Developers: Put something like this on your software.
It’s been almost six years since the first 64-bit processors hit the market, yet we as computer users are still largely running 32-bit applications. This is a bit ridiculous as 32-bit environments place pretty severe limitations on how much memory a system can use (around 3 GB or so). Back when RAM was a dollar a megabyte, this hesitation to go 64-bit was understandable, but given that 4 GB is now well under $100, our being stuck in a 32-bit world just seems a bit anachronistic.
It’s not all that hard to find what the largest barrier to the apotheosis of 64-bit is: it’s the business world. This is perhaps best understood if one thinks back to the corporate reasoning behind not switching to Windows Vista. In addition to Vista’s massive marketing problem, it was incompatible with a lot of applications built on Windows XP. Due to XP’s exceptionally long lifespan or just because developers came and went, a lot of companies were stuck using incompatible software. 64-bit is having the same problem right now.
But that’s not to say that people aren’t trying to push 64-bit, and the pushers are people who really can make a big impact. Let’s start with Microsoft. Windows 7 is shipping the 32-bit and 64-bit versions on one disc, so consumers can make the after-purchase decision to go 64-bit if they choose (for whatever reason) to not install the proper version of Windows 7 the first time around. Even on Vista 64, the performance benefits were enormous. Windows 7 promises to continue the Vista trend of precaching programs (though in a more sensible manner such that your computer won’t break from lacking memory), and Vista with 4 GB of memory and up is blindingly fast. Of course, you need the 64-bit version for Windows to even recognize that it has 4 GB or upwards of memory to play with.
Most of the major OEMs have been pushing 64-bit Windows for a year now. If you configure a machine with more memory than 32-bit operating systems can handle, HP, Dell, and others will inform you that your computer is not going to take full advantage of its resources if you don’t run 64-bit. They then allow you to switch from normal Windows to Windows 64 at no additional cost. So long as you’re not dependent on an incompatible application, you’d be foolish not to take the upgrade. Apple has been rolling out 64-bit more subtly, and in doing so probably has a userbase that’s closer to being completely on the new system than any other.
This leaves the software companies, who are at best slow and at worst just plain lazy. Google Chrome, my browser of choice, will have a 64-bit Linux version soon. That’s great. Now make that the case for Windows and Mac. In most cases, users are stuck with the old 32-bit software, which is largely compatible with the new standard. That said, unless software developers advertise that they in fact have made the transition, we’ll never see IT departments embracing 64-bit. If you buy 2000 licenses for software that turns out to be incompatible, you can kiss your job goodbye.
The groundwork for 64-bit is in place. Operating systems are largely 64-bit, and hardware has supported it for years. So now all we need is for developers to catch on. It’s a bit of a Catch 22 thing in that developers need a market to sell 64-bit software to, and there needs to be a 64-bit software base for consumers to drop 32-bit. It’ll take something like Microsoft declaring 32-bit support dead to really get things moving. Fortunately, Microsoft seems to be inching closer and closer to doing that every day.
