64-bit for no good reason?

I'm a software developer (primarily .NET) and was just wondering if there
might be any good reason to fire up the 64-bit side of my Athlon 64 3000+
when I install Vista RC1 and install the 64-bit version of Vista?

I had hoped and expected that 64-bit would become meaningful this far into
the 2000-2010 decade, but so far I see no change in the industry utilizing
the 64 bits, not with games, not even much with mid-size server stuff (other
than what was before).

Is Athlon 64 a yesteryear's fad that has no meaning nor relevance today?

My opinion on this has changed drastically in the past year but some of this
has to do with the fact that the Athlon 64 3000+, a speed demon when I got
it, is now not so fast anymore, and I'm beginning to wonder why I bothered
to go with it in the first place just on the basis of 64-bit support.

Jon

For some really interesting discussion on this, why don't you post it to the
microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general newsgroup. This is a lively subject
there. My advice is load x64 up and start using it.

"Jon Davis" <jon@REMOVE.ME.PLEASE.jondavis.net> wrote in message
news:%23$M4UOf0GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> I'm a software developer (primarily .NET) and was just wondering if there
> might be any good reason to fire up the 64-bit side of my Athlon 64 3000+
> when I install Vista RC1 and install the 64-bit version of Vista?
>
> I had hoped and expected that 64-bit would become meaningful this far into
> the 2000-2010 decade, but so far I see no change in the industry utilizing
> the 64 bits, not with games, not even much with mid-size server stuff
> (other than what was before).
>
> Is Athlon 64 a yesteryear's fad that has no meaning nor relevance today?
>
> My opinion on this has changed drastically in the past year but some of
> this has to do with the fact that the Athlon 64 3000+, a speed demon when
> I got it, is now not so fast anymore, and I'm beginning to wonder why I
> bothered to go with it in the first place just on the basis of 64-bit
> support.
>
> Jon
>
>

Be warned :

people that used the 64bit versions of XP and Vista have reported the
strangest errors,higher memory-usage,segmentation_faults and other strange
behaviour.

Not to forget that some software exists only in 32bit versions and will run
in comaptibility mode, can also cause strange effects.
As this is not only occuring in Windows but also in Linux x64 versions, I
think that the techside of running 64bit Systems is usable and useful only
to a very rare group of people.

Average Desktopusers I would tell not to install 64, but stick with 32bits,
until software gets better supported.

Just my 2 cents, I run an AMD 32bit System - but I read what others are
reporting..

"Jon Davis" <jon@REMOVE.ME.PLEASE.jondavis.net> wrote in message
news:%23$M4UOf0GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> I'm a software developer (primarily .NET) and was just wondering if there
> might be any good reason to fire up the 64-bit side of my Athlon 64 3000+
> when I install Vista RC1 and install the 64-bit version of Vista?
>
> I had hoped and expected that 64-bit would become meaningful this far into
> the 2000-2010 decade, but so far I see no change in the industry utilizing
> the 64 bits, not with games, not even much with mid-size server stuff
> (other than what was before).
>
> Is Athlon 64 a yesteryear's fad that has no meaning nor relevance today?
>
> My opinion on this has changed drastically in the past year but some of
> this has to do with the fact that the Athlon 64 3000+, a speed demon when
> I got it, is now not so fast anymore, and I'm beginning to wonder why I
> bothered to go with it in the first place just on the basis of 64-bit
> support.
>
> Jon
>
>

> the biggest benefit is ability for a developer to tap into that large

> memory address space.

Will any developer (game developer, business developer) ever see this
benefit as long as the target install base will never see more than 4GB
installed on the machine anyway? Who needs more than 4GB? Who needs more
than 2GB?

Okay, wait... I use up all my 2GB and that's up from using up 1GB 2 years
ago.. I see where this is going..

And as far as my Athlon 64 3000+ processor and its max 4GB motherboard are
concerned, it is going nowhere. I'm developing the revised opinion that the
introduction of 64 bit support on the 386 architecture by AMD was a
marketing move, nothing more.

Jon

"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eOYWrUf0GHA.5100@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Depends on the needs of the application and environment you are developing
> it to be used. Both Vista x86 and x64 include the .NET Framework 3.0, but
> the biggest benefit is ability for a developer to tap into that large
> memory address space.
>
> Please make sure you check out Charlie Russel [MVP] articles and FAQs
> about the
> benefits of 64-bit Windows:
> http://download.microsoft.com/.../Is...ght_for_Me.doc
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...el_x64faq.mspx
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...loringx64.mspx
> --
> Andre
> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
> "Jon Davis" <jon@REMOVE.ME.PLEASE.jondavis.net> wrote in message
> news:%23$M4UOf0GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>
>

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:eqNo5Wf0GHA.1256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> For some really interesting discussion on this, why don't you post it to
> the microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general newsgroup. This is a lively
> subject there. My advice is load x64 up and start using it.

Good point, wrong group. Sorry.

Depends on the needs of the application and environment you are developing
it to be used. Both Vista x86 and x64 include the .NET Framework 3.0, but
the biggest benefit is ability for a developer to tap into that large memory
address space.

Please make sure you check out Charlie Russel [MVP] articles and FAQs about
the
benefits of 64-bit Windows:
http://download.microsoft.com/.../Is...ght_for_Me.doc
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...el_x64faq.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...loringx64.mspx
--
Andre
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Jon Davis" <jon@REMOVE.ME.PLEASE.jondavis.net> wrote in message
news:%23$M4UOf0GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> I'm a software developer (primarily .NET) and was just wondering if there
> might be any good reason to fire up the 64-bit side of my Athlon 64 3000+
> when I install Vista RC1 and install the 64-bit version of Vista?
>
> I had hoped and expected that 64-bit would become meaningful this far into
> the 2000-2010 decade, but so far I see no change in the industry utilizing
> the 64 bits, not with games, not even much with mid-size server stuff
> (other than what was before).
>
> Is Athlon 64 a yesteryear's fad that has no meaning nor relevance today?
>
> My opinion on this has changed drastically in the past year but some of
> this has to do with the fact that the Athlon 64 3000+, a speed demon when
> I got it, is now not so fast anymore, and I'm beginning to wonder why I
> bothered to go with it in the first place just on the basis of 64-bit
> support.
>
> Jon
>
>

Well, I am using 2.6 GBs in my desktop and I have so much apps open, it
really helps, especially for VMs, but I am not the average user. But Vista
loves RAM, The more RAM you give it I notice, the better the performance
gets.
--
Andre
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Jon Davis" <jon@REMOVE.ME.PLEASE.jondavis.net> wrote in message
news:%23vZHn9f0GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>
> Will any developer (game developer, business developer) ever see this
> benefit as long as the target install base will never see more than 4GB
> installed on the machine anyway? Who needs more than 4GB? Who needs more
> than 2GB?
>
> Okay, wait... I use up all my 2GB and that's up from using up 1GB 2 years
> ago.. I see where this is going..
>
> And as far as my Athlon 64 3000+ processor and its max 4GB motherboard are
> concerned, it is going nowhere. I'm developing the revised opinion that
> the introduction of 64 bit support on the 386 architecture by AMD was a
> marketing move, nothing more.
>
> Jon
>
> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eOYWrUf0GHA.5100@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>
>

Don't know where you are getting your "reports", but many of us have been
running WINXP X64 Pro for some time, have been extremely pleased with the
stability, and can see none of the strange behaviors that you mentioned.

But I do agree with your basic advise - if you don't know why you need a
64-bit OS - don't have 64-bit apps - don't have a high tolerance for working
around drivers that aren't 64-bit ready, and get tired of fighting with
hardware manufacturers that don't see why they should continue to support
their older (and not so old) devices - then you don't need a 64-bit OS.

I would add that your arguments for average users staying away from X64
equally apply to average users staying away from VISTA (32 or 64) and
sticking with WINXP. Unless the average user purchases a completely new set
of "Vista compatible" hardware the chances are that MANY of their scanners,
printers, and software drivers will not work. This is where we will
separate the manufacturers that dump their product support, leave their
customers in the lurch, and reach their hands out to yank money out of your
wallets for new devices - - from those manufacturers that support their
existing customers and provide VISTA updates. Guess which manufacturers
will get my future purchases.

"Sascha Benjamin Jazbec" <sbj77@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:C10B07E9-425F-434A-B58F-430EDFF81560@microsoft.com...

> Be warned :
>
> people that used the 64bit versions of XP and Vista have reported the
> strangest errors,higher memory-usage,segmentation_faults and other strange
> behaviour.
>
> Not to forget that some software exists only in 32bit versions and will
> run in comaptibility mode, can also cause strange effects.
> As this is not only occuring in Windows but also in Linux x64 versions, I
> think that the techside of running 64bit Systems is usable and useful only
> to a very rare group of people.
>
> Average Desktopusers I would tell not to install 64, but stick with
> 32bits, until software gets better supported.
>
> Just my 2 cents, I run an AMD 32bit System - but I read what others are
> reporting..
>
> "Jon Davis" <jon@REMOVE.ME.PLEASE.jondavis.net> wrote in message
> news:%23$M4UOf0GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>

Users that work with large Photoshop files and similar apps and need to run
multiples apps at once easily benefit from 4GB of memory and multiple CPUs.

I suspect that sometime in 2007 most major software apps will be released in
true 64-bit versions and provide significant benefits to commercial users
where desktop workstation time is money - and any improvements in
application performance that allows them to produce more in a workday will
be eagerly adopted.

"Jon Davis" <jon@REMOVE.ME.PLEASE.jondavis.net> wrote in message
news:%23vZHn9f0GHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>
> Will any developer (game developer, business developer) ever see this
> benefit as long as the target install base will never see more than 4GB
> installed on the machine anyway? Who needs more than 4GB? Who needs more
> than 2GB?
>
> Okay, wait... I use up all my 2GB and that's up from using up 1GB 2 years
> ago.. I see where this is going..
>
> And as far as my Athlon 64 3000+ processor and its max 4GB motherboard are
> concerned, it is going nowhere. I'm developing the revised opinion that
> the introduction of 64 bit support on the 386 architecture by AMD was a
> marketing move, nothing more.
>
> Jon
>
> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eOYWrUf0GHA.5100@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>
>

well most of the errors Ive had in x64 have also occured in x86,
yes its true that the PC uses a lot mroe ram, I have 1 Gig, and on
teh x86 release(Pre RC1) win idled @ 500 - 550 MB, but on the x64
(RC1), it idles usually @ around 650-750, performance isnt really
an issue as far as the x64 version, only thing thats gettin a
little annoying is the driver certificate thing where they all have
to be signed by MSFT, hope they change that soon, so that with
admin priviledges, and safeguards we can install some things that
we need, or I see a fray of lawsuits coming from ppl whol say that
its a monopoly lol.
--
----------------------------------------------
Posted with NewsLeecher v3.5 Beta 3
* Binary Usenet Leeching Made Easy
* http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
----------------------------------------------