BF2S Forums vista question

Do you have a 64 bit processor? There's your answer

Dont really know but it was something like everything has to be 64 compliant, i have a 64 bit proc. but running it 32 bit.

I'd go with the 32 just for the fact that not a lot of software(barely any infact) utilizes the 64 bit yet. And who knows how many developers will/have start to make it anytime soon. Unless you are allowed to hold on to the coupon for a while, I would choose 32. If you have time to wait a bit longer, wait to see what comes about as far as 64 bit compatability.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bi … top10.mspx
I can only imagine Vista would be similar.

I thought Vista came with both the 32bit and 64bit versions on the same DVD?

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I thought Vista came with both the 32bit and 64bit versions on the same DVD?

I thought that to, I am certain I read, on the instalation screen it ask's you to choose which version, infact there was even a screenshot of the guy choosing 32BIT for the purposes of the test they where doing.

Martyn

Bell wrote:

LockerFish wrote:

I'd go with the 32 just for the fact that not a lot of software(barely any infact) utilizes the 64 bit yet. And who knows how many developers will/have start to make it anytime soon. Unless you are allowed to hold on to the coupon for a while, I would choose 32. If you have time to wait a bit longer, wait to see what comes about as far as 64 bit compatability.

You would expect a pretty major development in 64BIT products now vista is just around the corner.

martyn

Why? Just because Vista launches doesn't make the milliions of computers that are alreay in use 64-bit compatible. There are additional costs to developing a software program to work both as a 32-bit application and as a 64-bit applications. They would only make both versions IF there was a competitive advantage of doing so. The only markets where that makes sense (for the home user) is most video editing. Other than that there is not a huge advanage.

If a company puts out a 64-bit only app, they will be closing out a lot of their potential customers. So, the only logical choice it to build 32-bit applications.

I'm not saying there won't be 64-bit applications available, but they are not going to start flooding the market by any means.

Psycho wrote:

Bell wrote:

LockerFish wrote:

I'd go with the 32 just for the fact that not a lot of software(barely any infact) utilizes the 64 bit yet. And who knows how many developers will/have start to make it anytime soon. Unless you are allowed to hold on to the coupon for a while, I would choose 32. If you have time to wait a bit longer, wait to see what comes about as far as 64 bit compatability.

You would expect a pretty major development in 64BIT products now vista is just around the corner.

martyn

Why? Just because Vista launches doesn't make the milliions of computers that are alreay in use 64-bit compatible. There are additional costs to developing a software program to work both as a 32-bit application and as a 64-bit applications. They would only make both versions IF there was a competitive advantage of doing so. The only markets where that makes sense (for the home user) is most video editing. Other than that there is not a huge advanage.

If a company puts out a 64-bit only app, they will be closing out a lot of their potential customers. So, the only logical choice it to build 32-bit applications.

I'm not saying there won't be 64-bit applications available, but they are not going to start flooding the market by any means.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The same thing happened when we went from 16bit to 32bit. 32bit took over very very quickly. The average PC has a working life of maybe 3years, max. Virtually all new PCs purchased today have 64bit processors. I think it will take 2 to 3 years max before 64bit is all there is.

Bertster7 wrote:

Psycho wrote:

Bell wrote:

You would expect a pretty major development in 64BIT products now vista is just around the corner.

martyn

Why? Just because Vista launches doesn't make the milliions of computers that are alreay in use 64-bit compatible. There are additional costs to developing a software program to work both as a 32-bit application and as a 64-bit applications. They would only make both versions IF there was a competitive advantage of doing so. The only markets where that makes sense (for the home user) is most video editing. Other than that there is not a huge advanage.

If a company puts out a 64-bit only app, they will be closing out a lot of their potential customers. So, the only logical choice it to build 32-bit applications.

I'm not saying there won't be 64-bit applications available, but they are not going to start flooding the market by any means.

The whole point of the x86_64 architecture is that it can run 32-bit programs in a 64-bit environment. There are a few limited exceptions to this, but on the whole you can run 32-bit apps in 64-bit OS's with no problem. This is very different to the IA-64 architecture pioneered by Intel with the Itanium.

I can't see a point to 32-bit Vista, if you've got powerful enough hardware to run it properly, you almost certainly have a 64-bit CPU. I don't think it would be possible to make a version of Vista (or any OS for that matter) which would run on 32-bit machines and yet takes advantage of the extra 64-bit instructions and memory addressing (other than by putting both on the same disc/discs and having an install option).

If you've got a 64-bit CPU get the 64-bit edition. If you don't have a 64-bit CPU, don't get Vista.

64-bit CPUs have been the norm for about 3 years now. It's time for 32-bit apps to go away and die.

Again, same situation as we had with 16bit->32bit - 32bit windows (including XP) will run 16bit apps.

64bit Vista will run 32bit apps.

(with some exceptions, of course)

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-01-03 14:27:25)

burni$te wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It's time for 32-bit apps to go away and die.

for a confused pothead you seem lucent enough.
btw, is your copy of BF2 32 bit or 64?

32 of course. But BF2 is 2 years old, that's acceptable - it'll still run fine in 64-bit OSs.

I'm sure new games like Crysis will include 64-bit extensions, Crytek were very quick to patch Farcry to take advantage of 64-bit CPUs. When I played through Farcry I did it on the 64-bit patched version.

(did you mean lucid?)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Again, same situation as we had with 16bit->32bit - 32bit windows (including XP) will run 16bit apps.

64bit Vista will run 32bit apps.

(with some exceptions, of course)

Really what it's a case of software playing catch up to hardware. A very typical scenario (DX10 is another recent example) in computing because it's far easier for developers to write software for pre-existing hardware. The biggest and best example of this was the switch to Windows 95 from DOS and 3.11. All IA-32 (x86) CPUs are 32-bit, hence the name (with the exception of modern x86_64 architectures, which add 64-bit extensions despite using a traditional 32-bit instruction set), the 386 was a 32-bit CPU (which is why it is capable of running Windows 95, albeit slowly). Windows 95 also had teething problems, but XPx64 should have ironed those out and the numerous 64-bit versions of Linux show that it can be done well. 64-bit apps are the way forward.

Ideally a whole new architecture should be developed and we should start from scratch using a system that isn't fundamentally flawed. Intel had the right idea with the Itanium, even if it was crap. What we really need to see are systems running in ternary, the most efficient way to run an sort of electronic logic device. 3 voltages, one positive, one negative and 0 (representing 0, 1 and 2), would be the best way to do it. It won't be done in the foreseeable future because it is not economically viable though.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-03 15:37:10)

-1 would be to easily mixed up with 1 etc

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

What we really need to see are systems running in ternary, the most efficient way to run an sort of electronic logic device. 3 voltages, one positive, one negative and 0 (representing 0, 1 and 2), would be the best way to do it. It won't be done in the foreseeable future because it is not economically viable though.

Ooh! I was thinking about ternary systems just the other day. Wouldn't -1, 0 and 1 be better than 0, 1 and 2 ? That way we'd have a sensible way to represent negative numbers.

Good point. That's called balanced ternary and would be very usefull. Computers often use unsigned operands though and it would be complicated to use balanced ternary for some and normal ternary for others. In simpler implementations there can be no doubt that a balanced ternary solution would be best, but overall it might be too complex to implement efficiently in a CPU using signed and unsigned operands.

Bell wrote:

-1 would be to easily mixed up with 1 etc

I see no reason why that should happen.