Operating Systems

[CoM_Solaufein]

What are the differences in a 32 bit and a 64 bit OS like WinXP? I'm building another gaming machine and I am wonder about the OS to use in it.

 

I may want to have DX10 some time so Vista may be another option. Which is better Windows Vista Home Premium or Windows Vista Ultimate?

[Humodour]

You won't need to worry about needing Vista any time soon. Vista has about a 10 to 15% market share and is experiencing slow growth rates. No publisher will make their game DX10/Vista only. Similarly, most programs today don't even utilise 64-bit architecture and that's unlikely to change much any time soon.

 

The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that relative to 32-bit architectures the same data occupies more space in memory (due to swollen pointers and possibly other types and alignment padding). This increases the memory requirements of a given process and can have implications for efficient processor cache utilization. Maintaining a partial 32-bit model is one way to handle this and is in general reasonably effective. In fact, the highly performance-oriented z/OS operating system takes this approach currently, requiring program code to reside in any number of 32-bit address spaces while data objects can (optionally) reside in 64-bit regions.

 

Currently, most commercial software is built as 32-bit code, not 64-bit code, so it can't take advantage of the larger 64-bit address space or wider 64-bit registers and data paths on 64-bit processors, or, on x86 processors, the additional registers in 64-bit mode. However, users of free or open source operating systems have been able to use exclusive 64-bit computing environments for years. Not all such applications require a large address space or manipulate 64-bit data items, so they wouldn't benefit from the larger address space or wider registers and data paths; the main benefit to 64-bit versions of applications that wouldn't benefit from them would be that x86 versions would be able to use more registers.

 

The pros? Well, 64-bit is generally only useful when you need to deal with lots of data. Bit increases become exponentially less beneficially the higher they go. It's definitely not a case of bigger is better.

 

While 64-bit architectures indisputably make working with large data sets in applications such as digital video, scientific computing, and large databases easier, there has been considerable debate as to whether they or their 32-bit compatibility modes will be faster than comparably-priced 32-bit systems for other tasks.

 

For gaming, I'd definitely stick with XP and a 32-bit architecture.

[Tigranes]

I would stick with XP Pro SP2 as well, though I can't comment on the architecture due to lack of knowledge. The only short-term advantage to getting Vista is the 'pretties' and 'dumb-proof' features, and in most cases, sticking with a stable, mature Windows will give you the least headaches, if not always the best in squeezing out the last ounce of performance or features.

[Kaftan Barlast]

What are the differences in a 32 bit and a 64 bit OS like WinXP? I'm building another gaming machine and I am wonder about the OS to use in it.

 

 

The major differance is that a 64bit OS can use up to 16.8TB of RAM, while 32bit systems are strictly limited to a maximum of 3.5GB of RAM. This is not a windows thing, its just the way bits and bytes work. This is the main reason why you use 64bit in workstation and servers, where you need enourmous amount of memory.

 

 

But the only game Ive ever heard of being releasd in a 64bit version was FarCry, so its quite useless to have a 64bit gaming rig. Sure, you can run 32bit applications including games, but you wont get any performance increase.

 

 

 

...but there is one more advantage thats useful for a common user; 64bit systems are immune to virtually all viruses, trojans and other malware in existance.

[Humodour]

...but there is one more advantage thats useful for a common user; 64bit systems are immune to virtually all viruses, trojans and other malware in existance.

 

How do you figure that? I thought 64-bit OS's had a 32-bit emulation layer?

[Moatilliatta]

I guess you could say that the question is whether developers will get real and start using DX10 better before 2010ish when windows 7 will come out which most people for some reason think is gonna be loads better than Vista, which is already quite good.

 

I'd say that you should get Vista so the day of DX10 games can come closer, UNITED, WE'RE UNSTOPPABLE! *Starts waiving a sign saying "Vista rules, xp drools"*

 

@Krezack

Do you have a link to wherever you got the 10-15% claim from?

[Diamond]

The major differance is that a 64bit OS can use up to 16.8TB of RAM, while 32bit systems are strictly limited to a maximum of 3.5GB of RAM. This is not a windows thing, its just the way bits and bytes work.

Actually you can use up to 2^32 bytes, which is exactly 4Gb. That is, if you are using a proper operating system.

 

...but there is one more advantage thats useful for a common user; 64bit systems are immune to virtually all viruses, trojans and other malware in existance.

32-bit code will execute just fine on x64. So all your email worms, trojans, VBS scripts, XSS vulnerabilities will still work. The only thing that will break is low-level exploits, because assembly code would have be written to target a specific address space.

[Kaftan Barlast]

32-bit code will execute just fine on x64. So all your email worms, trojans, VBS scripts, XSS vulnerabilities will still work. The only thing that will break is low-level exploits, because assembly code would have be written to target a specific address space.

 

 

Oh, I thought that you had to manually run infected files in 32bit mode for the malware to actually work. Dang.

[CoM_Solaufein]

I'll stick with a known winner >>> WinXP.

 

There are not many games that use DX10 so there is really no need for bloatware, buggy Vista.

[Humodour]

I guess you could say that the question is whether developers will get real and start using DX10 better before 2010ish when windows 7 will come out which most people for some reason think is gonna be loads better than Vista, which is already quite good.

 

I'd say that you should get Vista so the day of DX10 games can come closer, UNITED, WE'RE UNSTOPPABLE! *Starts waiving a sign saying "Vista rules, xp drools"*

 

@Krezack

Do you have a link to wherever you got the 10-15% claim from?

 

Last time you asked me that, I meant to post a link for 9% share figure, as of February 2008. Sorry.

 

As of current, the figure is about 12% as of April 08:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_o...erating_systems

 

Or for comparison with XP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Win...ng_environments

 

I don't see why you're so surprised by that figure. Does it not make sense that people will stick with a product that works? When both the gaming or business industries have no strong incentive to switch, of course you're going to see very weak growth.

 

A 2007 outlook of the problem, but it's still quite current in its poignancy: http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa/Busin...39283918,00.htm

 

And here's a little present-day diagram for the visual learners:

 

Edited May 11, 2008 by Krezack

[Moatilliatta]

Not surprised, just wondering. The numbers are interesting because they show that we could attain something close to a 20-25% DX10 marketshare when W7 comes around and people might just stop being prissy little princesses. So true DX10 games in 2010-2012?

 

And yes people are probably happy with XP. I still think that the bad hype has had an effect considering people still mention Vista as buggy and Bloatware, which isn't entirely wrong if you still live in 2007. Vista is still bloated, but that doesn't mean that it will be particularly noticable if people have computers that can actually run newer games. And the buggy part haven't been relevant since I started using Vista and that was back in september or something.

 

The diagram shows nothing except that corporate users dislike Vista which isn't related to how many people use it. or am I missing something?

[Humodour]

Not surprised, just wondering. The numbers are interesting because they show that we could attain something close to a 20-25% DX10 marketshare when W7 comes around and people might just stop being prissy little princesses. So true DX10 games in 2010-2012?

 

Pretty much. I'll be happy to use DX10 when I switch to Windows 7 - and I'll be a W7 early adopter. I think that by the time W7 has rolled out, the DX10 marketshare will be fairly massive between Vista and W7. Probably still not enough to validate DX10 only games, but devs will likely start to focus on it in favour of DX9/XP users by then (though I imagine XP will maintain a firm grip on some OS market share even then).

 

The diagram shows nothing except that corporate users dislike Vista which isn't related to how many people use it. or am I missing something?

 

Nah, that's correct. Thing is, corporate users are both some of the biggest users and one of the biggest indicators of OS success.

[Moatilliatta]

I don't care about succes. Corporate users can stay with XP so long as I get my DX10 games, and yes I do realize that this is a relatively naive worldview.

 

Anyway, if we put any kind of trust in Steam's ability to measure gamers and what stuff they have we might be able to expect Vista use to be somewhat higher than the norm amongst gamers. 17.5%

 

Probably still not enough to validate DX10 only games,...

I see that you have little faith in early adopter games that will fail massively and blame it on piracy?

[taks]

one of the misnomers of using corporate data, however, is that corporations have a HUGE expense in updating an OS. think about it: every single operator must upgrade, and in a big corporation, that could easily be thousands, if not 10s or even 100s of thousands, of upgrades. corporations as well as government entities are always slow to upgrade (lots of government servers are still running 2k, btw, though the standard "desktops" are mostly upgraded to XP). companies simply can't afford to upgrade every time the latest OS comes out.

 

i can't wait to see what happens when linux begins to get a foothold (for desktops it will be a while; it is already pretty popular for server farms and network/ethernet stuff). the government is pretty dicey on the use of linux in their embedded stuff because (last time i checked) only one version of red hat had been approved by the NSA for use in critical systems (this requires a line-by-line check to verify the lack of security holes/exploits).

 

taks

[Morgoth]

Well, I got a Vista license from my Uni and since I upgrated last month I thought I ought to give it a shot. And I haven't regreted it. It runs super smooth and stable with 4 gig memory, and even though most DX10 games run rather sluggish, I always have the benefit to also play in DX9 w/o any problems. I'm still curious though how Age of Conan and Alan Wake will run with Vista, since these games have been hyped endlessly being heavily DX10 optimized....yeah yeah, we'll see.

[walkerguy]

Vista = Sad face

 

And thats a statistic!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Vista = Sad face

 

Well, so far, it seems that you are in the minority on this particular forum.

[Humodour]

Vista = Sad face

 

Well, so far, it seems that you are in the minority on this particular forum.

 

Really? I got the impression a lot of people on this forum get a sad face when they think of Vista.

[Moatilliatta]

Suffice it to say that the people on this forum that have tried it recently seems to have been pretty happy with it.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

The only reason people moan about vista is the cost of upgrading, I swear there isn't a damn thing wrong with the OS, and frankly from my own experience it's been infinately more stable than XP. Sure you have a perf hit with some stuff, but then again there isn't actually much of a notable cost.

 

What can I say? Bunch of fracking whinerz.

[Humodour]

Man that sucks. Microsoft has scrapped the Minimal Windows component of Windows 7. There goes the only reason it was worth buying.

[Pidesco]

My question is why would anyone even try Vista. XP never ever crashes for me, is quite fast and runs every single Windows application out there.

 

I have nothing against Vista, however there's nothing I want about Vista either.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

My question is why would anyone even try Vista.

 

If you're buying or building a new system, otherwise I would tend to agree with you.

[Moatilliatta]

Man that sucks. Microsoft has scrapped the Minimal Windows component of Windows 7. There goes the only reason it was worth buying.

Seriously? I was gonna mention the last time you mentioned it that they'll probably scrap it and make windows 7 another uninteresting OS. I just love when my low expectations of Microsoft are correct.

My question is why would anyone even try Vista.

If you're buying or building a new system, otherwise I would tend to agree with you.

Yeah. Most of the people who have Vista now are people who have upgraded recently and wasn't whiny enough to immediately switch back to XP. The last bit has become increasingly valid the last year or so.

[Pidesco]

As I haven't bought an actual whole computer in 6 or 7 years, and won't do so for the next few years, I guess I'm sticking with XP until Vista stops being supported by Microsoft, or something.