Comments on: My windows 64-bit experiences http://damieng.com/blog/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences A .NET developer in Redmond Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:22:22 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://damieng.com/blog/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences#comment-1826 Anonymous Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:57:03 +0000 http://damieng.com/blog/archive/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences.aspx#comment-1826 Scott Hanselman on 64-bit Vista Scott Hanselman on 64-bit Vista

]]> By: steve http://damieng.com/blog/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences#comment-1825 steve Mon, 09 Apr 2007 04:43:13 +0000 http://damieng.com/blog/archive/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences.aspx#comment-1825 Makes sense - virtualisation is not that useful to me without better GPU support. VMWare *allegedly* supports hardware graphics acceleration for Windows guests now, so in theory I could run Linux as a host O/S. I don't think it works the other way around yet though, which is the way I'd actually prefer. I might as well get a shuttle box and have the ability to swap hardware too :/ Makes sense – virtualisation is not that useful to me without better GPU support. VMWare *allegedly* supports hardware graphics acceleration for Windows guests now, so in theory I could run Linux as a host O/S. I don’t think it works the other way around yet though, which is the way I’d actually prefer. I might as well get a shuttle box and have the ability to swap hardware too :/

]]> By: Damien Guard http://damieng.com/blog/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences#comment-1824 Damien Guard Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:08:14 +0000 http://damieng.com/blog/archive/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences.aspx#comment-1824 Actually it's because I'm running VirtualPC images for dev environment/tests.<br /><br />[)amien Actually it’s because I’m running VirtualPC images for dev environment/tests.

[)amien

]]> By: Steve http://damieng.com/blog/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences#comment-1823 Steve Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:20:41 +0000 http://damieng.com/blog/archive/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences.aspx#comment-1823 Oh, maybe you meant you need > 2Gb because you play your latest games while leaving all those other apps open? That's just bloody lazy ;) I'm not going to buy more RAM or a 64-bit OS just because I can't be bothered to close things I'm not using. Oh, maybe you meant you need > 2Gb because you play your latest games while leaving all those other apps open? That’s just bloody lazy ;) I’m not going to buy more RAM or a 64-bit OS just because I can’t be bothered to close things I’m not using.

]]> By: Steve http://damieng.com/blog/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences#comment-1822 Steve Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:15:35 +0000 http://damieng.com/blog/archive/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences.aspx#comment-1822 My latest PC purchase was NWN2 and I never had any problems with it. Some of the latest FPS's might recommend more than 1Gb but I tired of those some time ago.<br /><br />Yeah, I have Firefox, Thunderbird, Skype, iTunes, VS2005 (2 instances sometimes), a few Putty windows, FileZilla etc open all at the same time (although not when running games since I don't want stupid pop-ups) - but I've so far never exceeded 1Gb. Obviously I don't run any Windows-side server stuff like IIS / SQL etc though - all my server apps are on a separate Linux machine.<br /><br />Next time I upgrade I'll include 2Gb but I think the chances of my needing more than 2Gb in the near future are extremely minimal, even Dx10 class games look like they're only going to recommend 2Gb for optimal performance. My latest PC purchase was NWN2 and I never had any problems with it. Some of the latest FPS’s might recommend more than 1Gb but I tired of those some time ago.

Yeah, I have Firefox, Thunderbird, Skype, iTunes, VS2005 (2 instances sometimes), a few Putty windows, FileZilla etc open all at the same time (although not when running games since I don’t want stupid pop-ups) – but I’ve so far never exceeded 1Gb. Obviously I don’t run any Windows-side server stuff like IIS / SQL etc though – all my server apps are on a separate Linux machine.

Next time I upgrade I’ll include 2Gb but I think the chances of my needing more than 2Gb in the near future are extremely minimal, even Dx10 class games look like they’re only going to recommend 2Gb for optimal performance.

]]> By: Damien Guard http://damieng.com/blog/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences#comment-1821 Damien Guard Fri, 06 Apr 2007 02:31:12 +0000 http://damieng.com/blog/archive/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences.aspx#comment-1821 I take it then Steve you haven't brought any games recently?<br /><br />1-1.5GB is not uncommon requirements for latest games it seems.<br /><br />Add to that the fact you like to keep Firefox open, maybe MSN and iTunes and you could soon find yourself over the 2GB mark...<br /><br />[)amien I take it then Steve you haven’t brought any games recently?

1-1.5GB is not uncommon requirements for latest games it seems.

Add to that the fact you like to keep Firefox open, maybe MSN and iTunes and you could soon find yourself over the 2GB mark…

[)amien

]]> By: steve http://damieng.com/blog/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences#comment-1820 steve Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:37:44 +0000 http://damieng.com/blog/archive/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences.aspx#comment-1820 You just don't need 64-bit addressing on a desktop machine anyway, it's completely oversold IMO. There was a massive practical difference between 16- and 32-bit (64K pages versus 4Gb addressable!) but who actually needs to address that much memory in a desktop app even now, even counting that regular XP prevents you getting to more than 3Gb. Scientific apps, architectural systems and movie special effects guys maybe, but no-one else needs that much active data on their desktop systems.<br /><br />I've avoided 64-bit and intend to continue to do so for the forseeable future. The hassle with drivers and applications just doesn't justify the theoretical benefits. You just don’t need 64-bit addressing on a desktop machine anyway, it’s completely oversold IMO. There was a massive practical difference between 16- and 32-bit (64K pages versus 4Gb addressable!) but who actually needs to address that much memory in a desktop app even now, even counting that regular XP prevents you getting to more than 3Gb. Scientific apps, architectural systems and movie special effects guys maybe, but no-one else needs that much active data on their desktop systems.

I’ve avoided 64-bit and intend to continue to do so for the forseeable future. The hassle with drivers and applications just doesn’t justify the theoretical benefits.

]]> By: Stu http://damieng.com/blog/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences#comment-1819 Stu Wed, 04 Apr 2007 04:34:54 +0000 http://damieng.com/blog/archive/2007/04/03/my-windows-64bit-experiences.aspx#comment-1819 I run ubuntu64, and the amount of sites that use flash is amazing. x64 versions of windows seem to be the bastard children that get no loving. xp-pro64 is the winme of the nt world.<br /><br />vista x64 is supposedly better but... when vs2k5 is unsupported... bleh.<br /><br /> I run ubuntu64, and the amount of sites that use flash is amazing. x64 versions of windows seem to be the bastard children that get no loving. xp-pro64 is the winme of the nt world.

vista x64 is supposedly better but… when vs2k5 is unsupported… bleh.

]]>