T Nation

Am I Running Anything 64 Bit?

So I built a new computer with a 64 bit processor. I am currently running WinXP. I know the O/S isn’t running in 64 bit but what about games I am playing? Like Quake 4 or Oblivion.

Your operating system needs to be 64 bit and the applications you use 64 bit to be running in 64 bit.

so they answer is no.

[quote]gab1707 wrote:
Your operating system needs to be 64 bit and the applications you use 64 bit to be running in 64 bit.

so they answer is no.[/quote]

correct
answer is no
games and stuff actaully have very little support for the 64bit stuff right now
I know mine is a 64 bit os its a pain to find stuff comaptable right now

[quote]gab1707 wrote:
Your operating system needs to be 64 bit and the applications you use 64 bit to be running in 64 bit.

so they answer is no.[/quote]

Thanks!

[quote]Nich wrote:
gab1707 wrote:
Your operating system needs to be 64 bit and the applications you use 64 bit to be running in 64 bit.

so they answer is no.

correct
answer is no
games and stuff actaully have very little support for the 64bit stuff right now
I know mine is a 64 bit os its a pain to find stuff comaptable right now
[/quote]

So if you have a 64 bit O/S you can’t run anything that is 32 bit?

I am currently downloading Linux to install on my 2nd hard drive. Linux has supported 64 bit for way longer than Microsoft. Plus if I remember correctly when you download the source code you can compile it for whatever processor you want. Or… does 64 bit compatibility have to be written into the source code?

[quote]DanErickson wrote:
I am currently downloading Linux to install on my 2nd hard drive. Linux has supported 64 bit for way longer than Microsoft.

Plus if I remember correctly when you download the source code you can compile it for whatever processor you want. Or… does 64 bit compatibility have to be written into the source code?[/quote]

What version are you going to install? I’m not sure about compiling the source code for a 64 bit (I’m new to Linux), but I’m currently running the 64 bit version of Ubuntu.

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download

[quote]DanErickson wrote:
Nich wrote:
gab1707 wrote:
Your operating system needs to be 64 bit and the applications you use 64 bit to be running in 64 bit.

so they answer is no.

correct
answer is no
games and stuff actaully have very little support for the 64bit stuff right now
I know mine is a 64 bit os its a pain to find stuff comaptable right now

So if you have a 64 bit O/S you can’t run anything that is 32 bit?[/quote]
I can run things that are 32 bit
like
IE is 32 bit I run games that are 32bit x86 programs are fine main issue is the drivers.

I have 2 sets of folders one is program files and one is program files(x86) which is 32 bit stuff
now I am not real familer with it yet but I know that I can run 32bit stuff on the 64 it os but not the other way around
if you have a 32 bit system then you will only use 32 bit
obviously
but there is no 32bit drivers that will work with a 64bit os

my linux is also 64 bit ubuntu but it does not have quite as many issues with comaptability issues that windows does.
and I have no idea about this one yet as I am new to linux (about 1 1/2 years)
I am running vista ultimate 64 btw the xp pro 64 that I tried was a mess this one is really alot of plug and play stuff though it works quite well actually I was surprised.

[quote]DanErickson wrote:
I am currently downloading Linux to install on my 2nd hard drive. Linux has supported 64 bit for way longer than Microsoft. Plus if I remember correctly when you download the source code you can compile it for whatever processor you want. Or… does 64 bit compatibility have to be written into the source code?[/quote]

64-bit support must be written into whatever you are running.

If you’ve never used linux, I don’t suggest trying to compile a 64-bit kernel for your system. It wouldn’t make any sense. You would also need the 64-bit versions of all the libraries and all the software. Try downloading a 64-bit distribution instead. Of course, every 64-bit version I’ve used has been a bit buggier than the 32-bit version.

But why the obsession with 64-bit in the first place?

64bit is over-rated, the performance difference isn’t all that much.

The main advantage I’ve found is support for over 3gb ram in Windows, and faster 3D performance when using Maya (Rendering with the 64bit version).

[quote]RSGZ wrote:
64bit is over-rated, the performance difference isn’t all that much.

The main advantage I’ve found is support for over 3gb ram in Windows, and faster 3D performance when using Maya (Rendering with the 64bit version).[/quote]

yeah, right now only processor intensive application see a boost when working in 64 bit (CAD applications, video rendering, 3d applications). Basically any software that does very advanced mathematical calculations.

From time to time I click on the threads about various computer issues/problems/tweaks that appear on here. I’m fascinated by it because I wish I knew more, but doubt I would have the time or ambition to get to a level where I could engage in a discussion like this.

I’m self-sufficient with my computer 90% of my time, but just about the only parts of this thread I understand are: Ubuntu and Linux=open source OS and 64 bit = next step up from/bigger, faster than 32 bit, but stuff like the kernel vs the distribution version, 64 bit OS vs 64 bit processor, etc etc leaves me scratching my head.

Anyway, my question in all of this is - what do you guys use this stuff for? Is Linux’s only advantage over windows that its more stable and the fact that you’re not supporting a monopoly?

because to be honest, my windows doesnt crash much (IE is another issue, but thats why I downloaded firefox) with 64 bit vs 32 bit is it just that things generally run faster or do most of you have video editing/graphic design projects that would take forever otherwise? In other words, is there a practical point to running the latest and best and knowing all the different OS stuff, or is it just an enjoyable hobby for most of you? Thanks, just curious

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Anyway, my question in all of this is - what do you guys use this stuff for?[/quote]

To pay the house, the cars; to feed the family. :slight_smile:

Stability is not much of an issue with Windows, hasn’t been for years. Most problems occur with cheapo hardware and bad drivers. On server class certified hardware, Windows 2003 and up are rock solid, at least in my experience.

The other problem with Windows is that it used to run all users as “admin” by default, which lead to the enormous problems we’ve had (and are still having) with viruses/trojans/spyware/etc. Linux, and other unix-like OS (BSD, OS X, etc) have always been setup so that users operate with limited rights to the machine, making infections harder to accomplish.

Vista is taking steps to rectify that problem, but they’re going at it in an odd manner…

64 bits’ advantage is not really in processing speed, it’s in being able to address enormous amounts of memory. This, in turn, is mostly useful for certain types of applications, such as databases, who can gain a lot of speed if they can keep data in memory and not have to go to disk.

For the average home user, 64 bits doesn’t provide much advantage. It’s not worth it to upgrade from 32 to 64 bits right now; better to wait until the price differences make the point moot, or there’s some “must-have” app that’s only 64 bits.

For me it’s both. It’s an enjoyable hobby that I happen to be able to get paid for.

[quote]Mister T. wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
I am currently downloading Linux to install on my 2nd hard drive. Linux has supported 64 bit for way longer than Microsoft.

Plus if I remember correctly when you download the source code you can compile it for whatever processor you want. Or… does 64 bit compatibility have to be written into the source code?

What version are you going to install? I’m not sure about compiling the source code for a 64 bit (I’m new to Linux), but I’m currently running the 64 bit version of Ubuntu.

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download

[/quote]

I am not sure what version I will install. The last time I was running Linux the 2.6 version of the kernel was in it’s beta stage. Thanks for the link, I will try that distro.
:stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]Nich wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
Nich wrote:
gab1707 wrote:
Your operating system needs to be 64 bit and the applications you use 64 bit to be running in 64 bit.

so they answer is no.

correct
answer is no
games and stuff actaully have very little support for the 64bit stuff right now
I know mine is a 64 bit os its a pain to find stuff comaptable right now

So if you have a 64 bit O/S you can’t run anything that is 32 bit?
I can run things that are 32 bit
like
IE is 32 bit I run games that are 32bit x86 programs are fine main issue is the drivers.

I have 2 sets of folders one is program files and one is program files(x86) which is 32 bit stuff
now I am not real familer with it yet but I know that I can run 32bit stuff on the 64 it os but not the other way around
if you have a 32 bit system then you will only use 32 bit
obviously
but there is no 32bit drivers that will work with a 64bit os

my linux is also 64 bit ubuntu but it does not have quite as many issues with comaptability issues that windows does.
and I have no idea about this one yet as I am new to linux (about 1 1/2 years)
I am running vista ultimate 64 btw the xp pro 64 that I tried was a mess this one is really alot of plug and play stuff though it works quite well actually I was surprised.

[/quote]
Ok thanks for the info. I was actually thinking of picking up a copy of the WinXP 64 bit version but I won’t now. I need to check to see if I can find 64 bit drivers for all my hardware then. Hell… even my printer has 64 bit drivers.

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
DanErickson wrote:
I am currently downloading Linux to install on my 2nd hard drive. Linux has supported 64 bit for way longer than Microsoft. Plus if I remember correctly when you download the source code you can compile it for whatever processor you want. Or… does 64 bit compatibility have to be written into the source code?

64-bit support must be written into whatever you are running.

If you’ve never used linux, I don’t suggest trying to compile a 64-bit kernel for your system. It wouldn’t make any sense. You would also need the 64-bit versions of all the libraries and all the software. Try downloading a 64-bit distribution instead. Of course, every 64-bit version I’ve used has been a bit buggier than the 32-bit version.

But why the obsession with 64-bit in the first place?[/quote]
Ah yes, ok that makes sense. See… I was thinking of just installing whatever distro and then recompiling the kernel. But your right… most of the stuff would still be 32 bit. I did use Linux for a couple of years but I forget a lot of stuff now.

[quote]pookie wrote:
KBCThird wrote:

64 bits’ advantage is not really in processing speed, it’s in being able to address enormous amounts of memory. This, in turn, is mostly useful for certain types of applications, such as databases, who can gain a lot of speed if they can keep data in memory and not have to go to disk.

For the average home user, 64 bits doesn’t provide much advantage. It’s not worth it to upgrade from 32 to 64 bits right now; better to wait until the price differences make the point moot, or there’s some “must-have” app that’s only 64 bits.

[/quote]

I think this is making more sense now. I remember in C programming there were things like int, and short int, long int. I think int was 16 bit and long int was 32 bit or something like that. So now what does a C programmer have to write if he is trying to use a number that is 64 bits long?

[quote]KBCThird wrote:

Anyway, my question in all of this is - what do you guys use this stuff for? Is Linux’s only advantage over windows that its more stable and the fact that you’re not supporting a monopoly?

because to be honest, my windows doesnt crash much (IE is another issue, but thats why I downloaded firefox) with 64 bit vs 32 bit is it just that things generally run faster or do most of you have video editing/graphic design projects that would take forever otherwise? In other words, is there a practical point to running the latest and best and knowing all the different OS stuff, or is it just an enjoyable hobby for most of you? Thanks, just curious[/quote]

I was always the type that liked to open the computer up… or the radio or whatever and check everything out and try to figure out how it works so it can really natural.
I like to use linux because I like the command prompt atmosphere. You can learn how to use the shell properly (the shell is the program that accepts your commands at the command prompt) and you can make shell scripts to execute really crazy commands that I don’t think you can accomplish in Windows (if you can I am clueless). I don’t know… it just feels more powerful. When I want to know info about my networking hardware I just type “ipconfig -” and it brings stuff up. It is straight to the point, no fooling around good fun for all. When I want something in Windows I can’t find it. I wanted to know my ethernet cards IP address a couple of days ago I couldn’t find the stupid fucker. I mean the thing is great for games but to hack around with… really shitty. Not to mention because it is open source you don’t have to be worried that somebody is spying on you through a backdoor. Because it is open source there are thousands of people combing the code getting rid of bugs. Oh… and I hate Microsoft.

[quote]DanErickson wrote:
I think this is making more sense now. I remember in C programming there were things like int, and short int, long int. I think int was 16 bit and long int was 32 bit or something like that. So now what does a C programmer have to write if he is trying to use a number that is 64 bits long?[/quote]

Some C compilers use “long long”. Fight the urge to name some variable “dick” just so you can write “long long dick;”

I haven’t done any 64 bits programming yet, but if memory serves, in C++, int and long remain at 32 bits, and pointers are 64 bits. Again, this comes back to being able to address a lot of memory (with the pointers). (And this is on Windows with Visual Studio; don’t know how gcc handles it).

There’s probably some compiler switch to modify that behavior and use 64 bits integers, although I can’t really think of a use for them… floating point is handled with doubles and really big numbers, such as those used in cryptography, require what is usually called a “big integer” library. In those application, forget 64 bits, we’re talking about prime numbers thousands of digits long.

[quote]DanErickson wrote:
I like to use linux because I like the command prompt atmosphere. You can learn how to use the shell properly (the shell is the program that accepts your commands at the command prompt) and you can make shell scripts to execute really crazy commands that I don’t think you can accomplish in Windows (if you can I am clueless).[/quote]

You can. I know I sure do for the bunch of Windows servers I admin.

Batch files used to suck, but nowadays you can use wsh (windows scripting), Powershell or install SFU (service for Unix) or Cygwin or UWIN, etc. to be able to run the shell of your choice on Windows.

Windows Server 2008 even has a “console only” mode. (Or so I’m told, I haven’t tried it yet…)

ipconfig /all

:slight_smile:

I enjoy hacking on both.

That point is made often, but I think it’s mostly moot. Not that many people actually hack the kernel on linux… most OSS projects are small teams of volunteers. In theory, anyone can go an sift through the code; not sure how many actually do so in reality.

Backdoors from Microsoft won’t happen… even without the source, you can still trace the code in a debugger, examine the memory, sniff the network, etc. They’d expose themselves to billions in lawsuit if a secret backdoor was found. A truly paranoid company can sign up with them for their “shared source” program, where you get the possibility of examining the source code (not modify or redistribute, though).

I don’t like Microsoft very much either; but to dismiss everything they’ve ever produced as crap is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I hate Oracle too, but if I get a choice of DB for a project, they’re hard to match.