
Which bitter flavor of OS do you currently use? BI isn't interested in XP vs Vista or Windows vs Mac vs Linux, simply:
The basic argument in favor of entering 64 bit address space is simplicity itself -- absolutely ridiculous amounts of RAM can be utilized (16 exabytes; ie, ~16.8 million TB, or ~17.2 billion GB). More memory is, in the grand scheme of things, a fine and lovely thing. To anyone who can afford an exabyte or two of quality DDR3, my contact information is in the .sig at the bottom of this article -- I have a slightly-used New York bridge and some quality Florida swampland I'd like to gauge your interest in.
The current counter-argument is two-pronged, but fundamentally variations on a single theme -- sketchy driver support and a paucity of consumer applications (and, more to the point here, games) able to take advantage of the additional memory headroom. 64 bit operating systems have only recently begun to enter the mainstream, primarily courtesy of Vista Ultimate and various flavors of Unix/Linux-based OS (including Apple's Leopard).
That said, is there value in moving to a 64 bit OS on a new build?
Speaking purely in terms of future-proofing, the answer is "certainly." 32 bit operating systems can only offer up 4GB of RAM, and that's easily in reach on even a modest budget (can I get a "Hallelujah"?). Even some current titles -- we're looking squarely at you, Supreme Commander -- can overwhelm this by simply doing their thing. Then again, SupCom is also perfectly capable of stomping a quad-core system with 8GB flat when the AI builds a squillion units; the only cure BI has found for this is "Win faster, or quit your bitching." Clearly, our inner critic is highly sympathetic.
Driver support is far better in 2008 than it has been in years past, and given the strong marketing push Microsoft gave Vista's premium editions, this is hardly surprising. There are still gaps in coverage, especially for older peripherals, but these are, as often as not, simply not supported by Vista at all, not merely the 64 bit iteration. The biggies -- video, motherboard, and audio -- are much more robust, and it certainly seems as if the hardware vendors are doing their part to aid the general transition.
Applications, on the other hand -- not so much. Many will function just fine and ignore the wide open spaces around them; others will need to be coddled by running in some flavor 32 bit compatibility mode or otherwise cured of their agoraphobia. Hamstringing this is the fact that mission-critical business applications can't afford to inconveniently hiccup the way entertainment software is, and development in that arena typically moves at a more, shall we say, staid pace.
In order for true and meaningful headway to be made, applications that are written for 64 bit computing will need to become more prevalent. It's a Catch-22 -- without a compelling array of 64 bit apps, nobody's going to switch to an OS that offers it, and without a user base, why bother writing the 64 bit version of a program when 32 bit programming is so familiar and comfortable?
To which BI can only say, Dude -- sixteen exabytes. Live a little.
Rafe Brox spends his days wielding a phone in one hand and a screwdriver in the other. When not causing friends and enemies alike to /facepalm electronically, he can be found extolling the virtues of the weird peripherals in his life, from kettlebells to the Trackman Marble. If you also share an unhealthy passion for PC hardware or know a good place he can get help for this addiction, the target coordinates are rafe.brox AT weblogsinc DOT com.

Wall of text is wall.
So what you're saying is 64 bit OS's are gud?Posted at 3:48PM on Oct 8th 2008 by ZaxCG2