|
|
Industry says Vista 64 not ready
Author: Brett ThomasPublished: 15th January 2007
Expect 32 bit skies for another year - the industry says 64 bit uptake won't be very large in 2007.
Vista's 64 bit version is integral to a computer actually being capable of using 4GB of RAM - the 32 bit version of Vista will only support addressing of up to 2.75-3.25GB. Such a downside is a pretty strong deterrant for the purchase of the 32 bit version, particularly for enthusiasts - but hardware makers are pretty sure that you won't be going out and buying the 64 bit version (whenever it arrives), despite its benefits.
The biggest weakness is apparently the driver architecture. 64 bit XP drivers are already problematic, and there simply has not been the time to rewrite them for Vista's new architecture. The manufacturers already have had to rewrite to supply the 32 bit version, which will be considerably more popular (for starters, it will actually be available whereas the 64 bit version is still AWOL). Graphics drivers are counted as the biggest problem, as their stability will greatly affect any enthusiast's purchase.
What are your plans for Vista? Are you going to buy the 32 bit, wait for the 64, or wait for all the bugs to iron out before you buy? Give us your plans in our forums.
Recent articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (74)
Are we sure this isn't just FUD being thrown up by a couple of manufacturers?
This, despite the fact that 64-bit XP has been widely available for 18mths+ and hardware manufacturers have known about Vista's requirements for over a year...
I'll be buying the 32 Bit version, but only when its required for my school network.
So, its not that MS has broken Vista x64, its that the companies cant be assed to rewrite 64bit drivers, even though all the chips are now 64bit, xp 64 was released what, 2 years ago? and linux supports them too... so where is the incentive NOT to get off their asses and redo their drivers that they haven't touched in many a year.
This isn't Vistas fault that lazy companies haven't updated their drivers... maybe support for that hardware should be dropped in Vista and watch the companies then beg to get put back onto it.
I'm holding off for a while, but once driver support is there I'll move towards 32-bit Vista I think - the only benefits I've seen so far for me for 64-bit are the patches for Far Cry and HL2 - not worth the extra hassle IMHO.
I will definitely be moving to Vista as soon as driver support is there though - I've been running the RC's for the past couple of months on my old desktop machine and I really like it.
With the retail version people will be able to start with 32bit and when driver compatibility increases to a usable extent people will be able to easily migrate to 64bit without any extra payments.
Thus preventing customers from complaining that they have to pay for the extra features.
OEM builders should know if the drivers are there for their hardware and can therefore decide which version they want to pass the savings to the customer.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
Its a Cost benefit artical, and its a real eye opener on what they are doing with Vista. while its a long read, I think this community will find it EXTREAMLY interesting.
Day to day use will still be with XP.
Aggies
After breifly reading over the linked article, my good mood for the day vanished. Also the "Vista Bumper"" article from a month back killed most of my enthusiasim for Vista.
The linked article is very good from HellRazor, can bit-tech fact-check, comment, or do a follow up article?
Although the issue seems to be that the computing industry itself seems to think that 64-bit is the way to go, but no one wants to take those first steps out of the norm... look how long it took for 16-bit to finally die. AMD made the first 64-bit steps with the Athlon 64, and it took ages for 64-bit software (other than linux) to make use of it. Windows XP x64 was a lot of a miss, as hardly any companies bothered to write drivers for it. I think 64-bit Vista will (and is) suffer the same problems...
...but then, 32-bit Vista seems to have the same lack of enthusiasm...
I was just thinking the same thing. :)
Vista x64 is pretty good, but I have no 64-bit tv card drivers, as soon as the driver problem is fixed then goodbye x86.
That does it... Digg this article at once, broadcast it to BBC and every other news channel to get the reaction from the people... Vista is so not even getting near to my machine, i will rather kick myself in the nuts repeatedly than ever have anything like that P O S on my machine ever.. Now im really mad at Microsoft... Suck my d**k Bill..
Any way , The CD I bought work perfect with the VGA and sound card ! If I want to do the normal work , run the xp :D its simple
thanks for the bad news :(
Good luck , Bye , CK
I haven't quantified it properly but I briefly benchmarked my test installs of XP Pro x86 and Vista x86 against Vista x64, and XP was the slowest and x64 was the fastest. Not by huge margins and the tests were not entirely scientific.
And this month seems to be when many of the h/w manufacturers are releasing better (ie substantially working) drivers. I'd recommend Vista x86 to anybody, and before long I'll probably recommend x64 also.
But I'm enjoying being almost on the bleeding edge for the first time: E6600/PC6400RAM/7900GTO/Vista x64. And I will have been one of the very first to get Vista since I installed it on the day it was released to MSDN.
I don't think there is an overwhelming need for anyone to move to Vista but it will be goods as people naturally migrate across.
My apologies and please amend to "what version will you be installing?" :) I'll change the news in one min.
As for whether it's just a couple companies grousing - well, Intel and AMD were two of the companies - I'd say they're a big enough group to moan.
Intentionally limiting or disabling the functionality of a user's hardware for the purpose of protecting "premium" content is MS shooting themselves in the foot.
Thus far, the only real selling point of Vista (for me) was DX10. Honestly, I can do without PC games, and stick to my next-gen console for that sort of thing. I can also buy a set-top HD-DVD player to hook up to the TV and surround sound. I'm already familiarizing myself with Linux.
Vista? No thanks. :p
We know allready there is a way of copying HD-DVD's so theoretically couldn't you just play the film from your drive at full res...? Also eventually digital content is most likly going to hae to change... People will only be opressed for so long, eventually all hell is going to break lose (in my lowly opinion)
As for 64 bit over 32 bit, its important to few things, but from my perspective, mainly Memory and the way its addressed.
hmmm eye opener indeed!
think xp/penguin combo will be with me for a while... :(
...eh.. wait.. just forget areo! Because THIS little program completly emulates areo on any xp system from a dx7 graphics-cart and up. So the vista required: " highend videocard with dx9 support needed to run areo application" are complete bulls**t!
So all that vista brings is dx10. Ok... and some "style xp" themed desktop.
Basicly you pay 300 bucks for dx10 licence.
:(
That worries me and i pretty much exclusively use Linux and have no intentions of going to vista for another 6 or so years, if ever (only just "upgraded" my 2k machine to XP)
But I think at last '08 I'll switch to 64 anyways.
Good thing that I wont touch Vista for a long time anyway.
I've tried out every release since Beta 1, always x64, both on my laptop and on my desktop.
Beta 1 worked in both except for sound. Beta 2 improved performance, and gave me sound on my laptop, but no-go on desktop.
RC1 improved performance again, compatibility became a non-issue, and gave me sound.
Then I tried RTM on my desktop, and more of the same: improved performance.
Printer driver I've had to play with a bit, and my friend across town can't get a TV card to work but is hopeful they'll release a driver soon.
On the performance side, I do use a couple apps (Far Cry too, but there were a couple other games with x64) that make use of x64 to improve performance.
Tack on to that increased security built in to the x64 build versus the 32bit build, and.... I don't see what all the fuss is about. I'd not hesitate to tell the average joe to use 32bit for now, but any enthusiast should very easily be able to handle 64bit and the very rare issues that would crop up from using it.
Scarey, Didn't have any ideas about these until I read this thing. Makes me extremely hesistent to buy it even for DX10. Eye opener indeed :( sucks for us, what did microsoft think they would gain by any of this :(
EDIT:
Lol who gave robbybertu that title :p
I've had a job since August of last year....
lol i didn't know =P but id still like to know who gave you it =P
Thanks for the read HellRazor. The only reason I planned on buying Vista was for DX10 to play games such as Supreme Commander, but such games also run on DX9, ie, Windows XP.
After reading that article, I'm now seriously opt'ing out of buying a DX10 power house in the coming months,(I was thinking of dual booting vista & XP). Instead, I think I'll go for a much cheaper DX9 machine with winXP that I KNOW all of my software will run on with out drama's.
Being a hobbiest musician myself, I NEED things like Cubase and Soundforge to work, no if's or buts, or degradations.
Basically half the "problem" with vista is the RIAA/DRM, if this cr*p wasn't around Vista would not have to do all the downscaling and stuff like that.
So basically the average consumer gets screwed and and self respecting bit-techer just goes around it.
There will be ways around it.
I for one will be getting Vista X86_64 as it is the future of computing.
Then, when I have to, Vista will be purchased in 64 bit form. For me, it's XP32 until 64 bit is widely available. Since Vista is expensive why not wait until you can get 64 bit and not miss out on anything?
Eidt, just read that link... content protection? Wtf? Makes me want to set fire to the new MS office their building over here...
In average Business Enviroment 64bit OS create a huge problem. Most of the applications on this sector are all 32bit, Printing hardware (I'm not talking about USB/LPT printers here) has near to nill support or drivers. And ofc is the actual software cost and compability with the other machines. Regarding Vista (either 32 or 64bit), I feel sorry for the admins who will be asked to do that job.
In home use ( many of the people above talk about) Vista is only DX10 gaming. End. If someone can find a critical difference in operation between XP and Vista let me know. The GUI (Aero, gadgets bar, etc) are only for showing off and drinking your system resources. You can do the same job easily with XP without them.
Regarding 64bit vista, even if you want them for DX10 gaming, you need to wait around 6 months from now for Nvidia drivers on 8800. And IF they come out. As Nvidia said last week they have serious issues to write the 64 driver and they will focus on the 32bit one first to publish it and update it frequently. Until they feel happy they will not go 64. And we are talking about Nvidia here. Not a smaller company who need to spend a lot of money to write their drivers for a printer or a modem.
Based on 20 years of experience in the area Vista will have a very slow take off and there are 70% chances to become flop like Windows Me. Especialy when the games carry on coming on DX9 for the years to come or we have Cedega using DX10 :) Think that we are not talking about Windows 98/Me -> XP transition. That was a big jump forward. But we cannot say the same for XP -> Vista.
When I built my new PC early this year, I got my new Home XP 32bit, with upgrade coupon to Vista. I have the DVD now and the licence, but I don't install it yet since Nvidia doesn't have publish any drivers for my 8800GTS and there aren't any games to use DX10. So I wait :D
And while I agree that there is no overwhelming need for anyone to immediately upgrade to Vista, whether they are a home or business user, let's not kid ourselves that Vista is merely DX10 with DRM.
There has been a complete security overhaul which, so far, looks worthwhile... though it's early days yet. There has been a re-organisation of the UI and navigation structure, which many seem to think is also worthwhile. Not just pretty but actually having a functional benefit.
People think Aero is just for sugar-coated desktops. Aero will improve the performance of everybody on these forums. We all have 128MB+ DX9 gfx cards that will take the load of rendering windows off the CPU on onto the card itself. This is a tangible performance benefit. In XP, your nuclear-powered, ****-off-a-shovel DX9 card is sitting twiddling it's thumbs. To quote Marvin the Paranoid Android: "Brain the size of a planet, you ask me to open a door?"
It's fair enough discussing the benefits/pitfalls of early-adoption of Vista x64, but getting tiring hearing the same lines trotted out.
"I'm sticking with XP forever" - No you'll be on Vista/OS X/Linux within a couple of years.
"Ha Ha! This is the final nail in Microsoft's coffin!" - No it's not. They will continue making obscene amounts of cash from all of us for some time to come.
"I'll just wait until someone hacks DX10 to work on XP." - Not in your lifetime, mate.
I planned on getting a DX10 card for Crysys but after reading into it I think it will be months and months after Crysys is released before Vista is worthy of 'mainstream' use and the thot of using Vista at work within the next 2 years is just making me LOL
Are you sure about this? I wonder if MS won't consider going from 32 to 64 bits and "upgrade" and charge the customer accordingly...
I'm soooooo tempted of going that route...damn you Bioware and those with great games coming for PC...if it weren't for you, I would have an iMac at home long time ago.
But seriously...how big is the load of rendering an XP desktop for a modern CPU? My X2 (or my office's Pentium IV) is totally responsive, even with some heavy multitasking going around. Yeah, Aero needs the GPU to render all that eye candy, but in truth, they have just found a solution to an inexistent problem.
What worries me more is what the power consumption of a Vista desktop is going to be. Right now, I can be pretty confident that my home desktop is happily idling while downloading with Azureus and consuming only as much as needed electricity. But it scares me to think that I'll have a high consuming GPU sucking power even when I don't really need that graphical prowess, just because of Aereo.
Anybody knows if there's any benchmarks published regarding the power consumption of high end PCs + Vista?
Vista has gone gold, so I would say that is a fairly good indication of whether it is ready or not.
Does 64-bit Vista work?
Yes, why then is the industry saying it's not ready?
Because they haven't made their hardware and software work with 64-bit. If anything the industry is lagging behind, they are the ones not ready for 64-bit.
I know, but they too have every version from Basic to Ultimate...and to get a valid license key for Ultimate if you have bought, say Premium, you need to shell some cash. What makes you think it will be different with 32 and 64 bit versions?
Think of all those things you do that take your CPU utilization up to 100%. Some of that is being used to render the screen.
And I take you haven't bothered reading *anything* about Vista yet? Including the improved power management? Presumably when you are downloading with Azureus, your monitor has powered down? How is this any different from XP?
You have a preconceived negative image of Vista, and you are looking for justification. Why don't you do some homework rather than following the inevitable nay-sayers like sheep.
How do we know? Because MS have said so and because early adopters have confirmed this.
Indeed.
I've been using the Vista native Audigy/Nvidia/ATI/ASUS drivers for almost all devices because the inbuilt drivers were better than the ones currently provided by each company.
Whose fault is that?
You will be offered 3 different licenses.
64bit OEM
32bit OEM
Retail
As you can see the OEM licenses are expressly 32 or 64 bit, whereas retail is both, so you'll be getting both versions of the OS compared to just the one!
Nope, I don't, but txs for the gratuitous bash. I'm just curious and was asking a question. I have read my fair share of Vista articles, but most of my info comes from the Wikipedia entry, and Paul Thurrott's site. Unfortunately, none of them gave much consideration to power management, at least, last time I checked.
Btw, I have yet to make my mind on Vista. Reports, many times contradictory with each other, still come right and left every day, but until it actually ships and people can really try it, and until I read enough reports from trusted sites, I won't make any decision about acquiring it or not. I'm sorry of not being as smart as you and having everything as crystal clear regarding a 300-400 software purchase.
Cool, thanks. The bad is that OEM versions look to be much worse value than they were with XP, specially if the changes in hardware policy is enforced.
And I think Vista is doing the same thing as XP did. It was a marmite situation (and still is to some extent) you either love it or hate it.
If it were that easy :( I don't love it nor hate it yet...I'm trying to make my mind if it will drive me crazy or not. Some things I love (the driver model should be way more stable, DX10, Media Center on Premium, even Aero), some are just "meh"(what's up with windows mail or windows calendar? ), and some look to be hideous (the start button, some changes in the shell, the drop of WinFS...).
I'm pretty happy with XP, but in the long run, you won't be able to game much on it, so for me, it's just a matter of keep being a gamer and go for Vista, or drop PC gaming and move to a Mac.
WinFS will be buggy as hell for quite some time, NTFS works fine for me at the moment and WinFS should be a relatively simple transfer and should be free anyway.
I don't game much on my hardware anymore at all, I have a Wii and an XBOX which keep me entertained and they cost a lot less to upgrade, as much as I would like to upgrade, in the long run a nice HDTV and a car will be better for me.
Complain as much as you want, within 1-2years you'll (mostly) all be using Vista, regardless of all the complaining everyone does before they migrate. All the blablah about going to a mac, I just don't believe it... If you all have so many problems with the way things are going, do like me, use Linux, and live with the consequences... All this "OMG Vista is the Devil, ..." threads are really making me sick...
It's like I went back in time, when Windows XP came around... SSDD (Same ****, Different Day)