ok i play a lot with w7 dont get me wrong i love it but there is one feature that tick me off!its the fact that it try to support everything without asking you or checking your computer first.

if i buy a w7 64 bit its becuase i want to run in 64 bit ,everywhere ,be it the regedit or anything else in between.i would rater w7 asked me instead say if it detect it is a 32 bit game and suggest me what is needed no issue!

but now i got support for stuff i WILL never use .come on!

is there a way to 64 ize my w7 64!and not have a hybrid 1990 era 64 bit!

WHAT THE FUUUU!??? lol

you cant '64 ize' your w7.

The main difference with 32 is 64 can use more memory more effectively.

I think what he's talking about is the two different installation locations:

64bit - c:\program files

32bit - c:\program files (x86)

I thoguht it was cuz...you know...you CANT run 32 bit programs in regular 64 bit mode? like..I remember its gna hefta do something to be able to run 32 bit programs...

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/db2luw/v8/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.db2.udb.doc/start/c0010331.htm

here is the meaning of what i mean!it isnt w7 tho!

so i got to keep it hybrid 32/64 bit?men this is sad!

is ubuntu non-hybrid or it is also 64 bit hybrid!

i sure hope w8 is full 64 bit non-hybrid!

Most modern programs, including essentially all games, are still 32-bit programs.  64-bit Windows 7 can effectively run such programs in a 32-bit mode.  The alternative of the pure 64-bit OS that you seem to be seeking is that 32-bit programs simply won't run at all.  Even merely having 32-bit programs run poorly, rather than not at all, played a major role in sinking the Itanic.

so best bet is to stay in 32 bit?you are probably right 64 bit have been out for 7 years almost 8 and we have yet to see mass market software ,oh we see small part like flash,mozilla etc but nothing mass market!i mean is facebook even 64 bit!

Originally posted by drbaltazar

so best bet is to stay in 32 bit?you are probably right 64 bit have been out for 7 years almost 8 and we have yet to see mass market software ,oh we see small part like flash,mozilla etc but nothing mass market!i mean is facebook even 64 bit!

If you run 64bit flash on your OS then most games on facebook would be 64bit. And if you ran a 64bit version of your favorite browser then by all standards facebook would be considered 64bit. :P

Most apps have 64 bit versions and some games are starting to ship with 64 bit versions also.

For now, the recommended approach for most people is to use a 64-bit operating system that can also run 32-bit programs, typically 64-bit Windows 7.  The 32-bit version of Windows 7 can also run 16-bit programs, but cannot run 64-bit programs.

Start with WMP&IE haha... you buy a x64 OS and get the x32 WMP and Browser as Default... UGH lol derp

1. Press the Windows Key, type “command”,
2. Right-click on Command Prompt and Click on the option “Run as administrator”, then type “unregmp2.exe /SwapTo:64″ in the text box available.
3. After that, press the Windows Key, type “regedit” in the search area,
4. go to HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\wmplayer.exe\,
5. Double click on value and change from default “%ProgramFiles(x86)” to “%ProgramFiles%”.
6. Now your dafault media player has been changed to the 64bit Windows Media Player.

ty very much for the tip !

The problem with 32-bit Internet Exploder being the default browser isn't that it's 32-bit.  It's that it's Internet Exploder.  But you probably knew that, which is why you're only explaining how to switch Windows Media Player.

Here's a question. Fairly similar to what the Op asked.  Who should push the market forward.  It does seem like it's somewhat stagnant.

While I am sure Microsoft is still making a killing off 32 bit operating systems.  Is it Microsoft that should be pushing the market forward or developers. I understand the reasons why Microsoft wouldn't want to alienate a part of their consumer base.  Though it hasn't stopped them from forcing upgrades before. I can see both sides  just curious what others might think.

Originally posted by Quizzical

The problem with 32-bit Internet Exploder being the default browser isn't that it's 32-bit.  It's that it's Internet Exploder.  But you probably knew that, which is why you're only explaining how to switch Windows Media Player.

There's no x64 firefox. Just the beta, minefield. Maybe chrome.. but who uses that ;)

Edit: no, the cmd command switches IE (you sound so 32 bit :D )

edit2: 64 bit flash is called square (from adobe systems)

i got the 3 browser ,not sure about chrome being 64 bit the other 2 are and so far ie and firefox are pretty much = but for the use of average user minefiled 64 is just better or minfield 32 .but if you stay within the fold of ms ie9 rc is very good!

Ok!

And still biggest improvement is memory. Max memory x32 = 3.5GB (lollol)

Max memory x64:
Home Basic: 8GB
Home Premium: 16GB
Utimate: 128GB
Business: 128GB
Enterprise: 128GB

Microsoft sells both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of Windows 7 (and Vista and formerly XP).  They get the same money either way.  They're perfectly happen to sell you either.  Actually, Microsoft would likely prefer to have only 64-bit Windows 7 to support and switch everyone to that, so that they have fewer drivers to write and fewer code paths to maintain.

The reason why Microsoft doesn't do that is the same as the reason why developers still write predominantly 32-bit programs:  there's a ton of legacy hardware out there to support.  Writing a 64-bit program often means that you have to write a separate 32-bit program, which adds massive amounts of work, or else that half of your potential customers simply cannot run your program.  Neither of those are appealing prospects, so companies usually write 32-bit programs unless there is a reason why it has to be 64-bit.

If you want to point to a villain responsible for slowing the transition to 64-bit, one possible choice is OEMs such as Dell and HP pushing 32-bit operating systems.  If someone has a five year old computer running 32-bit Windows XP today, then that might deter developers from making 64-bit software today, but that computer should be retired and irrelevant five years from now.  If someone buys a 32-bit operating system today, then that computer may still be around five years from now, and make developers still hesitant to write 64-bit software five years from now.

But OEMs pushing 32-bit operating systems aren't acting in a vacuum, and it's understandable why they do it.  They've calculated that they won't get many complaints or returns from customers complaining that the system runs 10% slower than it should.  Indeed, they often load up systems with tons of bloatware, and that does far more to hamstring a system than a 32-bit OS does.  But if a small fraction of their customers wants to run a 16-bit program or some ancient piece of hardware for which no 64-bit drivers exist, and they buy a new computer and it won't run, then they'll complain that Dell or HP or whoever sold them a defective computer and return it and want a refund.

In the consumer space, this isn't such a big deal.  But for businesses, it's huge.  Some businesses use some ancient 16-bit software program that is 20 years old.  Sometimes it was coded custom for them and is irreplaceable.  Other times it's what they know how to use, and it would be an enormous hassle to switch to something more modern.  Companies like Dell and HP have no clue what obscure software businesses are going to run, but know that they won't be happy if they buy a computer with a 64-bit OS and the archaic software that they absolutely need simply refuses to run.  So they make the default OS on their business computers a 32-bit version.  In some of Dell's business computers, they don't even offer a 64-bit OS.

And that's the real problem:  not that there is a lot of 32-bit software out there, but that there is 16-bit software that some businesses are still clinging to.  

---

Originally posted by JayBirdz
Here's a question. Fairly similar to what the Op asked.  Who should push the market forward.  It does seem like it's somewhat stagnant.
While I am sure Microsoft is still making a killing off 32 bit operating systems.  Is it Microsoft that should be pushing the market forward or developers. I understand the reasons why Microsoft wouldn't want to alienate a part of their consumer base.  Though it hasn't stopped them from forcing upgrades before. I can see both sides  just curious what others might think.

---

So far, it's a mixed bag as to who are holding the market back.

I don't really consider Windows XP 64 to be the first consumer version of Windows, since it was actually based on Server08 code and had a very limited release (only in the Professional flavor). Vista was really the first to really push x64 to consumers, and come pre-installed on many machines.

The problem was, the driver model for Vista code (both 32 and 64-bit) changed significantly from Windows XP. And you can't use the same driver for the 32-bit and 64-bit versions, there are some architectural changes that require some code modifications. Most hardware companies were scrambling just to get 32-bit drivers out the door. Many older devices, companies just decided to drop support for all together.

So Vista was poorly received in general, and the 64-bit version doubly so.

Without an installation base, developers won't produce 64-bit hardware. Without driver support for their hardware, consumers won't switch. Without consumer demand, hardware developers won't develop drivers. It's kind of a "Chicken or the Egg" scenario.

Then with Windows 7, Microsoft needed (badly) to rebrand Windows, and essentially wipe the slate clean. Even though Windows 7 is largely just Vista with a service pack (there are not many significant architectural changes between the two). With this OS, they made a deal with computer vendors: If the computer has 4G (or more) or RAM, install the 64-bit version by default. No price difference exists between the 32 and 64 bit versions (although they still ship on different installation DVDs). And probably most importantly, Microsoft made a huge push for hardware developers to get drivers done, including developing some drivers themselves, for both 32 and 64 bit versions, and would only award the "Compatible with Windows 7" Logo if drivers for both 32 and 64 bit existed.

As far as Windows 7 being hybrid, and what the link to IBM DB2 has to do with anything, I'm not entirely certain. There is almost no drawback (aside from hard drive footprint) to having a hybrid OS that can run both 32 and 64 bit code. There is also nothing magical about the "Program Files (x86)" folder, other than x64 windows uses it by default to segregate 32 from 64 bit programs, you could manually install the programs in any folder you want and they would run correctly. As far as browsers go, it largely doesn't matter, because if your browser needs more than 2G of memory your probably doing something that shouldn't be done in a browser in the first place.

Video games on the PC, by and large, haven't been hampered by 32-bit limitations. For the most part, we are being hampered by the consoles. Most video games released in the last couple of years are console ports, and the PC version differs only slightly in terms of features from the console equivalent. Since consoles have extremely limited memory (256M-512M), and are largely stuck with DX9 level graphics, video games on the PC still largely ship with only DX9 support and fairly small memory footprints and elaborate hard drive streaming algorithms.

Once new consoles are released (and it won't be anytime soon, Sony has stated they think the PS3 is only halfway through it's lifecycle, and Microsoft is staying tight lipped), then we will probably see a huge jump in the evolution of PC games, possibly including the leap to a 64-bit footprint.

I always enjoy reading your posts Quizzical.  Thanks for the reply.

Edit: Thanks as well Ridelynn sorry didn't see yours when I went to thank Quizzical.

Originally posted by mmrbaisite

Originally posted by Quizzical

The problem with 32-bit Internet Exploder being the default browser isn't that it's 32-bit.  It's that it's Internet Exploder.  But you probably knew that, which is why you're only explaining how to switch Windows Media Player.

There's no x64 firefox. Just the beta, minefield. Maybe chrome.. but who uses that ;)

But 32-bit Firefox is better than Internet Exploder, whether 32-bit or 64-bit.  Same if you replace Firefox by Opera or Chrome.

This isn't entirely off topic, though.  What you really want is not 64-bit software so much as good software.  

-----

I think it makes more sense if you read Ridelynn's post first, and then mine.  He gives a better explanation of why we use mostly 32-bit software today.  I explain why we're still going to be stuck with it several years from now.

-----

I halfway expect Nintendo to launch a new console heavily based on Llano or (more likely) Trinity or something like that.  They already buy their console processors and graphics from AMD, anyway.  APUs mean lower cost, and Nintendo loves that.  And surely Nintendo would love to have the highest performance console on the market by far for a while, even if only because Microsoft and Sony are delaying their next generation of consoles.  Rumors say that the successor to the Wii should be out sooner than the successors to the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3.