

Because M$ could think: 
Lets not make a x64 CPU a must for our next OS Win8 could still be both x32 and x64.

Think about industy and company market alone! I know that where there are lots of workstations and servers the admins dont like to set up the whole network with an new OS every 2 years or something. They are really not pleased about the whole idea. Some even use WinNT in special cases.

Making the admins force to update much old HW still in office use for example and SW at the same time - It would cause something comparable to the french revolution


----------



## micropage7 (Mar 29, 2011)

if we talk about market maybe the one that hit badly is older hardware that only support 32 bit on that.
you know having 32 bit and 64 bit today like we have double standard. on one side we cant deny that 64 bit is our future but on other 32 bit still the king of the block. so i guess the transition wont be easy although the hardware is 64 ready


----------



## Easy Rhino (Mar 30, 2011)

the sheer amount of software now being written for mobile devices is a major reason why development of 64bit software has not picked up.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Mar 30, 2011)

Seems to me, unless you want uber pwning amounts of ram, 64bit is still a bit pointtless. I'll stick with 32bit for now, least all my crappy chinese peripherals will work


----------



## n-ster (Mar 30, 2011)

tigger said:


> Seems to me, unless you want uber pwning amounts of ram, 64bit is still a bit pointtless. I'll stick with 32bit for now, least all my crappy chinese peripherals will work



if 3~4 GB is uber, what do you qualify my 12GB?


----------

