Maximum PC 32-bit RSS Feed

64-bit Windows is More Secure, for Now

Bart Salisbury — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:09:38 -0600

Microsoft is doing some chest-thumping over the advantages of it’s 64-bit operating systems. According to Joe Faulhaber, who works at the Microsoft Malware Protection Center, the 64-bit versions of Windows and Vista are less likely than their 32-bit counterparts to be infected with malware.

According to Faulhaber, who relied on information gathered by Microsoft’s Malicious Software Removal Tool (MSRC), during the first half of 2009 64-bit XP was 48 percent less likely to be infected, while 64-bit Vista was 35% less likely to be infected. No information was available for Windows 7 for the obvious reason it hadn’t yet been released, but it is expected the same would hold true for it. Faulhaber suggests the reason 64-bit versions are more secure is that malware, written mostly for the 32-bit world, is confused by 64-bit.

Not so fast, chicken Marengo! Alfred Hunger, vice president of engineering at the security firm Immunet, and formerly of Symantec, says there’s plenty of 64-bit malware out there. In fact, its a pretty easy thing for malware creates to whip up 64-bit versions if and when they desire. The low levels of 64-bit infection, he says, is more due to the low levels of 64-bit penetration in the market. If there aren’t all that many people using it there’s no incentive for malware makers to pay attention.

Microsoft’s own bi-annual Security Intelligence Report offers up another possibility: 64-bit users are smarter than 32-bit users. Being technologically more savvy they are less likely to bring malware onto their machines. The report concludes that as 64-bit spreads from the provenance of techno-geeks the current difference in infection rates between 32-bit and 64-bit will evaporate.

Image Credit: If you dream it.../Flickr

Startup Takes Forever

The Maximum PC Staff — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:00:14 -0500

I have 32-bit Vista installed on my system and have had it since it was released back in ’07. Each day when I start up, I sit and watch the cursor spin and watch the task bar fill. Every time I think it’s ready to go, it loads more programs. Is there some sort of graphical bar or gauge that can be loaded onto the desktop at logon that will show all of my background services loading, so I can tell at a glance whether my computer is actually ready to go? Windows 7 beta still offers NO progress bar/gauge to indicate when all background services are finished loading. I have used Sabayon Linux in the past and it did have a progress bar before the desktop had even appeared. This has really been a pain in my “mouse click,” so if you can help with this I would really appreciate it.

—Ray S.

Ray, we haven’t found anything that will show your startup services’ progress. However, if your computer really takes that long to be usable when you log in to Vista, there are a few easy steps you can consider. First, hit Windows+R and type msconfig. Go through your startup programs and disable any you don’t need. Google the process names if you’re not sure what they do.

Computer chugging when you first boot? Disable startup apps so you can get working faster.

Once you’ve trimmed down that list, install r2 Studios Startup Delayer (http://www.r2.com.au/software.php?page=2&show=startdelay). That will let you stagger your startup programs so they don’t all try to load at once, which will let you start using your computer sooner.

Readers, know of any program like the one Ray describes? Write in and tell us about it!

SUBMIT YOUR QUESTION Are flames shooting out of the back of your rig? First, grab a fire extinguisher and douse the flames. Once the pyrotechnic display has fizzled, email the doctor at doctor@maximumpc.com for advice on how to solve your technological woes.

Notebook Vendors Giving 32-Bit Vista the Boot in Favor of 64-Bit

Paul Lilly — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:31:26 -0500

The decision to go with a 64-bit version of Vista over its 32-bit counterpart remains a dubious one, but not so as far as netbook vendors are concerned. Most new laptops are now shipping with a 64-bit OS. Take Best Buy's newest shipment of HP laptops, for example, who shows 11 models listed as "new arrivals." All but three come with Vista 64-bit, with the remaining models sporting Windows Vista Business downgraded to XP Pro, also in 64-bit form.

Falling memory prices could be one reason for the sudden push into 64-bit territory. Of the 9 laptops outfitted with Vista, all of them come spec'd with 4GB of RAM. But is a 64-bit OS truly necessary to take advantage of 4GB or more?

"The 64-bit versions of Windows can utilize more memory than 32-bit versions of Windows," Microsofts writes in its FAQ. "This helps minimize the time spent swapping processes in and out of memory by storing more of those processes in Random access memory (RAM) rather than on the hard disk. This, in turn, can increase overall program performance."

Running 4GB of RAM on a 32-bit OS isn't a complete waste, but because most systems will only show around 3.25GB as being installed, it's easy to see why notebook vendors would opt for a 64-bit OS to avoid customer confusion. Throw into the mix that hardware and peripheral support in Vista 64-bit is very good and it becomes a low risk option.

Hit the jump and tell us what flavor of Vista you'd prefer to have on your notebook: 32-bit or 64-bit?

Are Users Ready For 64-bit in Prime Time?

Chris Moody — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:18:38 -0500

64-bit operating systems are certainly nothing new and when they first launched they weren’t even highly anticipated. Windows XP Professional x64 Edition only created a small amount of excitement and that died a quick death when the complaints about driver issues, Windows Explorer bugs in 64-bit mode, and 16-bit programs being unsupported started to roll in.

It was just too green to be of any real use to me, despite my 64-bit processor. I love to tinker with my PC, but I also want it to be stable and work well with lots of peripherals.

With the release of Service Pack 1 for Vista I decided to give it another try with my workstation and was pleasantly surprised, both by Vista (not the evil, vile monster it was at launch) and 64-bit computing. It seems that others are beginning to share that feeling.

Microsoft says that the percentage of 64-bit PCs connecting to Windows Update has more than tripled in the U.S. in the last three months and worldwide adoption has more than doubled during the same period. About 20% of new Windows Vista PCs in the U.S. connecting to Windows Update in June were 64-bit PCs that is up from 3% in March. Usage is growing more rapidly that the 32-bit versions of Vista.

Driving this upswing in 64-bit operating systems is that drivers for 64-bit are so much easier to find now and the issues with 16-bit software are non-existent for many (and really, if your still using 16-bit software you should look around for what is new). Also with memory so dirt cheap right now many users are seeking systems in excess of 4 Gigabytes, which 32-bit operating systems do not support. It may also be an attempt to future proof their systems.

We can count on the compatibility and performance of 64-bit PCs to continue to expand and improve. The 32-bit emulation in Windows Vista called WOW64 works well with most 32-bit software. There are certainly still gaps in software but that will get better once more 64-bit PCs are in service.

It looks like 64-bit is finally coming into its own. While high end applications like Photoshop and Video editing software will be a draw for Windows 64-bit operating systems for the masses, it has been enthusiasts that have pushed the envelope and demand to get it to a point where it is ready for acceptance by everyday users.

Have you made the jump to 64-bit and if so, what do you think about it?

Big Game Crash Blues Under Windows Vista? Run, Don't Walk, to Get the Hotfix You Need

Mark Soper — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:58:29 -0500

32-bit applications and 2GB of virtual address space have something in common (and no, it's not the number 2). 2GB of virtual address space is the maximum amount of address space you can use in a normal 32-bit Windows application. Until the advent of Windows Vista, the 2GB limit was more apparent than real. However, as Anandtech.com has discovered, many recent games typically use much more virtual memory address space under Windows Vista than under Windows XP, and high-end graphics cards typically feature 512MB or more of video RAM, which makes the addressing problem even worse. How bad can it get? Try this: game crashes with some of the biggest games on the market!

Who's in Charge Here? DirectX 10? DirectX 9 Games? Pick Two

The problem is that while DirectX 10 manages memory address allocations for GPUs and applications, virtualizing video memory address space allocation, most games still use DirectX 9 (or earlier versions). DirectX 9 and earlier DirectX versions do not manage memory address space allocations, but leave the management task up to individual games. Consequently, when you play DirectX 9 games under Windows Vista, Vista's DirectX 10's busy managing virtual memory addresses, but meanwhile each DirectX 9 game is also managing virtual memory addresses. DirectX 10 and each DX9 game are unaware of the other's activities. Sooner or later, thanks to this 'double-dipping' of address space, the virtual address bucket is empty - and your system heads off to Crashland!

The Short-Term Fix - A New Video Memory Manager

Microsoft's interim solution? Retool the video memory manager to prevent exhaustion of virtual memory space by categorizing applications' use of memory addresses as lockable (consumes virtual memory address space) or not lockable (does not consume virtual memory address space). Learn more about this hotfix at Knowledge Base article 940105. To request this hotfix by email, go to the Contact Us: Hotfix Request Web Submission Form page and enter 940105 along with the system language and your email address. You should receive a link to the hotfix within about eight business hours (I received mine in less than an hour, but your mileage may vary).

The Long Term Fix? Can You Say "64-Bit?"

What's the long-term fix? It's not adding more RAM to your 32-bit system (unless you're running less than 2GB now). Because of motherboard design limitations and the 2GB virtual memory memory address limit, 2GB is the best memory size for 32-bit Windows today. It is possible to create a "large address aware" application that can address more than 2GB of virtual memory addresses, but most games that may hit the barrier do not use this option, and will still run out of virtual address space before reaching 3GB, even when this option is used.

As Microsoft discusses in its white paper "Virtual Address Space Usage in Windows Game Development,", the long-term answer has a very familiar ring: switch to 64-bit operating systems, which have an 8TB (8 trillion byte) virtual memory address space when "large address aware" coding is use, and 64-bit games and other applications. Hey, sign me up! That is, as soon as the application, game, utility, and device vendors are up to the challenge. Unfortunately, waiting for 64-bit support still looks like a long wait from here.