Blogs - Web Technologies Blog

Windows 64 bit OS still a battered child?

Written by Marco Conti Sunday, 13 September 2009 10:19

A Sunday Morning rant on windows stupidity.

A couple of yars ago I made the big jump to installing Vista 64 on my main workstation. The main reason at the time was because I felt the time for 64 bit computing on windows had come, drivers were easier to find and I wanted to utilize my motherboard 8GB maximum capacity.

I wish I could say it was a good idea, but even today, 2 years later, I would not suggest going 64 bit if increased performance is what you are looking for.

One reason why I decided to go 64 bit was because I was convinced that 64 bit computing was the natural evolution of the windows platform. I think it would be hard to argue that point. In fact, if one looks at the way high end computers have been sold in the 90's and 00's, 64 bit computers and their ability to use more than the 4GB RAM limit of 32 bit machines make a lot of sense.

Back in the mid to late 90's when I bought a new computer it would tipically come with 250MB of RAM installed. Like any other power user, my first move was to double the RAM to 500MB. Often, a year or so later we would double that again (motherboard permitting) once our machines started slowing down a bit.

In the early 00's computers started coming out with a full Gig of RAM and naturally we would double that to 2GB. And that's where the game stopped.

The Windows 32 bit architecture only supports a maximum of 4GB of RAM and even at that a typical user would only be able to ccess something like 3.25GB since the video card would allocate the remaining 3/4 to itself.

Basically, as early as 2003 (incidentally, around the same time that clock speeds started maxing out as well) it was clear that the RAM game was up and that Windows computing would have to move to a 64 bit architecture if users were to stay on the same curbve that served them pretty well for the previous 20 years.

By the late 90's, after doing a bit of "back of the napkin" math I was convinced that Microsoft would start phasing out their 32 bit OS and move toward 64 bit for all computers. It only made sense.

If I could figure out in 1999 that very soon RAM capacity wasn;t going to keep up with software requirements, you would think that the good folks at Microsoft would have figured it out too. After all, Apple did just that with their OS X platform. All Microsoft had to do was to follow their lead (something they usually have no problem doing).

But apparently Microsoft choose to ignore the issue for the entire 00 decade. Sure, their 64 bit Vista OS was an improvement over its XP counterpart. Drivers have become easier to come by, more companies offer 64 bit versions of their software and as of 2007/2008 64 bit computing on Vista was no longer the hit and miss affair it was previously.

However, from this user's point of view their efforts have been too little, too late and way too lame. To confirm that all I have to do is take a look at my "program Files" folders: "Program Files" (the 64 bit repository) and "Program Files (x86)" (the 32 bit legacy repository).

Program Files (x86) is a crowded, busy place with lots of stuff going on. "Program Files" is instead a lonely place, full of "could have been a contender" applications that I rarely use (outside of Photoshop CS4, the only major 64 bit app I own).

This state of affairs is simply disgusting and very discouraging. Back when I first forecast the death of 32 bit computing in 1999 I would have bet my 401k that in the late months of 2009 everyone would be working on 64 bit windows machines with 32GB of RAM.

I am sure that the folks at Microsoft have some very good excuses for this sorry state of affairs, but from where I stand, nothing they could say ould satisfy me.
What's worse is that Windows 7 doesn't look like it's going to improve things. Like Vista it will be offered in 32 and 64 bit versions, with the 64 bit aimed at "professionals" (never mind that these days grandmothers routinely cut and publish video and 8MB prosumer camera pictures).

Sure, the Apple move to OS X was painful for many of us (I was a Mac user at the time), but few could argue that it was worth it. It gave Apple a modern OS that is still going strong 10 years later with no sign of slowing down or edging on obsolescence.

Microsoft needs to move in the same direction and make the next OS a native 64 bit application. Almost every CPU has been 64 bit capable for over 6 years. Many software publishers need to rewrite their major apps anyway unless they are going to start selling their programs on 10 Blue Ray disks.

In the Windows world we have been carrying bloated legacy applications for 15 years. The OS itself is a security sieve requiring almost daily upgrades and patches. Try using a windows computer without a security suite active and you'll see how quickly someone in Singapore is going to learn your banking information and buying AK-47 with your credit card.

It's time for Microsoft to rethink their OS and give us an OS for the 21st Century once and for all. No matter how painful the transition will be.

On the plus side, a powerful, modern 64 bit machine with 16 GB of RAM and acres of Hard Drive space will easily handle older programs in "compatibility mode". back in the Apple OS X transition, computers were far less powerful than even the lousiest modern Netbook. Heck, My Ipod is probably more powerful than my old Blue and White G3. Yet, Apple was able to transition and let users keep their precious OS9 programs going for a very long time. Why can't Windows do the same?

Haven't we given Microsoft enough money over the years?

I'll admit that Microsoft may be a bit gun shy after the Great Vista Fiasco. I'd be too. But thinking back, maybe their mistake was precisely to offer a new OS that was built on a badly patched up old OS where most "new features" were actually either annoying bugs or infuriating "security" improvements (which only meant that now I had to click a dozen "I accept" buttons for the most trivial tasks like organizing my Start Menu. In fact, on that topic, I believe that crying wolf so much has trained us Vista users to click "Yes" no matter what's put in front of our eyes. If a window said "Do you really want to let Ihack4fun to control your banking website and rob you blind?" I'd probably just happily click "OK" and go on with my day).

Speaking of OK, I think I am done with this rant. I am now back using a Mac Mini as a second working computer and I am starting to like it more and more. It may be that my next working machine will be a top of the line G5 with Windows playing second fiddle to my Mac OS X. And this time I am going to see if I can cram 256GB on that puppy. Just for the hell of it.

/cc/

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email this