Any software that requires 64-bit Windows?

Is there yet any mainstream software that requires 64-bit Windows
besides Adobe stuff?

Thanks.

On 9/13/2015 1:33 PM, John Doe wrote:
Is there yet any mainstream software that requires 64-bit Windows
besides Adobe stuff?

Sure. Lots. Think of any applications that require accessing 2tB of
data. Whether you need to use those apps is a question only you can answer.

--
Best regards,

Neil

Neil wrote:

John Doe wrote:

Is there yet any mainstream software that requires 64-bit Windows
besides Adobe stuff?

Sure. Lots.

Like what?

Think of any applications that require accessing 2tB of data.
Whether you need to use those apps is a question only you can answer.

What applications? You can't name one? There are so many it boggles your
mind into ineptness?

Neil wrote:
On 9/13/2015 1:33 PM, John Doe wrote:
Is there yet any mainstream software that requires 64-bit Windows
besides Adobe stuff?

Sure. Lots. Think of any applications that require accessing 2tB of
data. Whether you need to use those apps is a question only you can answer.


This is not true.

To handle a 2.2TB file, first I need a partition big enough
for that to be possible.

With MBR partitioning, there is a 2.2TB limitation for partition
definitions. To make a partition larger than 2.2TB, I would need
something like GPT. GPT is available in Vista (for data disks).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table

Now, look at NTFS capabilities. NTFS capabilities are
common between 32 bit and 64 bit OSes. And that means
that the file system calls must have 64 bit pointers
inside them, to handle it. It's one of the first
places that large pointers appear in an operating
system, is when it comes to expanding the file system.
You can do 64 bit math, using a 32 bit processor. It
just takes more than one instruction in your subroutine.

So to write your 2.2TB file, first I need a mechanism
to define a large volume. GPT does that for me.
Then, if you look at the NTFS capabilities listed here,
I can easily write a slightly greater than 2.2TB file if
I want, and with only Vista 32 bit as my OS. I could
even have done it with WinXP 32 bit, if it wasn't for
the MBR limitation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS

*******

What a 64 bit OS does for you, is allow a
single program to use more than 4GB of memory.

A 32 bit OS can handle more than 4GB of memory,
by means of page tables. In this example, the 32 bit Linux
handles just as much memory as the 64 bit Linux. And this
is possible because of PAE support.

http://i61.tinypic.com/2ykj5uc.gif

Say that in both the 32 bit case and the 64 bit case, there
is 20GB of memory plugged into the computer.

On the 64 bit OS, one program could consume all 20GB.

On the 32 bit OS, one program is limited to 32 bit address
computations. Those are fed to the virtual to physical page
table lookup (32 bits in gives 36 bits out of the table).
The 32 bit calculation means an address space of 4GB is
available. Part of the address space is used for kernel
communications, the other part belongs to the application.
With a 2GB/2GB split, it means the 32 bit OS, a program
can use up to 2GB. (Typically here, I see programs
stop allocating memory at around 1.8GB or so.)

So if I have a 20GB machine, a 32 bit OS, I would need
ten separate programs using 2GB each, to use up all the
memory. A single program cannot use more than 2GB by
itself (not without some trickery and an attempt
to obfuscate the issue).

Windows x32 could do this (handle 20GB), except the
"memory license" prevents it from happening. The OS
itself is perfectly capable - as capable as Linux would be.
For example, the dude here hacks Vista x32 to ignore the
memory license, and the OS reports "8GB available".

(See the picture here)

http://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/w...nse/memory.htm

I am currently using 8GB of RAM in WinXP x32 (the machine
I'm typing this on). The lower 4GB is accessible to programs.
The upper 4GB (PAE space) is being used by my Ring0 RAMDisk.
The Microsoft memory license only controls address space in
Ring3, which is where programs live. Ring0, where the kernel
and drivers live, there is no limitation there (up to the
limits of the hardware when it comes to PAE on your platform,
which is 64GB on Intel, and a hell of a lot more on AMD).

The memory license limits are listed here. Particularly
obnoxious, are the limits for Windows 7 x64 (requiring you
to buy Pro to get a decent sized limitation).

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

OS x32 x64
---------------------- ---- ------
Win10 Same as Win8 (and not listed yet)
Win10 Same as Win8 (and not listed yet)

Windows 8 Professional 4 GB 512 GB
Windows 8 [Core/Home] 4 GB 128 GB

Windows 7 Professional 4 GB 192 GB
Windows 7 Home Premium 4 GB 16 GB
Windows 7 Home Basic 4 GB 8 GB

And that 4 GB in the x32 column, is the memory license,
as the usage of PAE would allow more than that. And Windows
has all the infrastructure in place to make PAE work, just
as well as my Linux demo picture works. And the Geoff Chappell
article, is where I first learned of this.

*******

As for the original question, it's possible some games
will come in 64-bit-only. Something I don't normally
track.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/738...coming-in-2013

Paul

FredW wrote in
:

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:33:31 +0000 (UTC), John Doe
wrote:

Is there yet any mainstream software that requires 64-bit Windows
besides Adobe stuff?

Yes, 64-bit software

lol

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:23:36 -0400, Neil wrote:
Sure. Lots. Think of any applications that require accessing 2tB of
data. Whether you need to use those apps is a question only you can
answer.

Greater than 2 GB, you mean.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Stan Brown wrote:

Neil wrote:

Sure. Lots. Think of any applications that require accessing 2tB of
data. Whether you need to use those apps is a question only you can
answer.

Greater than 2 GB, you mean.

I don't think anybody except maybe Paul knows what their talking about.
Or maybe they don't understand the question.

No answer usually means there is no answer. And apparently there isn't.

Not sure why anybody would get their feathers ruffled, it isn't a big
deal except maybe they enjoy bragging about using a 64 bit OS.

It is an important question though, at least to me. I use some third
party software that's quite a trick to install, even impossible on 64
bit Windows.

Wolf K wrote:

John Doe wrote:

My post is in English. Try using Google's translator...

I'm a dork. I don't know how to read.

Apparently.








Have a good day,

John Doe wrote:

Stan Brown wrote:

Neil wrote:

Sure. Lots. Think of any applications that require accessing 2tB of
data. Whether you need to use those apps is a question only you can
answer.

Greater than 2 GB, you mean.

I don't think anybody except maybe Paul knows what their talking about.
Or maybe they don't understand the question.

64-bit versions of Windows allow more than 2GB under 32-bit Windows for
user space in the memory. User space is not what you use. User space
refers to memory space for user-mode processes, the ones that YOU Load.
That's what Stan was talking about.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/...=sql.105).aspx
"All 32-bit applications have a 4-gigabyte (GB) process address space
(32-bit addresses can map a maximum of 4 GB of memory). Microsoft
Windows operating systems provide applications with access to 2 GB of
process address space, specifically known as user mode virtual address
space."

A 64-bit OS give more breathing room in memory. Whether a program can
use that extra space depends on how the program was coded or what
options applied during compilation.

I'm not into video editing but have read where having more then 2 GB
user space (in the *memory*) available to the video editing program
makes to perform much faster. Another example is word processing. A
64-bit word processor running under a 64-bit OS can load far more into
memory where it is much faster to manipulate than a 32-bit word
processor whether running under a 32- or 64-bit OS. I forget the size
difference but a 64-bit word processor could open such a huge file while
buffering a huge portion of it into memory that none of my documents
came close to that size. Back when 32-bit Word was all that was
available, I did have to slice up a 600 QA procedures doc into chapters
that were each in their own file. As one file, it was way too big to
handle in 32-bit Word.

If you don't already have 64-bit applications or an analysis of your
critical tasks does not involve any 64-bit applications then you don't
need a 64-bit OS. You're doing just fine with the 32-bit OS. I haven't
looked at the number for a couple years but back then the vast majority
of pre-built computers (what you buy that someone else put together
versus you building your own) came with 32-bit Windows. Not a lot of
their customers needed 64-bit. Users doing their own migrate from 32-
to 64-bit often ran into driver issues. Bitwidth of OS and driver
*must* match but many users didn't know that. Installing drivers was FM
to them.

Disk space is not an issue with 32- or 64-bit Windows. While partitions
are limited to 2 TB when using MBR, an application is not mandated that
all of its files or even a file must reside wholly within one partition,
plus you can use dynamic volumes to make one larger than 2 TB.

Just because an app was compiled to run under the 64-bit model does not
mean it will run faster. Poor code will slow any program regardless of
bitwidth-ness. If the program doesn't need a huge buffer then it may
never exceed the 32-bit model. Something that needs to load a large
amount of data into memory to have quick access to it or allow fast
memory access to the data to manipulate will benefit from a larger
64-bit memory space. That's why video editing, buffering, or streaming
come to mind.

Are you actually looking for 64-bit applications or are you trying to
find an excuse to install a 64-bit OS? For the first scenario, I don't
think anyone wants to waste their time doing an online search on "64-bit
application" for you. You might find more users of 64-bit apps over in
the video newsgroups where they have to do conversion or editing of huge
video files. In that category but if you are only intersted in media
viewers instead of media editors or converts, there's VLC media player.
If you just must find a 64-bit application to exercise your new 64-bit
OS, you could use Prime95 x64. Scientific mathematics is another area
where more memory space for a user-mode process would benefit from
faster execution. Anytime you have to access the disk (even SSD which
is still slower than system RAM) means slowing down. I would think
weather modeling would greatly benefit with more memory space to hold
their data where it is obviously much faster to access than from disk.

By the way, you can tell if a program is running in 32- or 64-bit mode.
Look in Task Manager's Processes tab. If the process is appended with
*32 then it is a 32-bit app. If there's nothing append then its 64 bit.
From that I can see the following programs are running as 64-bit
processes: Avast processes, Outlook and OneNote (because I chose during
install the 64-bit versions of MS Office 2013 components), and a
driver's ancilliary software for an LSI soft modem, PureText and even
Internet Explorer. Other than MS Office, I did not go specifically
searching for 64-bit apps. 64-bit web browsers seem to crash [their
tabs] less often and take longer before slowing down. With more
user-mode memory space, a 64-bit web browser can load a larger image and
then decode it faster to present in a delivered web page. Well, I can
feel a 64-bit web browser is faster than its 32-bit cousin but it's not
a big jump and some of the speed increase may be perception (it's faster
because you expect it to be faster). Seems the faster web browsers get,
especially regarding their Javascript engine, the more Javascript crap
the web site designers cram into their web pages. Look, more room, fill
it up quick. Could be the sites that I regularly re-visit don't use
much Javascript so a faster engine with more memory breathing room won't
make the site render faster. I don't play online games and I suspect
that's an area where 64-bit web browsers would perform better.

If you have nothing now that requires a 64-bit OS (i.e., everything you
have now is 32-bit), and if you have no critical apps on a wishlist, go
with a 32-bit OS. Used to be the recommendation to stay with a 32-bit
OS because there was a dearth of 64-bit drivers. That's no longer true
so you could go with a 64-bit OS where your 32-bit apps will still run
but you have the ability to expand to 64-bit apps.

Is there any mainstream software that requires 64-bit Windows? There
are so few that are not 32-bit apps or 64-bit apps with a 32-bit cousin
that you are asking the wrong community. Folks in video editing or
conversion, folks in graphics editing (e.g., CAD), folks in scientific
analysis, or folks in weather modelling could better answer you what
vertical market apps there are and which are available only in 64-bit
versions. Is Microsoft Office considered mainstream software? If so,
yes, it has a 64-bit version but, as with many 64-bit softwares, it also
has a 32-bit version. I know many users that opted for MS Office x64
because it can open much larger documents, it is more secure (because
there is little malware that targets the x64 version), and its 64-bit
processes are easier or more fully secured by mechanisms afforded in
64-bit Windows.

John Doe wrote on 9/13/2015 1:33 PM:
Is there yet any mainstream software that requires 64-bit Windows
besides Adobe stuff?

Thanks.

Revo Uninstaller the free 32 bit version will not uninstall or see in it's list to be uninstalled any 64 bit software.
So if you want to use THIS program you have to buy the paid version that is a 64bit program and it will uninstall any
32/64 bit program.

Or so the site says, and I'm only reading their responses to a query "why don't all programs show in the list"?.

VanguardLH wrote in :

Is there any mainstream software that requires 64-bit Windows? There
are so few that are not 32-bit apps or 64-bit apps with a 32-bit cousin
that you are asking the wrong community. Folks in video editing or
conversion, folks in graphics editing (e.g., CAD), folks in scientific
analysis, or folks in weather modelling could better answer you what
vertical market apps there are and which are available only in 64-bit
versions.

If you want to know about mainstream, you ask the mainstream.

The precise definition of "mainstream" is irrelevant. You can think of
"mainstream" as short for "the most common software you know of". The
reader can judge whether that's mainstream or not.

Still, apparently the answer is No.

John Doe wrote:

VanguardLH wrote in :

Is there any mainstream software that requires 64-bit Windows? There
are so few that are not 32-bit apps or 64-bit apps with a 32-bit cousin
that you are asking the wrong community. Folks in video editing or
conversion, folks in graphics editing (e.g., CAD), folks in scientific
analysis, or folks in weather modelling could better answer you what
vertical market apps there are and which are available only in 64-bit
versions.

If you want to know about mainstream, you ask the mainstream.

Mainstream Windows users don't visit Usenet. So you won't find
mainstream apps (which really means most widely employed by all Windows
users) to be a focus of this community. So, by your own circular
definition, you are asking in the wrong place.

The precise definition of "mainstream" is irrelevant. You can think of
"mainstream" as short for "the most common software you know of". The
reader can judge whether that's mainstream or not.

Ah, so, you really don't want to do any research or ask in communities
mentioned where 64-bit computing is embraced but instead want to be
spoon fed. Seems like you are trying to build a case to convince
someone, perhaps your employer, that they should give you Windows x64.

Still, apparently the answer is No.

You're obviously too lazy to read my post which mentions some 64-bit
apps. If you had read my post, you would've seen that I do use or
mentioned a few 64-bit apps. Guess those aren't mainstream -- to you.

Regardless of what you would like to fluctuate as meaning mainstream or
"most software that I know of", I'm pretty sure Microsoft Office would
be considered mainstream. It's "the most common [64-bit software (for
Windows)] that I know of."

You want the answer to be No, so matter whatever is mentioned you will
still claim the answer is No.

Mouthguard the troll...

--
VanguardLH V nguard.LH wrote in news:d5ov12FlkcuU1 mid.individual.net:

Path: eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net !fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: VanguardLH V nguard.LH
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-8
Subject: Any software that requires 64-bit Windows?
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:11:46 -0500
Organization: Old Usenet Denizen
Lines: 41
Sender: VanguardLH
Message-ID: d5ov12FlkcuU1 mid.individual.net
References: mt4c1a$sv1$1 dont-email.me mt4icc$ogu$1 dont-email.me MPG.305fec3118a9823e98f163 news.individual.net mt5aeu$126$4 dont-email.me d5nfteF9h1hU1 mid.individual.net mt77m0$127$1 dont-email.me
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 0nSn0SXSRLGEMRkmtWg2qwaQiAYdyyS8z6IRxYJKLuvlsr9acp
Keywords: VanguardLH VLH811
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+4KgjAxDNOUEED8Zx32P8ntdD1Q=
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.41
Xref: mx02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-8:27994

John Doe wrote:

VanguardLH V nguard.LH wrote in news:d5nfteF9h1hU1 mid.individual.net:

Is there any mainstream software that requires 64-bit Windows? There
are so few that are not 32-bit apps or 64-bit apps with a 32-bit cousin
that you are asking the wrong community. Folks in video editing or
conversion, folks in graphics editing (e.g., CAD), folks in scientific
analysis, or folks in weather modelling could better answer you what
vertical market apps there are and which are available only in 64-bit
versions.

If you want to know about mainstream, you ask the mainstream.

Mainstream Windows users don't visit Usenet. So you won't find
mainstream apps (which really means most widely employed by all Windows
users) to be a focus of this community. So, by your own circular
definition, you are asking in the wrong place.

The precise definition of "mainstream" is irrelevant. You can think of
"mainstream" as short for "the most common software you know of". The
reader can judge whether that's mainstream or not.

Ah, so, you really don't want to do any research or ask in communities
mentioned where 64-bit computing is embraced but instead want to be
spoon fed. Seems like you are trying to build a case to convince
someone, perhaps your employer, that they should give you Windows x64.

Still, apparently the answer is No.

You're obviously too lazy to read my post which mentions some 64-bit
apps. If you had read my post, you would've seen that I do use or
mentioned a few 64-bit apps. Guess those aren't mainstream -- to you.

Regardless of what you would like to fluctuate as meaning mainstream or
"most software that I know of", I'm pretty sure Microsoft Office would
be considered mainstream. It's "the most common [64-bit software (for
Windows)] that I know of."

You want the answer to be No, so matter whatever is mentioned you will
still claim the answer is No.

VanguardLH wrote:

[you] want to be spoon fed

If I were able to prevent you from seeing my posts, I would. Since you
are unable to control yourself, Mouthguard, I would eliminate your
problem for you.

Your post looks like mumbo-jumbo to me, Mouthguard. Apparently you don't
know what it means. I would just as soon do without them.

John Doe wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

[you] want to be spoon fed

If I were able to prevent you from seeing my posts, I would. Since you
are unable to control yourself, Mouthguard, I would eliminate your
problem for you.

Your post looks like mumbo-jumbo to me, Mouthguard. Apparently you don't
know what it means. I would just as soon do without them.

See folks, the troll never did want an answer despite getting one.