Author Topic: How much trouble is a 64-bit OS right now? (Read 43418 times)

Darwin · « **Reply #25 on:** February 05, 2009, 01:32 PM »

I've given up trying to give advice. People have their habits and emotions locked in.
-MilesAhead (February 05, 2009, 12:43 PM)

Sound... er, advice

I should have known better before going with him to buy the computer, but I am an eternal optimist and thought that years of my having generally been proven right where disagreements over computer issues had "sunk in". WRONG!

When he asked me last night about downgrading to XP I just told him that I'd forward some Vista tweaking links to him and that if he did downgrade to XP, to be sure to buy a 64-bit copy and left it at that. I'm pretty sure that he'll be installing a cracked 32-bit version, but at least I tried...

40hz · « **Reply #26 on:** February 05, 2009, 06:05 PM »

[... but I am an eternal optimist and thought that years of my having generally been proven right where disagreements over computer issues had "sunk in"
-Darwin (February 05, 2009, 01:32 PM)

First mistake...

at least I tried...

Second mistake...

Darwin · « **Reply #27 on:** February 05, 2009, 06:18 PM »

Yup live and learn. Or, in my case, not...

urlwolf · « **Reply #28 on:** February 06, 2009, 04:00 AM »

So it's still unclear to me how life under win 64 is.
Some people report no problems, some report lots.
In any case, which version (XP, vista, win 7 beta) do you recommend? This is a production machine, but the reports that the beta is solid seem encouraging.
And if I have to reinstall win 7 in aug, that's a small price to pay IF everything else is better.

justice · « **Reply #29 on:** February 06, 2009, 05:10 AM »

Let's generalize / apply common sense:
XP 64 was launched at a time when 64bit computing was much less common place and was launched some time after 32bit as a seperate product thereforce had less limelight and popularity than the other two alternatives.
Windows 7 isn't even to release candidate status yet and the majority of software especially from indies will not have been tested for it.

Therefore the natural choice is to go with the current OS Vista 64bit to get the best result.With windows 7 coming people will probably focus on compatibility issues of that over fixing XP 64 bit. So W7 would be the second choice - but I thought the reason for this thread is that you want a smooth ride - therefore I'd only go for 64bit Vista or a 32bit alternative at this moment on a production machine.

Darwin · « **Reply #30 on:** February 06, 2009, 07:23 AM »

urlwolf - live with 64-bit Vista is just fine, in my experience. My two-bits is go with either Vista or with XP - who knows what Windows 7 will wind up looking like?

MilesAhead · « **Reply #31 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:36 AM »

urlwolf - live with 64-bit Vista is just fine, in my experience. My two-bits is go with either Vista or with XP - who knows what Windows 7 will wind up looking like?
-Darwin (February 06, 2009, 07:23 AM)

Yup. And even little things you take for granted, like printing to a USB printer might not work. I tried 32 bit W7 and it didn't like serving the driver of my USB printer over the Lan. Plus when you see raves about W7 you have to remember the beta everyone is playing with is the Ultimate edition.

Whenever I decided I was going to install some Linux distro I always tried to find a hardware compatibility list to make life easier. Same idea might be good with Windows OS. Make sure you can get drivers for what you are likely to use. Google around to see if there's widespread problems with that stuff even if there are drivers.

OldElmerFudd · « **Reply #32 on:** February 16, 2009, 11:48 AM »

I've stayed clear of 64-bit mostly because of peripherals and software. I use high end scanners and printers for graphics work, and while they're in good shape I won't be trading up(?) to Vista or Win7 anytime soon. Same thing with my favorite software, like Photoshop 7.
I have CS3 for tethered studio shooting, but I do most of my work in PS7 or Painter IX.5. Until I need to do some serious hardware replacement/upgrade, I'll stay with XP Pro. After all, I already went through the business of getting everything stabilized with Service Pack 3!

urlwolf · « **Reply #33 on:** February 16, 2009, 03:51 PM »

We have a sysadmin at work and he's leaning towards Win 7.
He would have to deal with printer driver problems if there are any.
Other than that, I don't have high requirements for hardware.

I'm thinking win 7 could be the best solution here too.

urlwolf · « **Reply #34 on:** February 17, 2009, 03:41 AM »

anyone wants to stops me before I make win 7 beta my main OS for the rest of the year

?

f0dder · « **Reply #35 on:** February 17, 2009, 03:43 AM »

urlworlf: https://www.donation....msg151354#msg151354 >_<

40hz · « **Reply #36 on:** February 17, 2009, 07:52 AM »

urlwolf: http://tech.slashdot...2259257&from=rss

Draconian DRM Revealed In Windows 7
Posted by kdawson on Monday February 16, @09:18PM

from the just-who-did-you-think-owns-your-machine dept.

TechForensics writes "A few days' testing of Windows 7 has already disclosed some draconian DRM, some of it unrelated to media files.

OldElmerFudd · « **Reply #37 on:** February 22, 2009, 07:12 PM »

We have a sysadmin at work and he's leaning towards Win 7.
He would have to deal with printer driver problems if there are any.
Other than that, I don't have high requirements for hardware.

I'm thinking win 7 could be the best solution here too.

-urlwolf (February 16, 2009, 03:51 PM)

urlwolf,

AFAICT, Win 7 is going to be an easier transition if (a) you're already running Vista, or (b) don't expect a lot of attention paid to fixing 64-bit issues. As I said before, my machines do quite well with XP Pro, but the OS is a little long in the tooth, as much as I prefer it.
I do have concerns with Win 7's DRM policies; starting to hear some horror stories in forums. YMMV

Still, Win 7 will likely be my next major upgrade in OS, although I'll have at least one XP box around and dual boot XP and 7 at first. (That's assuming I can dual boot with 7: more horror stories, I'm afraid. Don't get get me wrong; this post isn't about FUD. I look forward to a new OS. I wait for the time when Redmond decides to build what Longhorn was supposed to be.

Just save us all from a repeat of Windows Me. Still recall when I eagerly bought the upgrade, installed it, went through it, uninstalled it, and took the upgrade disk into the back yard and chopped it to pieces with a hatchet, all in 3 hours! (shudder)

hth
2 penny Ron

f0dder · « **Reply #38 on:** February 22, 2009, 07:28 PM »

I do have concerns with Win 7's DRM policies; starting to hear some horror stories in forums. YMMV

Yeah, those rumors are pretty discomforting.

(That's assuming I can dual boot with 7: more horror stories, I'm afraid. Don't get get me wrong; this post isn't about FUD. I look forward to a new OS. I wait for the time when Redmond decides to build what Longhorn was supposed to be.)

As far as I understand, the Win7 beta disables the other installed OSes in it's bootloader by default to minimize the risk (however small) of corruption other OS'es partitions... afaik it's fixable, and I highly doubt there will be problems with the final version.

I hope the DRM situation is either FUDdy rumors or something that's going to be rectified, since Win7 otherwise seems like a pretty nice OS, and I wouldn't mind upgrading from XP64 when it's released. But if the "all your files are belong to us" rumors are true, I really don't know.

OldElmerFudd · « **Reply #39 on:** February 23, 2009, 08:23 PM »

I do have concerns with Win 7's DRM policies; starting to hear some horror stories in forums. YMMV
Yeah, those rumors are pretty discomforting.

(That's assuming I can dual boot with 7: more horror stories, I'm afraid. Don't get get me wrong; this post isn't about FUD. I look forward to a new OS. I wait for the time when Redmond decides to build what Longhorn was supposed to be.)
As far as I understand, the Win7 beta disables the other installed OSes in it's bootloader by default to minimize the risk (however small) of corruption other OS'es partitions... afaik it's fixable, and I highly doubt there will be problems with the final version.

I hope the DRM situation is either FUDdy rumors or something that's going to be rectified, since Win7 otherwise seems like a pretty nice OS, and I wouldn't mind upgrading from XP64 when it's released. But if the "all your files are belong to us" rumors are true, I really don't know.
-f0dder (February 22, 2009, 07:28 PM)

What I've read indicates Win 7 takes the folder/drive where you install it and changes it to C:\ At that point, the original OS/drive (XP, for example) disappears, so you can't effectively return to it. I'm not sure if Win 7 has to be uninstalled to reverse those changes.

The DRM issues are still a little unclear, but, for instance, a user may no longer be able to record off the sound card unless Win 7 recognizes an identifiable tag of some sort. There may also be issues with granting big dollar software rights to phone home through your firewall, no matter how you set permissions. Just gonna wait and see what the final looks like (and maybe even wait for Win 7 Service Pack 1!).
Good old Redmond, they figured out long ago how to make us pay to be endless beta testers.

f0dder · « **Reply #40 on:** February 24, 2009, 12:36 AM »

What a partition maps to while Windows is running has nothing to do with the partition itself. The issue is that the Win7 installer of course overwrites your MBR bootcode (like all new Windows versions does), and that it doesn't included previous versions in it's boot manager - but you should be able to add those by hand with the bcdedit program.

hollowlife1987 · « **Reply #41 on:** February 24, 2009, 12:45 AM »

What a partition maps to while Windows is running has nothing to do with the partition itself. The issue is that the Win7 installer of course overwrites your MBR bootcode (like all new Windows versions does), and that it doesn't included previous versions in it's boot manager - but you should be able to add those by hand with the bcdedit program.
-f0dder (February 24, 2009, 12:36 AM)

I am currently triple booting flawlessly. I do not remember if I installed XP SP3 first or Win 7 Beta x64, but I am pretty sure I did XP. I also have Win 7 Beta x86 installed and I can easily boot into the XP install using Win 7's boot loader, it asks for earlier versions of windows upon start up.

f0dder · « **Reply #42 on:** February 24, 2009, 01:37 AM »

When I installed Win7 on my testbox which additionally has Vista64, it certainly didn't add Vista64 to the bootloader - haven't gone through the "trouble" of adding Vista64 back, but it shouldn't really be a problem.

justice · « **Reply #43 on:** February 24, 2009, 03:15 AM »

The DRM issues are still a little unclear, but, for instance, a user may no longer be able to record off the sound card unless Win 7 recognizes an identifiable tag of some sort.
-OldElmerFudd (February 23, 2009, 08:23 PM)

That's not correct this seems to be a driver issue for a few users, nothing regarding W7.

UPDATE: As noted by Ars Technica and many commenters, sound capture capabilities will vary from card to card, system to system, so one user's findings may not bear out for others. Apologies for confusion or disbelief—I tried to word it more as a water-testing thought than the Gospel Truth.
-http://lifehacker.com/5154968/windows-7-seemingly-blocks-audio-capture

40hz · « **Reply #44 on:** February 24, 2009, 05:23 PM »

I hope the DRM situation is either FUDdy rumors or something that's going to be rectified,
-f0dder (February 22, 2009, 07:28 PM)

Seems to be FUD. Turns out that whole "draconian DRM" post got pretty much ripped to shreds on Slashdot and the tech blogs.

Which is good.

40hz · « **Reply #45 on:** February 25, 2009, 05:40 PM »

This just in from our friends over at Heise Online (emphasis added):

Link: http://www.h-online....ernels--/news/112724

Fedora project plans to use 64-bit and PAE kernels

The Fedora team plans to optimise the Linux distribution's versions for various system architectures. The 32-bit version for the x86 platform is to be built for i586 instead of i386 as it is currently. Given compatible hardware, an x86-64 kernel is to be used as standard, even when installing the distribution's 32-bit version. Wherever possible on 32-bit x86 systems, the developers intend to use a default PAE kernel. They will continue to use a 32-bit kernel for the 32-bit live CD.

The main advantage of using a x86-64 kernel in a 32-bit operating system is the considerably larger memory address range the kernel can make use of, allowing for systems with over 4GB of RAM. Due to the 32-bit userland, users won't need special 64-bit versions of their programs. 32-bit plug-ins for programs like Firefox run without the tricks that the users of the 64-bit version have to resort to, for example nspluginwrapper. The Fedora Engineering Steering Committee, which decides on the integration of new features into the distribution, has accepted the changes proposed for the forthcoming Fedora 11.

Very nice!

f0dder · « **Reply #46 on:** February 26, 2009, 12:20 AM »

Interesting move, 40hz!

This should probably work just fine. It's been my experience, though, that trying to run a full 64bit version of linux (ie., including userland) can be more trouble than it's worth. At least on gentoo, not everything is available for 64bit, and then you have to fiddle with running a mix of 64bit and 32bit software, which is somewhat more bothersome than doing the same on Windows...

40hz · « **Reply #47 on:** February 26, 2009, 12:22 PM »

Interesting move, 40hz!

This should probably work just fine. It's been my experience, though, that trying to run a full 64bit version of linux (ie., including userland) can be more trouble than it's worth.
-f0dder (February 26, 2009, 12:20 AM)

I agree. But it does make a lot more sense to use the capabilities of the actual chip architecture and then do a 32-bit userland for all the 32-bit code out there. Or at least it does on paper.

Neater, cleaner, and fewer surprises all the way around if it works. It will be real interesting to see it in action once it's out.

Best of all, we can expect to see Fedora's approach get quickly incorporated into most other distros if it shows clear advantages. That's the real beauty of Linux's open licensing. GPL may not be uber-popular with some application developers. But when it comes to system programming and development, it's almost like a gift from heaven.

To their credit, Fedora definitely has the coders and resources to pull it off if they want to. Guess we'll have to wait and see. The latest release of Fedora is winning back a lot of their old fans and making plenty of new ones.

Fingers crossed...

urlwolf · « **Reply #48 on:** April 06, 2009, 09:00 AM »

Just as an update for completeness, I went with server 2008. Feels solid. However, it feels like linux has an edge for development (more 64-bits dev tools, easier to find packages). If you plan to do say python on 64-bits, almost no 3rd party libs are to be found, it seems. Same for R (there's a company, Revolution R, selling a 64-bit of R!).

I wonder if really win 64 is a wise decision.

I just cannot find informed post comparing different 64-bit OSs for dev. purposes...

f0dder · « **Reply #49 on:** April 06, 2009, 09:05 AM »

I wonder if really win 64 is a wise decision.
-urlwolf (April 06, 2009, 09:00 AM)

It is

The Visual Studio Express editions are free, and while they iirc don't come with x64 compilers, you can get those from the PlatformSDK. Sure, there's a lot of closed-source libraries that aren't available in x64 form... but then again, there's a lot of opensource code that doesn't compile cleanly for x64 as well.

But really, if your applications don't need 64-bit, why port them? Most applications gain zero advantages whatsoever from a recompile, they only become (slightly) bigger and consume (slightly) more memory.