Days of 32-bit are numbered

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 31, 2007.

  1. As the on-board RAM on graphics cards gets larger and larger, they are
    taking bigger and bigger chunks out of the address space available to
    32-bit applications. Vista's virtual graphics memory feature actually makes
    this worse.

    The answer, of course, is to move to 64-bit. But that causes its own
    problems for Windows users.

    <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070829-microsoft-issues-fix-for-vista-graphics-memory-overflows.html>
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 31, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Allistar Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > As the on-board RAM on graphics cards gets larger and larger, they are
    > taking bigger and bigger chunks out of the address space available to
    > 32-bit applications. Vista's virtual graphics memory feature actually
    > makes this worse.
    >
    > The answer, of course, is to move to 64-bit. But that causes its own
    > problems for Windows users.
    >
    >

    <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070829-microsoft-issues-fix-for-vista-graphics-memory-overflows.html>

    I've been running 99% 64bit for ages (the only things not 64bit have not
    been compiled from source, which is VMWare and an NVidia driver).

    Allistar.
    Allistar, Aug 31, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Will Spencer Guest

    On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:10:26 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > As the on-board RAM on graphics cards gets larger and larger, they are
    > taking bigger and bigger chunks out of the address space available to
    > 32-bit applications. Vista's virtual graphics memory feature actually makes
    > this worse.
    >
    > The answer, of course, is to move to 64-bit. But that causes its own
    > problems for Windows users.
    >
    > <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070829-microsoft-issues-fix-for-vista-graphics-memory-overflows.html>


    Sorry hippy, I've been running Vista 64bit since release with no problems.

    -ws
    Will Spencer, Aug 31, 2007
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Will Spencer Guest

    On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:23:20 +1200, Allistar wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> As the on-board RAM on graphics cards gets larger and larger, they are
    >> taking bigger and bigger chunks out of the address space available to
    >> 32-bit applications. Vista's virtual graphics memory feature actually
    >> makes this worse.
    >>
    >> The answer, of course, is to move to 64-bit. But that causes its own
    >> problems for Windows users.
    >>
    >>

    > <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070829-microsoft-issues-fix-for-vista-graphics-memory-overflows.html>
    >
    > I've been running 99% 64bit for ages (the only things not 64bit have not
    > been compiled from source, which is VMWare and an NVidia driver).
    >
    > Allistar.


    The nvidia driver for my 8800gts is 64bit.

    -ws
    Will Spencer, Aug 31, 2007
    #4
  5. In message <1lqs61a3kj14x.12b5wa1khtb3g$>, Will Spencer
    wrote:

    > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:10:26 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> As the on-board RAM on graphics cards gets larger and larger, they are
    >> taking bigger and bigger chunks out of the address space available to
    >> 32-bit applications. Vista's virtual graphics memory feature actually
    >> makes this worse.
    >>
    >> The answer, of course, is to move to 64-bit. But that causes its own
    >> problems for Windows users.
    >>
    >>

    <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070829-microsoft-issues-fix-for-vista-graphics-memory-overflows.html>
    >
    > Sorry hippy, I've been running Vista 64bit since release with no problems.


    Sure, I believe you.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 31, 2007
    #5
  6. On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:54:02 +1200, Will Spencer wrote:

    > Sorry hippy, I've been running Vista 64bit since release with no problems.


    What non M$ applications do you have installed?


    --
    Jonathan Walker

    "The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
    dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
    Jonathan Walker, Aug 31, 2007
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Will Spencer Guest

    On 31 Aug 2007 18:29:37 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:

    > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:54:02 +1200, Will Spencer wrote:
    >
    >> Sorry hippy, I've been running Vista 64bit since release with no problems.

    >
    > What non M$ applications do you have installed?


    A lot.

    -ws
    Will Spencer, Sep 1, 2007
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Will Spencer Guest

    On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:24:04 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <1lqs61a3kj14x.12b5wa1khtb3g$>, Will Spencer
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:10:26 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> As the on-board RAM on graphics cards gets larger and larger, they are
    >>> taking bigger and bigger chunks out of the address space available to
    >>> 32-bit applications. Vista's virtual graphics memory feature actually
    >>> makes this worse.
    >>>
    >>> The answer, of course, is to move to 64-bit. But that causes its own
    >>> problems for Windows users.
    >>>
    >>>

    > <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070829-microsoft-issues-fix-for-vista-graphics-memory-overflows.html>
    >>
    >> Sorry hippy, I've been running Vista 64bit since release with no problems.

    >
    > Sure, I believe you.


    Actually I lie, I just remembered some old software I used for doing my GST
    didn't work on 64bit Vista (but it did on my notebook running 32bit Vista).

    Apart from that, no problems.

    -ws
    Will Spencer, Sep 1, 2007
    #8
  9. In message <1nvm9c1wt4dr$.62anjuearqrz$>, Will Spencer wrote:

    > On 31 Aug 2007 18:29:37 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:54:02 +1200, Will Spencer wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sorry hippy, I've been running Vista 64bit since release with no
    >>> problems.

    >>
    >> What non M$ applications do you have installed?

    >
    > A lot.


    How many of them 64-bit?

    Hardware drivers? Internet Explorer plug-ins? (Assuming you use IE.)
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 1, 2007
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Will Spencer Guest

    On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:33:27 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <1nvm9c1wt4dr$.62anjuearqrz$>, Will Spencer wrote:
    >
    >> On 31 Aug 2007 18:29:37 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:54:02 +1200, Will Spencer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Sorry hippy, I've been running Vista 64bit since release with no
    >>>> problems.
    >>>
    >>> What non M$ applications do you have installed?

    >>
    >> A lot.

    >
    > How many of them 64-bit?


    Non MS just BOINC (I think). There is a seprate "Program Files" folder for
    32 and 64bit applications.

    > Hardware drivers?


    Don't know but there is also a seperate 32bit and 64bit bit folder for
    system files and drivers.

    >Internet Explorer plug-ins? (Assuming you use IE.)


    I can choose to run IE 32 or 64bit. Flash doesn't work on 64bit IE although
    there's supposed to be a 64bit version coming.

    -ws
    Will Spencer, Sep 3, 2007
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Allistar Guest

    Will Spencer wrote:

    > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:23:20 +1200, Allistar wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> As the on-board RAM on graphics cards gets larger and larger, they are
    >>> taking bigger and bigger chunks out of the address space available to
    >>> 32-bit applications. Vista's virtual graphics memory feature actually
    >>> makes this worse.
    >>>
    >>> The answer, of course, is to move to 64-bit. But that causes its own
    >>> problems for Windows users.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070829-microsoft-issues-fix-for-vista-graphics-memory-overflows.html>
    >>
    >> I've been running 99% 64bit for ages (the only things not 64bit have not
    >> been compiled from source, which is VMWare and an NVidia driver).
    >>
    >> Allistar.

    >
    > The nvidia driver for my 8800gts is 64bit.


    Maybe mine is too. I've read of a way of telling whether an executable is
    64bit or 32bit, and a small script that interrogates the whole system. Does
    anyone know how to do this?

    --
    A.
    Allistar, Sep 4, 2007
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Will Spencer Guest

    On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:21:22 +1200, Allistar wrote:

    > Will Spencer wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:23:20 +1200, Allistar wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> As the on-board RAM on graphics cards gets larger and larger, they are
    >>>> taking bigger and bigger chunks out of the address space available to
    >>>> 32-bit applications. Vista's virtual graphics memory feature actually
    >>>> makes this worse.
    >>>>
    >>>> The answer, of course, is to move to 64-bit. But that causes its own
    >>>> problems for Windows users.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    > <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070829-microsoft-issues-fix-for-vista-graphics-memory-overflows.html>
    >>>
    >>> I've been running 99% 64bit for ages (the only things not 64bit have not
    >>> been compiled from source, which is VMWare and an NVidia driver).
    >>>
    >>> Allistar.

    >>
    >> The nvidia driver for my 8800gts is 64bit.

    >
    > Maybe mine is too. I've read of a way of telling whether an executable is
    > 64bit or 32bit, and a small script that interrogates the whole system. Does
    > anyone know how to do this?


    Why don't you just go to the Nvidia website and select your card and see if
    it lists a 64bit driver for your OS. That's what I did. Most of the cards
    listed have a 64bit driver.

    -ws
    Will Spencer, Sep 4, 2007
    #12
  13. In message <>, Allistar wrote:

    > I've read of a way of telling whether an executable is
    > 64bit or 32bit, and a small script that interrogates the whole system.
    > Does anyone know how to do this?


    To count up the total number of 64-bit executables in commonly user-accessed
    directories on your system, try this:

    (IFS=":"; for d in $PATH; do IFS=$'\n'; for f in $(ls $d); do \
    file $d/$f; done; done) | fgrep 64-bit | wc -l

    Change the "64-bit" to "32-bit" to count up 32-bit executables. On my AMD64
    Gentoo system, it finds 2145 64-bit executables, and 5 32-bit ones.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 5, 2007
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Allistar Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <>, Allistar
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I've read of a way of telling whether an executable is
    >> 64bit or 32bit, and a small script that interrogates the whole system.
    >> Does anyone know how to do this?

    >
    > To count up the total number of 64-bit executables in commonly
    > user-accessed directories on your system, try this:
    >
    > (IFS=":"; for d in $PATH; do IFS=$'\n'; for f in $(ls $d); do \
    > file $d/$f; done; done) | fgrep 64-bit | wc -l
    >
    > Change the "64-bit" to "32-bit" to count up 32-bit executables. On my
    > AMD64 Gentoo system, it finds 2145 64-bit executables, and 5 32-bit ones.


    Thanks,
    I have 1873 64-bit executables and 23 32-bit ones. The only 32-bit ones
    are VMWare Workstation, Wine and a couple of gtk compatibility libraries.
    --
    A.
    Allistar, Sep 5, 2007
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Malcolm Guest

    On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:53:11 +1200
    Allistar <> wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    > > In message <>, Allistar
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >> I've read of a way of telling whether an executable is
    > >> 64bit or 32bit, and a small script that interrogates the whole
    > >> system. Does anyone know how to do this?

    > >
    > > To count up the total number of 64-bit executables in commonly
    > > user-accessed directories on your system, try this:
    > >
    > > (IFS=":"; for d in $PATH; do IFS=$'\n'; for f in $(ls $d); do \
    > > file $d/$f; done; done) | fgrep 64-bit | wc -l
    > >
    > > Change the "64-bit" to "32-bit" to count up 32-bit executables. On
    > > my AMD64 Gentoo system, it finds 2145 64-bit executables, and 5
    > > 32-bit ones.

    >
    > Thanks,
    > I have 1873 64-bit executables and 23 32-bit ones. The only 32-bit
    > ones are VMWare Workstation, Wine and a couple of gtk compatibility
    > libraries.

    Hi
    I have 2925 64-bit and 56 32-bit likewise vmware, wine, firefox/seamonkey and
    associated plugins.

    --
    Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
    SLED 10.0 SP1 x86_64 Kernel 2.6.16.46-0.14-smp
    up 3 days 3:32, 5 users, load average: 0.27, 0.15, 0.11
    Malcolm, Sep 5, 2007
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Allistar Guest

    VMWare compatibility. WAS: Days of 32-bit are numbered

    Malcolm wrote:

    > On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:53:11 +1200
    > Allistar <> wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >> > In message <>, Allistar
    >> > wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> I've read of a way of telling whether an executable is
    >> >> 64bit or 32bit, and a small script that interrogates the whole
    >> >> system. Does anyone know how to do this?
    >> >
    >> > To count up the total number of 64-bit executables in commonly
    >> > user-accessed directories on your system, try this:
    >> >
    >> > (IFS=":"; for d in $PATH; do IFS=$'\n'; for f in $(ls $d); do \
    >> > file $d/$f; done; done) | fgrep 64-bit | wc -l
    >> >
    >> > Change the "64-bit" to "32-bit" to count up 32-bit executables. On
    >> > my AMD64 Gentoo system, it finds 2145 64-bit executables, and 5
    >> > 32-bit ones.

    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> I have 1873 64-bit executables and 23 32-bit ones. The only 32-bit
    >> ones are VMWare Workstation, Wine and a couple of gtk compatibility
    >> libraries.

    > Hi
    > I have 2925 64-bit and 56 32-bit likewise vmware, wine, firefox/seamonkey
    > and associated plugins.


    Do you have VMWare working in any kernel greater than 2.6.21? I'm stuck on
    2.6.19 as VMWare doesn't work on 2.6.22 yet (something VMWare need to
    change, apparently).

    Allistar.
    --
    A.
    Allistar, Sep 5, 2007
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Malcolm Guest

    Re: VMWare compatibility. WAS: Days of 32-bit are numbered

    On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:10:03 +1200
    Allistar <> wrote:

    > Malcolm wrote:
    >
    > > On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:53:11 +1200
    > > Allistar <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > In message <>,
    > >> > Allistar wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> I've read of a way of telling whether an executable is
    > >> >> 64bit or 32bit, and a small script that interrogates the whole
    > >> >> system. Does anyone know how to do this?
    > >> >
    > >> > To count up the total number of 64-bit executables in commonly
    > >> > user-accessed directories on your system, try this:
    > >> >
    > >> > (IFS=":"; for d in $PATH; do IFS=$'\n'; for f in $(ls $d);
    > >> > do \ file $d/$f; done; done) | fgrep 64-bit | wc -l
    > >> >
    > >> > Change the "64-bit" to "32-bit" to count up 32-bit executables.
    > >> > On my AMD64 Gentoo system, it finds 2145 64-bit executables, and
    > >> > 5 32-bit ones.
    > >>
    > >> Thanks,
    > >> I have 1873 64-bit executables and 23 32-bit ones. The only
    > >> 32-bit ones are VMWare Workstation, Wine and a couple of gtk
    > >> compatibility libraries.

    > > Hi
    > > I have 2925 64-bit and 56 32-bit likewise vmware, wine,
    > > firefox/seamonkey and associated plugins.

    >
    > Do you have VMWare working in any kernel greater than 2.6.21? I'm
    > stuck on 2.6.19 as VMWare doesn't work on 2.6.22 yet (something
    > VMWare need to change, apparently).
    >
    > Allistar.

    Hi Allistar
    No sorry, still at 2.6.16.46 and Workstation 5.5.4 build-44386
    Have you had a look here;
    http://www.vmware.com/community/index.jspa

    --
    Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
    SLED 10.0 SP1 x86_64 Kernel 2.6.16.46-0.14-smp
    up 3 days 3:43, 4 users, load average: 0.24, 0.21, 0.13
    Malcolm, Sep 5, 2007
    #17
  18. In message <1i0o9mctp1a62$.1lwv1n604k2l2$>, Will Spencer
    wrote:

    > On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:33:27 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <1nvm9c1wt4dr$.62anjuearqrz$>, Will Spencer
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 31 Aug 2007 18:29:37 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:54:02 +1200, Will Spencer wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Sorry hippy, I've been running Vista 64bit since release with no
    >>>>> problems.
    >>>>
    >>>> What non M$ applications do you have installed?
    >>>
    >>> A lot.

    >>
    >> How many of them 64-bit?

    >
    > Non MS just BOINC (I think). There is a seprate "Program Files" folder for
    > 32 and 64bit applications.


    So _all_ of your apps except one are 32-bit, running through an additional
    compatibility layer to work on a 64-bit OS? Do you think that's good,
    performance-wise?

    >> Hardware drivers?

    >
    > Don't know but there is also a seperate 32bit and 64bit bit folder for
    > system files and drivers.


    I don't think you can use 32-bit drivers. So the question is: what hardware
    have you successfully managed to use on your 64-bit system?

    >>Internet Explorer plug-ins? (Assuming you use IE.)

    >
    > I can choose to run IE 32 or 64bit.


    Why do you need to? How do you decide which version to use? Do you have a
    list of 32-bit- versus 64-bit-bookmarked sites?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 5, 2007
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <1i0o9mctp1a62$.1lwv1n604k2l2$>, Will
    > Spencer wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:33:27 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> In message <1nvm9c1wt4dr$.62anjuearqrz$>, Will
    >>> Spencer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 31 Aug 2007 18:29:37 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:54:02 +1200, Will Spencer wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Sorry hippy, I've been running Vista 64bit since release
    >>>>>> with no problems.
    >>>>> What non M$ applications do you have installed?
    >>>> A lot.
    >>> How many of them 64-bit?

    >> Non MS just BOINC (I think). There is a seprate "Program Files"
    >> folder for 32 and 64bit applications.

    >
    > So _all_ of your apps except one are 32-bit, running through an
    > additional compatibility layer to work on a 64-bit OS? Do you think
    > that's good, performance-wise?
    >

    32-bit apps don't need a compatibility layer. The instruction set used
    by 32bit apps is a subset of the instruction set used by 64bit apps.
    There are only a handful of 64 bit instructions. Provided the 64bit OS
    can properly launch the app there shouldn't be any overhead.
    >
    >>> Hardware drivers?

    >> Don't know but there is also a seperate 32bit and 64bit bit folder
    >> for system files and drivers.

    >
    > I don't think you can use 32-bit drivers. So the question is: what
    > hardware have you successfully managed to use on your 64-bit system?
    >

    Well, you could, but the interaction with the rest of the OS is where
    the problems would arise. Most hardware is only 32bit aware anyway.
    >
    >>> Internet Explorer plug-ins? (Assuming you use IE.)

    >> I can choose to run IE 32 or 64bit.

    >
    > Why do you need to? How do you decide which version to use? Do you
    > have a list of 32-bit- versus 64-bit-bookmarked sites?
    >


    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
    Enkidu, Sep 6, 2007
    #19
  20. In message <46dfb60b$>, Enkidu wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> So _all_ of your apps except one are 32-bit, running through an
    >> additional compatibility layer to work on a 64-bit OS? Do you think
    >> that's good, performance-wise?
    >>

    > 32-bit apps don't need a compatibility layer.


    They do if the kernel is a native 64-bit one. Admittedly that's true for
    Linux, but might not be true for Dimdows...

    > The instruction set used
    > by 32bit apps is a subset of the instruction set used by 64bit apps.
    > There are only a handful of 64 bit instructions.


    Actually, no. _All_ instructions that take addresses need to come in 64-bit
    versions.

    For x86-64, there is the additional fact that AMD added a bunch more
    general-purpose registers, as well as completely reworking the
    floating-point register set. So there are all new instructions for dealing
    with those, as well.

    >> I don't think you can use 32-bit drivers.
    >>

    > Well, you could, but the interaction with the rest of the OS is where
    > the problems would arise.


    In other words, it wouldn't work.

    > Most hardware is only 32bit aware anyway.


    That's a separate issue, that only applies to hardware that needs to do DMA.
    It's independent of whether the driver software is compiled for 64-bit or
    not.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 7, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Metaphor

    A program to make a numbered list?

    Metaphor, Feb 26, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,858
    Richard
    Feb 26, 2004
  2. James Haddow

    A program to make numbered lists?

    James Haddow, Feb 26, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    440
  3. Mara

    These *^&*%&*(&% numbered LISTS!!

    Mara, Dec 10, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    440
    Noel Paton
    Dec 13, 2004
  4. virus-bitten

    What is numbered interface?

    virus-bitten, Oct 18, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    882
    virus-bitten
    Oct 18, 2006
  5. Peter

    Re: Small sensor video days numbered?

    Peter, Aug 22, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    263
    Peter
    Aug 24, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page