32/64 Bit

[RoyGBiv]

Why is 32 bit still the "default"?

I mean, I understood in the beginning. Processors that supported 64 bit were the exception. There was little incentive to make 64 bit apps, drivers, etc. available except for "enthusiasts" who live on the bleeding edge.

But that's changed.

I realize it's a lot better than it once was, but some fairly major applications don't have 64 bit versions. Firefox comes to mind. You can get a 64 bit version, but it's not the standard, and then you have to deal with certain extensions that won't function in a 64 bit environment or that need to be compiled separately just for your machine. Running a 32 bit app in a 64 bit environment isn't really a problem, but why? Why is Flash's 64 bit version still an alpha product (even though it works fairly well, it seems)? Why did I just spend 30 minutes compiling Thunderbird and then compiling engimail just so I could have a 64 bit version of it and use GnuPG with it?

I don't remember this kind of lag before 32 bit became standard. Not being a programmer, I admit to a vast degree of ignorance in this. Is there a good, practical reason for it?

OnEdit: One reason I find this odd is that Mozilla has 64 bit versions of its daily builds in its repositories. The final product they release, however, is 32 bit. I don't get it.

[MyNameGoesHere]

1. I blame MS for this one.

Way back when Intel and AMD were rushing to get 64 bit out, MS capitulated and developed the x86 32/64 micro-code to allow AMD to use the their CPU. Intel released a x64 only that was a POS but the sheeples bought it because it was Intel. And by the way all the nix's followed MS suit and did the same insane thing. It set the tone for all this mixed mode goofy code. Now would AMD been destroyed because of that? Maybe, but really what is the difference? Intel is still a monopoly more than ever, and AMD is still struggling along. I hope that when 128 comes out someone can end this insanity.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Interesting ...

Thank you.

Frankly, I've personally found this more obnoxious in a *nix environment, but that may be because it is seemingly more "in your face" than with Windows ... and of course because I don't use Windows as often.

I do some things with my machine that greatly benefit from 64 bit native apps, to the tune of completing a process that can take hours 8x faster, so I've been checking the lay of the 64 bit land lately. There are some genuinely obnoxious hurdles to cross to get things running as smoothly as I want.

BTW -- mostly a non sequitur, but I'm saying it since you're here, and I like to make such admissions directly to people I've argued with in the past -- I've tried out Windows 7, and I don't hate it. It has things other the hood that I'll always find annoying, but fixing them would take a complete reorientation of the way MS approaches developing an OS. If they'd waited and released this instead of that Vista thing, I might not have been as obnoxiously critical. I went ahead and installed it on my mom's machine, and she likes it quite a bit.

[Occulus]

5. Not as much a non-sequitur as you might think...

I have WinXP Pro 64-bit, and was using the Win7 Ultimate 64-bit RC. I have several (mostly older) apps that simply will not run in WinXP Pro 64. Period.

I did not have these 32/64 compatibility issues with Win7. They all just... worked. And yes, I was duly shocked.

[hunter]

3. Way back when IBM decided to use the 8088...

That's when it all went to hell.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer

[BlueJazz]

4. Also..some of the hardware vendors are just plain Lazy.

After building my super computer...for my personal use, I went shopping for a decent sound card.
A PILE of them didn't have the drivers for 64 bit and 2 of them said "We'll have them soon"
(their website had that message since Dec 2009 and still didn't have the 64 bit drivers)
Christ, people, you can make the drivers in 5 months ?? :)

Finally went with a high-end Asus card. :)