February 2010

32, 64 — what the heck is going on?

By Rick Smith

rants@vcmail.net

 

OK, OK, I'm going to get myself out on a limb, yet again. But I can't help being frustrated with my marriage with Microsoft. I don't want to complain too loudly because I don't want to give too much fuel for Bill Wayson, everybody's favorite Linux guy, who is manning up for our coming fight, er, article about Windows vs. Linux. But come on, does anyone really understand the difference between 32- and 64-bit processing. It reminds me of a song by the band Chicago called "25 to 6 to 4 to something …"

Waiting for the break of day
Searching for something to say
Flashing lights against the sky
Giving up I close my eyes
Sitting cross-legged on the floor
25 or 6 to 4
Staring blindly into space
Getting up to splash my face
Wanting just to stay awake
Wondering how much I can take
Should I try to do some more
25 or 6 to 4

Feeling like I ought to sleep
Spinning room is sinking deep
Searching for something to say
Waiting for the break of day
25 or 6 to 4
25 or 6 to 4

It doesn't make any sense unless you're thinking about 64-bit processing; then it all becomes clear. Without getting too obscure, let's start at the beginning. Everybody remembers AMD coming out with its 64-bit CPU called the ATHLON64 in 2003. Back then, we said, "64-bit computing? I don't understand it, but it sounded good. Bring it on!" Seven years have now passed, and we are barely getting started with 64-bit software. Oh, I know Microsoft has had 64- bit versions of XP out, but how many of you, the faithful, have installed this OS. I can tell you — zero. I don't know of one person who used a 64-bit version of XP. And I see a lot of PCs.

So what does this mean? It means a lot of smart guys think up of a lot of smart ideas, but getting them to become mainstream is a whole different ballgame. I truly believe since Microsoft didn't sell a hundred copies of its 64-bit version of XP, it decided that what was needed was the good ol' Microsoft/Bill Gates touch of gentle persuasion to its customers. Did anyone notice how HP all of a sudden started shipping its PCs with a 64-bit version of Microsoft Vista? When I ordered notebooks they did not list whether the OS was 32- or 64-bit till everyone complained, and finally Acer started labeling its product correctly.

What I believe has happened is Microsoft has decided to force feed 64-bit computing on us because we have not moved to it quickly enough. Think about it. If you come up with a totally new computing architecture that requires all new software, you get to resell your customer base completely new versions of your product. And wait! You also get an excuse to retire all the old versions.

I want all you XP users out there to know you are being targeted. The powers that be are not content to let you drive your old OS any longer. You will be forced to upgrade or else! I tried to find out how many computer users in the world still use XP, and I could not find an answer. It's purposely being hidden from us.

I'm starting to feel like the Glenn Beck of the PC world. It's a huge conspiracy to remove us from our beloved OS and move us to a new and better place. Ask any American Indian how they like that phrase.

Now, am I being contradictory? Do I not talk all of you into switching to Windows 7? I must admit I am not immune to the influence of the machine. As much as I would like to be like one of the prophets of the Old Testament, I still have to make a living and sometimes push my ideals aside to make a buck. OK, well, most of the time. Anyway, I am forced to sell a dizzying array of Microsoft precuts to my customers.

Sometimes I wish I was a MAC guy and all I had to sell was one OS on one type of PC put together in various flavors. But no, I represent Microsoft Corp., the primary benefactor of the modern age. But what do I have to do to properly sell its products as one of the chosen few? For starters, I must inventory over a dozen versions of its operating systems. Last year with Vista was the best. Not only did my benefactor deem it was in our best interest to have four versions of its client software, but I also had to stock 32- and 64-bit versions. That's 8 SKU's for starters.

If I was an Apple salesman I would have one OS for all my clients. Gee, that's really stupid. Why have one version when you could have eight?

I don't know what to do so I asked my staff what to do. As usual, I got this big intellectual discussion form Toby as to why everyone will eventually need 64-bit processing.

Even though I had a wrong feeling in my gut, I acquiesced and only ordered 64-bit product. For all of you I sold 64-bit to I am so sorry. After numerous problems with compatibility and other issues, and lack of any seemingly benefit to 64-bit OS, I have decided to sell 32-bit to most of our customers. I will sell 64-bit on request, and then I am not responsible when you have issues and can charge you lots of money to help you.

If I am missing anything, please let me know, but as I see it there is no real reason to go to 64-bit now. Maybe down the line you won't have a choice. Maybe our government will tell you what to buy and what you should pay for it. Maybe we should just take it and be quiet. Maybe we should switch to Linux.

Whatever we should do will be revealed soon enough, but for now I'm betting my money on 32-bit.

Response: Rick should lose his rant license

By Toby Scott

Rick Smith, of all people, should know why it is time for 64-bit computing. The maximum RAM that 32-bit computers can address is 4 gigabytes. Lots of computers are being sold with 6 or even 8 gigabytes on them now. What's the 4GB limit going to look like in just a year? Anyone want to buy another new computer in six months?

What's so strange is that Rick lived through the RAM bottleneck before. Back in the DOS days, 16-bit computers were restricted to 1 megabyte of RAM, and because video and other operating systems used 386 kilobytes, we were restricted to 640 kilobytes. Enter memory managers. Anyone remember QEMM? I know Rick does. QEMM and the other memory managers created overlays that created memory "pages" of one megabyte each. If you ran out of room on one page, the manager would swap out the part of RAM you were using for a different page. It all worked. Sort of. Rick was a past master at wringing performance out of what was a performance-robbing system. Page swaps take time.

So now Microsoft sees the handwriting on the wall. It cannot continue to sell only 32-bit systems because those systems will be incapable of adding more RAM as programs and features grow ever hungrier. The only reason it is still selling 32-bit systems at all is that some specialty applications won't run on 64 and some poor souls are stuck.

When I switched to 64 bits, I had to say "Goodbye" to a couple of old friends. Some software simply won't run in 64 bits. But no one was developing that software anyway. It was time to let it go.

If anyone listens to Rick's rant and purchases a 32-bit operating system, you will regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.