32-bit or 64-bit Windows?
-
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Because you have a bunch of extra registers on your processor that aren't being used unless it's in 64 bit mode?
This blanket smells like ham
-
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Go 64 bit - pretty much the only thing that doesn't work and hasn't been converted are HP drivers...just think how fast a machine is without HP drivers :-)
'--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
-
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001First things first, it depends on what you're planning on doing and secondly are we talking Vista or XP here? I'll assume Vista since XPx64 has a bad enough reputation that you wouldn't even contemplate it. I'm only using Vista x64 on my desktop and it's pretty much the only OS that I use at the moment. I have got to say though that on my setup Vista (whether this is just the x64 edition or not) does run faster than XP did (in the things that matter anyway such as responsiveness). I am using VS2008 at the moment although on my previous trial of Vista did have VS2005 running side-by-side with the Orcas Beta, make sure that before you attempt anything with VS2005 though install SP1 and SP1 for Vista. Running IIS7 and SQL 2005 Express as well in the background. Am doing C#, Windows Forms, WPF and ASP.NET development, the odd bit of C++ stuff quite happily on it. Specs for my machine are sufficient for me: AMD Athlon X2 3800+ 2GB DDR2-6400 nVidia 8800GTS 320MB 1x120GB E-IDE for OS 1x500GB SATA II for data 1x500GB USB / IDE for backups Have been very tempted to double my RAM up but what with spending £1550 on a second gun will hold off for the moment since the RAM is not essential. What I suggest if at all possible is to get a second hard drive and try out the x64 edition first, I ran mine for 90days (the maximum allowed under the Vista trial) and had a few kinks to iron out with the drivers but all were fixed pretty sharpish. In fact most things just ran out of the box, I do remember having to download the drivers for the MoBo on a seperate computer and transfer them because the disc that came didn't have x64 drivers on it and therefore couldn't use the ethernet port to download the drivers. I don't know whether it has any effect but perhaps by having a top-end graphics card Vista can offload some of it's workload to the card rather than hogging the processor. One thing I have noticed is that Vista is faster to boot than XP (with all the same antivirus etc) however recently it takes much longer but that's because I haven't been rebooting it very frequently (last time was at least 2 weeks ago) and thus when it has to reboot it usually has to install updates etc. So in summary, for me, running the x64 version of Vista has been nothing but joy (much prefer it to XP, even the start menu makes it completely worthwhile). Currently the only issue I have is with my wirel
-
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I was on 64-bit Vista not that long ago, but I reverted back to 32-bit since I had a few issues with it. But it really is minor issues, so it is doable. SQL Server 64-bit should be blazingly fast if that does your thing. The amount of memory addressing possible with 64-bit is just mind blowing. Wonder whether I'll be alive when we shift to 128-bit :sigh: :sigh:
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001How many programs do you have/use, that exists in 64bit versions? Do all your drivers exists (and work) in 64bit versions? Windows Vista Ultimate (32bit), runs better with 4 gb (3,25gb) memory then with 2 gb. IMHO. If you have/use programs that exists i 64bit versions, then switch to Win 64bit, otherwise... Stay, and save the FORMAT C: :-D Btw: Are you developing apps that can use 64bit? Just My 5 cents.
Programming is like Mathematics… you take ONE step at the time! ;-)
-
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001If you need any DOS or 16-bit Windows applications, don't upgrade. The 64-bit mode in the processor doesn't include the virtual 8086 submode required to run these old apps. You can use the dosbox emulator for DOS applications but 16-bit Windows is right out. There might be some slight benefits in general system performance as the parameter passing model is more efficient (in registers rather than on the stack, at least until you hit a varargs function) and the exception handling model is much lower cost for code that doesn't hit an exception, being table-based rather than stack-based (x86 code has to push an exception handling frame onto the stack and update the pointer at fs:[0] when it enters a try block; x64 code doesn't do anything, the exception handling code looks up the address the fault occurred at in a table to work out if there is a handler and how to unwind the stack). Reportedly the server version of Windows after the forthcoming Server 2008 will be 64-bit only, so it's probably a reasonable idea to get a head-start. I put Vista x64 on my Dell Latitude D820 laptop and it's not bad at all, but there are several devices which don't have drivers. Chief annoyance is the touchpad/strick driver which I can't turn off the click functionality and it keeps randomly clicking all over the place (about four times it's moved the cursor while I've been typing this message). Under 32-bit XP I had it set to turn off the touchpad and stick when an external mouse was plugged in.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
-
If you need any DOS or 16-bit Windows applications, don't upgrade. The 64-bit mode in the processor doesn't include the virtual 8086 submode required to run these old apps. You can use the dosbox emulator for DOS applications but 16-bit Windows is right out. There might be some slight benefits in general system performance as the parameter passing model is more efficient (in registers rather than on the stack, at least until you hit a varargs function) and the exception handling model is much lower cost for code that doesn't hit an exception, being table-based rather than stack-based (x86 code has to push an exception handling frame onto the stack and update the pointer at fs:[0] when it enters a try block; x64 code doesn't do anything, the exception handling code looks up the address the fault occurred at in a table to work out if there is a handler and how to unwind the stack). Reportedly the server version of Windows after the forthcoming Server 2008 will be 64-bit only, so it's probably a reasonable idea to get a head-start. I put Vista x64 on my Dell Latitude D820 laptop and it's not bad at all, but there are several devices which don't have drivers. Chief annoyance is the touchpad/strick driver which I can't turn off the click functionality and it keeps randomly clicking all over the place (about four times it's moved the cursor while I've been typing this message). Under 32-bit XP I had it set to turn off the touchpad and stick when an external mouse was plugged in.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
If you need any DOS or 16-bit Windows applications, don't upgrade. Who the hell uses DOS or 16-bit Windows apps, now-a-days? :^) But otherwise good point!
Programming is like Mathematics… you take ONE step at the time! ;-)
-
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Make sure *all* your development tools will work on 64 Windows. Not all of ours did and we had to switch back.
-
I feel your pain brother John, I couldn't decide either so I am just going with 48 bit Windows ;P
led mike
I would have gone with 42 bit - after all that is the answer to everything :-D
Steve
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)?
Hmmm... Visual Studio can finally use as much RAM as it actually needs to to run decently, since the OS can address more than 4GB of space? :-D
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Visual Studio (all versions) are 32-bit apps. They run on Vista 64 in the WOW (Windows32 on Windows64). So Visual Studio can address only 2GB (or 3GB max), even though the OS and other native 64 bit apps can address 64 bits.
-
Make sure *all* your development tools will work on 64 Windows. Not all of ours did and we had to switch back.
How is Visual Studio's performance and stability on 64-bit Vista ?
-
Visual Studio (all versions) are 32-bit apps. They run on Vista 64 in the WOW (Windows32 on Windows64). So Visual Studio can address only 2GB (or 3GB max), even though the OS and other native 64 bit apps can address 64 bits.
Vivek Rajan wrote:
Visual Studio (all versions) are 32-bit apps. They run on Vista 64 in the WOW (Windows32 on Windows64). So Visual Studio can address only 2GB (or 3GB max), even though the OS and other native 64 bit apps can address 64 bits.
..... I know. It was a joke. Whoosh! :)
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Vivek Rajan wrote:
Visual Studio (all versions) are 32-bit apps. They run on Vista 64 in the WOW (Windows32 on Windows64). So Visual Studio can address only 2GB (or 3GB max), even though the OS and other native 64 bit apps can address 64 bits.
..... I know. It was a joke. Whoosh! :)
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Ok, now I look stupid :) I just found this out yesterday, to my utter surprise ! Does VS run faster under WOW, or we better off just cross developing on a 32-bit box ?
-
How is Visual Studio's performance and stability on 64-bit Vista ?
Well in the short time that we were using 64-bit Windows, Visual Studio 2005 seemed to work well enough. (Our problem was with the WinCE Platform Builder environment...)
-
Ok, now I look stupid :) I just found this out yesterday, to my utter surprise ! Does VS run faster under WOW, or we better off just cross developing on a 32-bit box ?
Vivek Rajan wrote:
Does VS run faster under WOW
On that question, I have absolutely no idea. A few guys here do run VS on 64-bit windows, so you might ask them.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Go 64 bit - pretty much the only thing that doesn't work and hasn't been converted are HP drivers...just think how fast a machine is without HP drivers :-)
'--8<------------------------ Ex Datis: Duncan Jones Merrion Computing Ltd
That should be fantastic. :)
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
If you need any DOS or 16-bit Windows applications, don't upgrade. The 64-bit mode in the processor doesn't include the virtual 8086 submode required to run these old apps. You can use the dosbox emulator for DOS applications but 16-bit Windows is right out. There might be some slight benefits in general system performance as the parameter passing model is more efficient (in registers rather than on the stack, at least until you hit a varargs function) and the exception handling model is much lower cost for code that doesn't hit an exception, being table-based rather than stack-based (x86 code has to push an exception handling frame onto the stack and update the pointer at fs:[0] when it enters a try block; x64 code doesn't do anything, the exception handling code looks up the address the fault occurred at in a table to work out if there is a handler and how to unwind the stack). Reportedly the server version of Windows after the forthcoming Server 2008 will be 64-bit only, so it's probably a reasonable idea to get a head-start. I put Vista x64 on my Dell Latitude D820 laptop and it's not bad at all, but there are several devices which don't have drivers. Chief annoyance is the touchpad/strick driver which I can't turn off the click functionality and it keeps randomly clicking all over the place (about four times it's moved the cursor while I've been typing this message). Under 32-bit XP I had it set to turn off the touchpad and stick when an external mouse was plugged in.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
Mike Dimmick wrote:
If you need any DOS or 16-bit Windows applications, don't upgrade.
That why you also install Virtual PC. I've got CivII running in a Win2K VM. :)
...cmk The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying. - John Carmack
-
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I switched over to 64bit several years ago. First running Win2003 Srv x64 and now WinXP Pro x64. I don't have any driver or app issues. Originally i went to x64 to ease into porting my code to x64. That didn't take much and now i compile/test all my code for both x86 and x64. I haven't noticed any sig diff in performance. For me the only reason is so i can compile and test x64 builds.
...cmk The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying. - John Carmack
-
I know with the 64-bit version you can use more than 3gb of RAM, but are there any other tangible benefits on a system primarily used for development (specifically, running VS2005/2008)? I'm running an Opteron 185 system with 2gb of RAM, but I might upgrade to a quad core despite the impending 2012 end-of-the-world event...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001The details are forgotten, but with C++ compiled to native x64 code, I remember getting a Really Nice call stack that I was able to browse back up through, using the vc2005 debugger. This was due to the excellence of the way exceptions work in x64. SO, if you are writing C++ and suspect that say memory is getting corrupted, you might debug faster under x64. Also, thinking way ahead, x64 discourages the "routine" use of exceptions, that is reportedly they are more expensive to process when they actually do occur. So if maybe some stuff not written by you is say using exceptions to do normal processing flow, you would need an x64 system to notice that was bogging things down.
pg--az
-
Visual Studio (all versions) are 32-bit apps. They run on Vista 64 in the WOW (Windows32 on Windows64). So Visual Studio can address only 2GB (or 3GB max), even though the OS and other native 64 bit apps can address 64 bits.
This is a good article on running 64bit vista with 3+ Gb Ram & 32-bit apps.... [click^]