Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft to Launch 64-bit Windows on Monday

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the mmmmm-terabytes dept.

Windows 484

maotx writes "Several news outlets are reporting that Microsoft will officially roll out 64-bit versions of its Windows operating systems on Monday. As compared with existing 32-bit versions: 64-bit Windows will handle 16 terabytes of virtual memory, as compared to 4 GB for 32-bit Windows. System cache size jumps from 1 GB to 1 TB, and paging-file size increases from 16 TB to 512 TB."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I don't know abou this... (5, Funny)

Aruthra (826467) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328472)

640k ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:I don't know abou this... (1)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328487)

"Perhaps someday the world will have 3 computers..."

Re:I don't know abou this... (0)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328501)

Umm, It was a misquote, he actually said 640 gigabytes is enough memory for anyone... or was that terabytes...

(Yeah, I know, it's an urban legend.)

Re:I don't know abou this... (5, Funny)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328504)

I think Mr Gates was misquoted .He was at the time talking about the expected Critical vunerabilities in Windows XP

Re:I don't know abou this... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328579)

I wonder if people will ever stop this...he never said that (see wikipedia)

Re:I don't know abou this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328642)

i wonder how many things bill/ms have said about linux that aren't true, and where I can apply to get a nickel for each one.

I know, two wrongs don't make a right...

Re:I don't know abou this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328689)

The original poster never said who said it. They just made a statement.

Great... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328474)

Nothing like giving windows more opportunities to swap to the disk.

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328612)

MOD parent up, that's the truth, my windows machines sit there doing absolutely nothing swapping to the disk.

Paging file (4, Funny)

mrcrowbar (821370) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328475)

paging-file size increases from 16 TB to 512 TB
So, this means that MS Windows now requires a 16 to 512 TB paging-file? ;)

Millions more bits... (0, Troll)

Rick Zeman (15628) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328476)

...for viruses and spyway to utilize! Woo hoo!!!! A new generation dawneth. :-)

Paging size (4, Funny)

Amiga Lover (708890) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328479)

> paging-file size increases from 16 TB to 512 TB

Hope that's a maximum, not required :)

Re:Paging size (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328543)

Mod parent down. NOT insightful. Idiotic.

Re:Paging size (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328576)

Of course its not required , no since it can now use 32* more it will only require 32* more than you currently have ;)

The most important question- (4, Funny)

screwthemoderators (590476) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328483)

It still has Solitaire, right?

Re:The most important question- (4, Funny)

Neophytus (642863) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328500)

Yes, but minesweeper will be removed due to concerns about terrorists brushing up on mine placement strategy.

Re:The most important question- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328537)

Yes. And it now supports 24 billion cards. And 65 thousand users. And can run 78 times faster. Though back in reality you'll just play a standard 52 at the same speed all on your lonesome.

Re:The most important question- (4, Funny)

Shag (3737) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328542)

Yes... but the number of cards just increased exponentially.

right..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328485)

but there are other advantages to 64 bit, AREN'T THERE?

Yeah, the BSOD... (4, Funny)

Ron Harwood (136613) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328535)

...has somuch more useless information that you need a dual monitor set up just to read it.

Re:Yeah, the BSOD... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328656)

Unfortunately, Windows 95 does not have 64-bit support.

I'm at a loss for words (0, Troll)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328488)

I can't be alone in thinking, "holy shit, is that it?"

The paging table is the least of Window's problems.

This lack of real quality is striking me speechless. I have literally no idea what to say.

I admit it. I like Microsoft. I like a lot of their employees. I like a lot of their products. But to release this. THIS. I can't see how this relatively minor port makes big news. We aren't talking quantum leaps in computing, and that's the problem. For a company with the deep engineering backbone that Microsoft has, each release ought to be earth-shaking.

I sit here shrugging my shoulders and sighing at this release. Even the venerable Steve Jobs could spin this into something much better.

Re:I'm at a loss for words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328512)

This is big news for all the people who have been waiting for it coming. It doesn't reflect at all on how or why Microsoft have taken this amount of time to do it.

Some nerds have 64-bit processors, some of them use Windows by choice. For them, this news matters.

Re:I'm at a loss for words (1)

RedX (71326) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328517)

This isn't meant to be a big release. It's simply a slightly different version of the current OS'es but tweaked for the 64-bit extensions found in Opteron and new Xeons. I wouldn't be surprising if the CPU makers are the forces behind the "big news" here.

Re:I'm at a loss for words (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328599)

By cpu makers you mean Intel I pressume (face it: AMD has no real influence on such things). Diclaimer: I'm using AMD

Re:I'm at a loss for words (1)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328518)

Microsoft has sought to add more features to make their releases more "earth-shaking." But most of those features are of no use to most people. What features could they have added that many wouldn't have seen as either a monopolistic strategy or redundant?

With a history like Microsoft, you have to be careful where you step.

As for Steve, he would most probably name this iWin.

Oh well (-1, Flamebait)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328519)

I dont think you were at a loss of words.
You managed to put quite a lot of them in your comment without saying anything.
Next time , if you "have literally no idea what to say", just dont.

Re:I'm at a loss for words (2, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328575)

We aren't talking quantum leaps in computing. . .

Actually, this is a quantum leap in computing. The leaps have gone in the sequence 4,8,16,32,64. I leave it as an exercise for the student to determine what the next quantum leap in the sequence might be.

Now, let's not always see the same hands.

MS simply made the jump a bit later than some.

AMD supplied the needed energy to jump to the next, ummmm, shell, by applying a cattle prod to their collective posteriors.

KFG

16 Terabytes (3, Funny)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328489)

64-bit Windows will handle 16 terabytes of virtual memory, as compared to 4 GB for 32-bit Windows.
16 terabytes! That oughta be enough for anybody!

Re:16 Terabytes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328602)

I understand the reference but to understand the joke one must understand you to mean that one day 16 terabytes won't be enough for the average application.

Re:16 Terabytes (5, Funny)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328660)

I understand the reference but to understand the joke one must understand you to mean that one day 16 terabytes won't be enough for the average application.

Thank you Mr. Data, but there's no need to explain every punchline.

Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth mention? (5, Insightful)

Shag (3737) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328490)

Just wondering. Obviously Solaris, IRIX, Linux, AIX, Mac OS X and whatever other UNIX flavors are out there (well, except for maybe SCO...) have had 64-bit support for some number of years now.

Is Windows the last major commercial OS to add 64-bit support, or are there others I'm missing?

(Even if it is the last one, I'm sure Microsoft will tout this as supremely innovative. :)

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (3, Informative)

taskforce (866056) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328525)

Mmm... well sort of. AFAIK, Tiger isn't fully 64bit. The only thing that is 64 bit in Tiger is its support for 64 memory for POSIX based apps...(Command line apps; server daemons and such) Tigers kernel will reside in 32 bit address space so that it can still run on the G3 and G4. XPx64 is fully 64 and as such can only run on the x64 architecture and is by no mean a patch up job.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328564)

Dude, we're talking about OSes, not some random toys...

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328541)

This isn't the first version of 64-bit Windows; it's the first x86 64-bit version.

64-bit Windows has been available for Itanium for several years now.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (4, Insightful)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328556)

Microsoft also provided 64-bit Windows NT for Sparc. However, this is their up-to-date operating system ported to a 64-bit arch.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328578)

Windows Server 2003, Microsoft's current server OS, runs 64-bit native on Itanium. How up-to-date do you want it?

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328682)

Essentially what the new version of Windows XP does is support the full functionality of the x86-64 CPU instructions. Something that is now practical given the large number of sales of machines using the Athlon64/Opteron CPU architecture and recent-production Pentium 4's that also support x86-64 instructions.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328565)

Like others, you seem to be getting hit early and hard by MS fanboy mods....

LISTEN UP YOU FUCKING IDIOTS.....
Just because some asks a question you don't like about M$, you don't mod it fucking troll.

"I don't agree" is not equal to "Troll".

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328596)

It is a fucking troll when about 15 seconds of research would conclude that the statement is based off of incorrect information and intended simply to incense, you anti-"M$" piece of shit.

Oh, and such clever use of "M$." I don't think that will ever get boring. Maybe one of these days you'll venture out of your parents' basement into that bright room with the really high ceilings and get a fucking life, then a fucking clue.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328626)

Why the anger, poor M$-fanboy? ;)

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328567)

Yeah just think about it: there was 64-bit support made for Linux before there exsisted any 64-bit processors. Then after everyone else have started supporting 64-bits, Windows is going to have 64-bit-support. Last in the line.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328645)

DEC had 64 bit ALPHA processors in 1992, Linux didn't gain 64 bit support until 1996. That's still early, but your statement is not true.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328691)

The biggest vendor of chips that Windows runs on was still 32-bit until recently. As far as the market is concerned, there was little demand for 64-bit Windows on the desktop until Intel started talking 64-bit. Maybe Windows should support 128-bit x86 processors now so that in 20 years it will be first?

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328570)

Windows was running on 64-bit RISC CPUs in the mid 90s. Windows was also running on 64-bit IA64 CPUs in 2001. This is just an announcement that Windows will now be running on x86-64 as well, which hasn't existed for years.

Helps to have a clue, don't it?

FSVO "Windows." (1)

Shag (3737) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328676)

Windows NT 3-4 ran on the Alpha and MIPS, yes. I know. I have that OS media, though I lack the CPUs.

Windows Server 200x ran on IA64 (FSVO "ran").

That said, in terms of versions of Windows that Joe User might actually have, running on hardware that Joe User might actually have... this is big news.

(Especially if you look at Windows on previous 64-bit platforms, as a percentage of total installed base...)

That said, I do, technically, sit corrected.

Re:Are there any 32-bit-only OSes left worth menti (2, Informative)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328680)

Technically, Windows NT on Alpha (and Solaris I do believe) was merely running in 32bit "mode" (Still used 64bit pointers, however the top word was merely masked off.)

It wasn't until Windows 2000 for Alpha (the version that was literally cut right before shipment... some people managed to get a copy) that full 64bit apps were available!

-Pan

OS/2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328664)

Although I think the POWER-based version of OS/2 was 64-bit in the mid 90s -- or at least straightforwardly capable with the microkernel -- so there you go.

IBM operating systems like z/OS and i5/OS (formerly OS/400) went 64-bit long ago, as you might expect for enterprise operating systems. And there's legitimate, major, widely deployed 64-bit software for those OSes, e.g. DB2 UDB V8 for z/OS (which can't even run 31-bit(*)). 64-bit z/TPF will ship later this year. (I'm not sure who needs 64-bit z/TPF since TPF does thousands upon thousands of usually-little transactions per second -- think credit cards -- but somebody does I guess. Maybe because it keeps the college kids happier if they're using 64-bit GCC there.) z/VM is not *really* (yet), but that doesn't much matter (yet), unless you're at the very edges of Linux on zSeries scaling. (z/VM 5.2 will be honestly 64-bit.) z/VSE is not (and no plans), but 390/ESA isn't exactly limiting: it can still get to all the memory installed in the server, even on behalf of older 24-bit and 31-bit VSE apps.

How about CP/M? Does that count? How about MS-DOS/PC-DOS/DR-DOS? MUSIC/SP? 4690 OS?

(*) Yes, 31-bit. IBM had one bit of extra incentive to add 64-bit support.

This is only years later than Linux (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328494)

How long is the IT industry going to let Microsoft hold it back?

Serious performance problems.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328495)

It seems that new versions are seriosly plagued by performance problems. Check the story [google.com] here

Re:Serious performance problems.. (2, Informative)

Abreu (173023) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328554)

Goatse alert!
Mod parent down

Guy has 2 assholes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328585)

I swear it looks like the fucker has a set of twin assholes.....

Finally!! (5, Funny)

Almond Paste (838493) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328496)

They have caught up with Ninendo64!

Gimme five minuites (0, Redundant)

Wierd Willy (161814) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328497)

I'll crash the bastard.......

Confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328502)

Is that what it will support, or is that what it will require?

Thanks, I'm here all week.

It has been out in beta for a while (2, Interesting)

Nurseman (161297) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328516)

seems nice, fast, haven't had any BSOD. The only problem, not many 32 bit apps run for me. You MUST run IE, WMP, etc. Windows 64 [microsoft.com]

Re:It has been out in beta for a while (4, Interesting)

essdodson (466448) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328561)

I've not come across a single app that won't run. What sort of apps are you finding problems with? Which build are you running?

Great, but... (0, Redundant)

opcon (878539) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328530)

does it run linux?

Re:Great, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328551)

OH MY GOD YOU'RE FUNNY.

better than 64-bit Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328531)

Another debate takes root? (debate [opensourceversus.com] )

Cool! (4, Funny)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328547)

MS: "We finally have a 64-Bit version of Windows. Page file and virtual memory sizes have increased substantially. In recognition of this, all native Windows apps and all new releases of Office, Visual Studio .Net, and other core Microsoft products will be quickly bloated to take full advantage of these new sizes!"

Third party apps (4, Insightful)

lavaforge (245529) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328548)

I've been messing around with Ubuntu for x86-64 lately and while it is pretty snappy, I miss things a lot of the little things (like the flash plugin) that were never compiled for a 64 bit system.

Is Microsoft going to have a similar problem, in that it has a nice OS, but few apps to run on it?

Re:Third party apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328591)

Is Microsoft going to have a similar problem, in that it has a nice OS, but few apps to run on it?

No, because Windows is not a nice OS-- it's a piece of shit. It's just 64-bit shit now.

Re:Third party apps (1)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328675)

Can't you run a 32-bit Firefox or Mozilla on x86-64 to get the Flash plugin working? It's not really a complete fix, but if you _need_ the plugin working, I think that's a way to get it working.

Re:Third party apps (1)

lavaforge (245529) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328696)

I looked into that, you need to set up a chroot environment in order to make it work. I don't need the flash plugin that badly.

Think of the Bloat (-1, Troll)

Ranger (1783) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328550)

If you think Mr. Clippy is annoying now in Word, wait until you install the 64-bit version of Microsoft Office. But of of course you'll need a minimum of 640GB if RAM and a .5 Terabyte drivespace.

Important question (4, Funny)

ardor (673957) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328557)

Do they release it because It Just Works? [slashdot.org]

This is great news! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328559)

64-bit Windows will handle 16 terabytes of virtual memory, as compared to 4 GB for 32-bit Windows.


It means we will be able to run "bloatware" such as Emacs without it constantly swapping!

why should I care? (1, Troll)

c-reus (852386) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328568)

I mean, as I do not own any computer that will ever reach the amount of 16 TB of hard drive space (assuming that there won't be any super-low-price 16 TB hard drives for sale during the next few years), the 16 TB limit would be enough for me as it is.

Were the cache and page file maximum size limits the only changes (besides making the OS work at 64 bit)?
I hope they updated the integrated drivers list because if the installation still requires me to use floppy disk in order to use SATA drives, I'd quit the installation instantly. I don't have a floppy disk device nor do I intend to buy any extra hardware just to make an OS work on my computer.

Re:why should I care? (1)

essdodson (466448) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328600)

It supported all of my hardware immediately including nVidia SATA, Silicon Image 3114 SATA RAID, nVidia 6600GT pci-e, and the marvell yukon network device which are all fairly new products (less than 4 months old). It did not support the nVidia nic without drivers from nVidia.

The good of this (-1, Redundant)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328572)

64-bit Windows will handle 16 terabytes of virtual memory, as compared to 4 GB for 32-bit Windows. System cache size jumps from 1 GB to 1 TB, and paging-file size increases from 16 TB to 512 TB."

The real good part about this is for those that buy lots of RAM that windows can now run longer before it crashes from a memory or resource leak.

But why I like it is that after people buy the 8gb RAM modules, it makes it cheaper to get existing RAM for Linux.

I must be getting too old in this business, I remember the day when you could say hello to a user with less that 30 bytes, most programmers can't do this with 10 Mbytes and I guess the race is on to see who can write the biggest "hello" program.

Re:The good of this (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328620)

I guess the race is on to see who can write the biggest "hello" program.

Dude, please, don't say shit like that. It might be taken as a challange. Next thing you know we'll be having people bragging about their "Hello" programs including Feel-O-Round support.

KFG

Re:The good of this (1)

tomjen (839882) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328632)

section .text
global _start

msg db 'hello luser',0xa
mov edx, 0xc
mov ecx, msg
mov ebx, 0x1
mov eax, 0x4
int 0x80

mov ebx, 0
mov eax, 1
int 0x80

hehe, assembly is still the way to go.

Not 64-bit, just x64 editions (5, Informative)

cyberjessy (444290) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328573)

The submission is absolutely misleading.

Windows Server 2003 has supported 64-bits (Enterprise Edition and Datacenter edition) since its launch on IA64(Itanium). Before that, they also had 64-bit versions of Windows 2000 Server.

Windows XP Professional also had a 64-bit version since 2003, again running on the Itanium. However, XP on Itanium was discontinued as no one was using it outside MS testing labs.

Whats gonna be launched are x64 editions of XP and 2003 Server.

Re:Not 64-bit, just x64 editions (0)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328590)

So?

Now they're releasing a version for a system that people actually run...

Re:Not 64-bit, just x64 editions (1)

Brian Stretch (5304) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328603)

The submission is absolutely misleading. Windows Server 2003 has supported 64-bits (Enterprise Edition and Datacenter edition) since its launch on IA64(Itanium).

I think they meant "64-bit WinXP on hardware more than 3 people actually paid for."

Whatever. Nice to see Microsoft start to catch up with Linux. I've been running 64-bit Fedora Core for over a year now.

This is informative ?!?!? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328610)

x86 not x64 !

Who modded this informative ?

Re:Not 64-bit, just x64 editions (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328688)

A researcher outside MS had Windows for Itanium and made an exploit for it. If for nothing else, it shows that a Microsoft product that *nobody* really uses has easy to find exploits, that it has nothing to do with market share, profile or popularity.

Uhm (-1, Troll)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328581)

So what? Windows is for losers. And yes, that includes any 64 bit versions.

Go ahead, mod me a troll. Its my honest opinion. No true "Nerd" ("News for nerds, stuff that matters") (or geek, or whatever you wenna call yourself) gives a flying damn about anything MS.

If you use windows voluntarily on your own PC/workstation, the closest you can come is 'wannabe nerd'. Having to use it at work (as long as you make at least a token protest), or when visiting relatives is allowed (although a hardcore nerd will have converted their relatives away too)

Re:Uhm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328594)

I use Windows every day - by choice. It never crashes, and works exceptionally well with everything I throw at it.

Maybe I'm lucky, maybe I'm open-minded enough to take the time to configure it properly instead of following the flock of shit-stirring sheep that seems to frequent this place so much.

Re:Uhm (1)

James A. Y. Joyce (877365) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328643)

"Maybe I'm lucky"

Yes, you are. I'm running Windows XP Home Edition right now and I'll be damned if it doesn't blue screen two times a day.

Re:Uhm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328670)

Your computer, your drivers and your hardware sucks. That's not Windows' fault.

Preach on brother..... (-1, Troll)

Rightcoast (807751) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328655)

Mod me a troll you too you fanboy, I'd rather you waste them here than in a valid discussion they actual matter in (as much as a mod point can "matter")....

Yes I am speaking directly to you.

When you lay down tonight, and it's just you and the silence, you'll think a little about modding down The Cicso Kid and realize you are pawn, a sheep...While I tire of analogies, you get the drift.
Sorry boys, but this is a fucking fact:
If you use windows voluntarily on your own PC/workstation, the closest you can come is 'wannabe nerd'.

Very interesting (0, Offtopic)

doofer (852276) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328657)

If this guy was talking about the new macosx update he'd be trolled till he was stone, but i guess there aren't exactly as many windows lovers as there are apple fanboys. Its just interesting to see whats acceptable for against windows, then against apple.

and to claim that a major OS that the majority of the world will end up using isn't "stuff that matters" is a joke.

what, only 16TB? (5, Interesting)

Vladimir (98464) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328589)

With kernel 2.6.11 I had no problem malloc()'ing 2^47 bytes (128TB) ! Memory overcommitting is on, of course. While it seems like an unneeded feature now, remember that W$ limitation means you cannot mmap() stuff >16TB, and this will be a painful limitation in a year or two (1TB IDE disks will soon be launched, I heard).

In addition, I was _really_ surprised to see that Intel's compiler still keeps "long" to 4 bytes on windows (didn't check, but so says their doc). With NO standard integer type for 64 bit, programming is set to be no fun on x86_64 under windows.

Re:what, only 16TB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328640)

#include <stdint.h>

int64_t next_time_read_something_before_you_write_rubbish;

Re:what, only 16TB? (1)

Vladimir (98464) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328683)

isn't the header an iso C99 feature? Which flags you specify for printf/scanf? Finally, if you write a portable program, can you rely that int64_t available?

Re:what, only 16TB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328668)

The long type is always 4 bytes (as specified in the C specs). The int type will be expanded to 8 bytes on 64-bit systems, as it is defined by the hardware it is running on (16, 32, or 64 bit hardware). Pointers will be 8 bytes too, remember!

There will indeed be a mess for those trying to use the existing non-standard 64-bit types. Forcing consistency across 32 and 64-bit code bases will be a pain for cross-platform support, but what's new?

Re:what, only 16TB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328684)

C specs my ass - nowhere does it say a long is only 32 bits.

That's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328595)

the minimum requirements, not what it will support

Driver support ? (1)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328597)

Last time I tried one of the Betas for this on my AMD64 box I couldn't get network live as there were no drivers for either my Yukon Marvell onboard NIC or my Netgear wg311v2 wireless card.

Has this changed or are we going to have an OS that is largely useless due to lack of drivers for common hardware ?

Re:Driver support ? (1)

james_r_boyer (238556) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328652)

I got it off of MSDN a few weeks back and it works fine with my nVidia stuff.

ibm openpower announcement recently (1)

mattr (78516) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328613)

So are they catching up to linux or far ahead? I found an announcement from april 12
here (google cache as html) [66.102.7.104] about IBM's new linux based OpenPower series that can handle 64GB of memory, is ubuntu-64 or other distro already able to do what xp-64 can as far as the accessible memory/disk?

Not that we'll ever need it (hah hah).

And they're releasing it just in time! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328631)

To try and take away the thunder from Mac OS X "Tiger".

World-Leader (1, Funny)

turgid (580780) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328634)

Microsoft once again shows why it is the world leader at the very cutting edge of computer science and software technology.

Now, with the world's first 64-bit operating system, they have further extended their lead.

How long will it be until competitors such as IBM, HP, Sun Microsystems, Apple Computer and Linux Technology get their code ported to 64-bits?

Will this finally render all other operating systems obsolete?

Corporations and novice users the world over have come to appreciate the simplicity and ease of installing and administering Windows(TM) systems. Now they can do this it 64-bits, with the added speed and simplicity this provides.

Internet downloads, MP3 music and DVD video have never been so fast, stable, efficient and high-quality.

Programmers too will feel the benefit of 64-bit .NET technology, allowing portability across all versions of Windows on diverse processor architectures from intel(TM) and cheap Advanced Micro Devices(TM) not-quite-work-alikes, making them viable in the Enterprise and for home gaming for the very first time.

I've pre-ordered my 5 license pack for Windows-64 Home Edition(R)(TM)(pat pending) already. Have you? What are you waiting for?

Re:World-Leader (3, Insightful)

Metzli (184903) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328700)

"How long will it be until competitors such as IBM, HP, Sun Microsystems, Apple Computer and Linux Technology get their code ported to 64-bits?"

The scary thing is that there are likely people who believe this.

I am curious though, I wonder if the 64-bit Windows version can easily switch to 32-bit, a la Solaris?

BSODs (1)

kunkie (859716) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328662)

BSODs will now occur 8100% of the time, which is an increase from 90% of the time. Also the TCO will also increase ^2 times.

Pentium M support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12328665)

So my question is what will happen to support for 32-bit Pentium M computers for the years to come. Pentium M isn't 64-bit. Does that mean anyone who buys a wintel laptop will be using WinXP SP2 until Intel gets its ass moving? Are 64-bit Intel laptops even on the horizon? I know AMD's mobile processor isn't 64-bit either. Athlon64 mobile be damned, it's a heat monster just like P4-M.

32-bit Windows != 4 GB memory (1)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328669)

Even 32-bit Windows (at least the enterprise editions) can address up to 36-bits of physical memory using PAE.. not 32-bits, providing far more than 4GB.

What about wmv/wma dlls ? (1)

unixmaster (573907) | more than 9 years ago | (#12328677)

Will they bit 64bit too? Then we could use them for mplayer on pure 64bit Linux's which currently only supports dll loading on 32bit due to the fact that no 64bit dll is around. OR will Microsoft cheat and just provide 32bit versions of these which I think is more likely.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?