Living with Windows 7: Part 3
Monday, February 23, 2009 by Frogboy | Discussion: Personal Computing
Since 2001, when Windows XP shipped, most users have hovered between 1 and 2 gigabytes of memory. That’s because 32-bit Windows really can’t use more than 2 gigs (technically 3 gigs).
With 64-bit Windows, however, there’s no real limit any time soon. I predict that within the next couple of years you’ll see 16GB machines become pretty common and when that happens, lots of interesting things will start to happen again for PCs.
One interesting thing will be virtual machines.
Running Windows XP within Windows 7 has a lot of utility to it as a developer but for most users, it’s largely meaningless. That will change as applications themselves start to be able to specify the conditions in which they run under.
One of the things that has held Windows back has been backwards compatibility. But virtualization largely eliminates that issue because you could simply have programs run in their own VM.
It’s a real shame that Microsoft is even making Windows 7 in a 32-bit form because it just delays the migration to 64-bit computing. The reason this is important is almost totally based on RAM. This sort of virtualization isn’t cheap when it comes to RAM usage. But virtualization will free Windows to go in many different directions at once. It’s the next big thing.
Related:
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #2 Monday, February 23, 2009 6:54 PM
I tried the Vmware workstation and was not too impressed... it didn't run a secondary OS better than the dual boot option.
Reply #3 Monday, February 23, 2009 6:55 PM
I wouldn't say your Core 2 Duo is obsoleted by the i7, especially depending on what your main computer usage is. Core 2's stand up quite well in gaming.
Frogboy, I agree it's disappointing that MS is still supporting 32-bit in Windows 7. For the latest and greatest OS, there's really no need to keep supporting an ancient architecture. If people want to run 32-bit, XP does a very, very good job of it already.
64-Bit has been around for years and years. It's time to pull the plug on 32-bit.
Reply #4 Monday, February 23, 2009 7:10 PM
I would think there are just far too many 32-bit pc's laying around worldwide for MS to realistically think about moving exclusively to 64-bit.
I'd be willing to bet at least 65% of all the pc's that have had 7 beta installed on them are 32-bit.
Reply #5 Monday, February 23, 2009 8:43 PM
Reply #6 Monday, February 23, 2009 9:30 PM
Anthony, you confuse the point of a virtual machine. Dual booting gives you one or the other, not both at the same time. You use a virtual machine when you need two machines at the same time. In a perfect world with 16 gigs of ram to play with, you could run a Windows Server with an Oracle database, a clean workstation with your run time development environment, another clean workstation with a compiled testing environment, all on the same system you play games on and litter with crappy software from this or that asshole company with their own proprietary garbage. Like Apple and their hell spawn, QuickTime.
No multiple computers, no rebooting, no messy environments.
Reply #7 Monday, February 23, 2009 9:54 PM
I'd be willing to bet at least 65% of all the pc's that have had 7 beta installed on them are 32-bit.
Oh, I have to completely disagree with you there. I can't even remember the last time I owned a 32-bit CPU, I don't think I've ever owned one in the past 5 years.
64-bit CPUs were introduced into the mainstream in what, 2003? I really doubt the majority of Windows 7 beta users are running such ancient (in computer terms) hardware.
Reply #8 Monday, February 23, 2009 10:09 PM
I'm sure someone can dig up a stat... I personally know maybe 2 people on 64 bit...one is me.
Reply #9 Monday, February 23, 2009 10:11 PM
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/04/03/w64
4% in a survey done in 08 by adobe. 
Considering the massive number of people hanging on to XP long after Vista has been released, you can be sure many of those pc's are 32-bit too.
Reply #10 Monday, February 23, 2009 10:15 PM
I'd be willing to bet at least 65% of all the pc's that have had 7 beta installed on them are 32-bit.
I bet that's not the case.
It's been years since PCs shipped with CPUs that could only do 32bit OSes.
Reply #11 Monday, February 23, 2009 10:16 PM
4% in a survey done in 08 by adobe.
Considering the massive number of people hanging on to XP long after Vista has been released, you can be sure many of those pc's are 32-bit too.
That doesn't mean anything. That's only what % of the market is running a 64-bit OS.
My 3 year old box at work runs 32-bit Windows but the CPU could do a 64-bit OS too.
Reply #12 Monday, February 23, 2009 10:17 PM
Well, I'd be interested for sure in seeing some authentic numbers on marketshare as of 1-09 maybe.
Also, don't get me wrong, I much prefer 64-bit and use it (OS) on Vista. 32-bit OS on XP (64-bit CPU)
I just don't think as widely used yet as you guys.
Reply #14 Monday, February 23, 2009 10:18 PM
of my 20 computers I have the nine computers built in the last 4 years are 64bit capabable but only three are running with a 64bit os as I require app compatibility with the os and some of the apps get confused with 64bit os's, and the two are for TESTING app compatibility, with w7 being almost zero dificulties.
harpo
Reply #15 Monday, February 23, 2009 10:24 PM
Well, my 4 and a half year old laptop is running Windows 7 32-bit perfectly here.
Reply #16 Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:43 AM
4% in a survey done in 08 by adobe.
Considering the massive number of people hanging on to XP long after Vista has been released, you can be sure many of those pc's are 32-bit too.
Ahh, I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about 64-bit architecture CPUs. The stats above are regarding 32-bit vs 64-bit OS. If we're talking about OS, I'd be inclined to agree with you that there's a lot of people out there running 32-bit operating systems, but their CPU is more than likely x64 if the computer is 4-5 years old or newer.
Reply #17 Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:01 AM
All Core 2 (and better) are 64 bit...
All AMD processors for the past 6-7 years are 64 bit...
Reply #18 Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:21 AM
jeremyshaw the amd 64 bitters are tha amd64 amd64x2 socket 754,939am2,am2+,am3 940 and the semprons for these sockets
Reply #19 Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:13 AM
Wow thanks! I actually now have my win 98 emulator that I was looking for.
Reply #20 Tuesday, February 24, 2009 6:23 AM
OH I have to soooooo agree...!
I have an USB stick with a Portable VirtualBox Version from which I can boot an XP version on every rig I want to.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Monday, February 23, 2009 6:49 PM
I am using the 32 bit version of win7, but I will be happy to migrate to 64-bit once I upgrade my main rig. My ddr2 memory, core 2 chip, and motherboard are now all made obsolete by the I7, ddr3 ram, and 64 bit operating systems.