What's up with 64-bit computers? Not compatible? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : What's up with 64-bit computers? Not compatible?


F14Scott
06-15-2009, 22:17
I bought an HP Pavilion dv7 Notebook just before Christmas. Frankly, I didn't and don't know the difference between 32 and 64 bit architecture in a PC.

I ASSumed that 64 bit was probably the latest, greatest evolution of the PC (64 is TWICE as good as 32, right?), and that this otherwise great laptop, with its huge screen, big hard drive, 4 Gb of RAM, and dual core processor, complete with a big Windows Vista sticker, would run everything out there just fine.

I am slowly learning that there are a number of programs (eFax software, for instance) and some common hardware that just flat out does not work with this 64-bit computer.

The latest, most surprising, one was a 3rd Gen iPod Nano. My son got a new iPod Touch, so he gave his Nano (bought Christmas 2007) to me. It works/synchs fine with our 32-bit desktop. Tried it with my laptop; it doesn't even get recognized. Tried reinstalling iTunes, updating/reinstalling drivers, following the 10 different (many B.S.) troubleshooting steps on iTunes.com, everything to no avail. Took the Nano back to the desktop and it worked fine, again.

After some online sleuthing, it seems that this Nano doesn't play well with 64-bit machines. Apple won't say it. Microsoft won't say it. It looks as if both companies have done the "Ford Pinto Cost/Benefit Analysis" and have decided that ignoring the Venn diagram subset of 3rd Gen Nano owners and 64-bit Vista users is the most cost effective route.

Same story with some of the other software I'm having trouble with. Silence from all parties, but online forums condemn the 64-bit OS.

Anyone else having 64-bit problems?

CitizenOfDreams
06-15-2009, 22:43
Just install 32-bit Vista and enjoy. Better yet, 32-bit XP (if XP drivers are still available for your laptop).

sputnik767
06-15-2009, 23:31
No problems here. Been running Vista x64 for almost two years now. I have an ipod touch and an old pod nano (1 GB, probably the first one ever made), and both sync fine with itunes. I've had some very old programs not run in x64, but the bast majority of 32 bit programs run in the 64 bit environment. And it is the only way to use more than 3 GB or ram. BTW, vista has built-in compatibility modes that you can try. Sometimes they work, but I can't think of a time that I needed to use it. Most likely the problem lies with your Vista installation. When I bought my dell laptop almost 4 years ago, out of the box, it ran like crap. Crashes, slow, etc. I immediately went out, bout a fresh copy of XP, wiped the drive, and installed it. No more problems ever. Then, I used Dell's recovery CD for target practice. This is why I never buy computers, only build them. Of course you can't do that with a laptop. Seriously, nobody is trying to screw you. x64 works perfectly fine. It is probably nothing more than your Vista install.

certifiedfunds
06-15-2009, 23:32
Its all ball bearings these days.

lanternlad
06-16-2009, 06:50
Just install 32-bit Vista and enjoy. Better yet, 32-bit XP (if XP drivers are still available for your laptop).

Unnecessary, as Vista is backwards-compatible to 32 bit programs. Mac OS X (the OS Apple uses) has been 64-bit for two years longer than Vista, so there should be no problems using as ipod. Update you Ipod software (Itunes) would be my guess.

MavsX
06-16-2009, 06:59
x64 is the wave of the future. I plan on building a new computer in the next few months and i will definitely be going x64. It's the only way to address more than 3 gigs of ram. Can you try running iTunes in 32 bit compatibility mode? ??

you could always get vm server and load up a virtual machine and use that for your ipod. ??

cmecha
06-16-2009, 07:10
the thing is 32bit os can only address a max of 4gb of ram. 64bit can address up to the limit of the hardware. theoratically 8 bit^64 i believe. though mathi isn't my strong suit.

cmecha
06-16-2009, 07:12
x64 is the wave of the future. I plan on building a new computer in the next few months and i will definitely be going x64. It's the only way to address more than 3 gigs of ram. Can you try running iTunes in 32 bit compatibility mode? ??

Actually 32bit os can address up to 4gb but the xp reserves up to a gig for other functions.

TBO
06-16-2009, 07:13
the thing is 32bit os can only address a max of 4gb of ram. 64bit can address up to the limit of the hardware. theoratically 8 bit^64 i believe. though mathi isn't my strong suit.http://www.practicalpc.co.uk/computing/vista/vista-32bit-memory.htm

jasonvp
06-16-2009, 07:21
http://www.practicalpc.co.uk/computing/vista/vista-32bit-memory.htm

Actually, that's only what 64-bit Windows can address. The maximum memory that can be addressed 2^32 or 2^64, depending on 32 or 64-bit. The first is 4GB. The second is 16EB (exabytes).

jas

aircarver
06-16-2009, 07:31
Unless you're doing heavy duty number crunching (read graphics manipulation..) 64 bit is overkill in the n-th degree for most of your internetting and mundane tasks. Yeah the 64 bit will put up your browser page in half an eyeblink, while the 32 bit will require a whole eyeblink... The rest of the time it is just idling....

(I have one computer running 32 bit Kubuntu, and a dual processor job running the 64 bit version of the same Kubuntu (9.04) Unless I use the 64-bit job to process video, it's just producing waste heat.)

64 bit doesn't have as much updated to 64 software as is available in 32-bit, but as time goes on, that situation keeps getting better.

jasonvp
06-16-2009, 08:04
Unless you're doing heavy duty number crunching (read graphics manipulation..) 64 bit is overkill in the n-th degree

Unfortunately, that's a fairly massive misunderstanding of the benefits of 64-bit computing. In reality, 64-bit computing isn't going to help you "crunch numbers" any faster. What it's going to do is allow more access to larger blocks of storage (RAM and disk space). The biggest win, of course, is RAM.

Having a true 64-bit application be able to load its entire self into RAM is a huge win for speed. If you have big applications (databases, Photoshop, movie software, etc), you'll very quickly see a big improvement in speed. The application will no longer have to load and unload parts of itself from RAM to avoid the 4GB boundary. It can, assuming you have enough RAM in the machine, take, say, 10GB. Or 8GB. Or whatever it needs.

for most of your internetting and mundane tasks. Yeah the 64 bit will put up your browser page in half an eyeblink, while the 32 bit will require a whole eyeblink... The rest of the time it is just idling....

This is partially true, but not completely. The part that is true: 64-bit is no win over 32-bit for browsing and emailing. In the grand scheme of things, neither activity is particularly memory hungry. What's incorrect about your statement is that the browser loading slightly faster on 64-bit. It won't.

64 bit doesn't have as much updated to 64 software as is available in 32-bit, but as time goes on, that situation keeps getting better.

That's true. Anyone that wants to "head-in-the-sand" and ignore 64-bit computing is truly being ignorant. All new chips from the 2 major manufacturers (Intel and AMD) are 64-bit. They can run 32-bit OSs just fine, but the direction is away from 2^32 and towards 2^64.

jas

void *
06-16-2009, 08:44
I ASSumed that 64 bit was probably the latest, greatest evolution of the PC (64 is TWICE as good as 32, right?)

It could be termed the 'latest, greatest evolution', that's a wide way of describing things - but going from 32bit to 64bit is a bit different than going from, say, a 32 bit processor from four years ago to a 32 bit processor from two years ago.

It's closer to the 16->32bit transition, although it's not going to be exactly the same because going from 16->32 bits added memory protection as well as increasing the word width.

You're actually, in a sense, on a new architecture that has backwards compatibility features, rather than the same architecture, faster. The chip is going to be in a mode where registers are 64 bits wide rather than 32 bits wide, and it's going to run 32 bit programs in a submode of that, rather than the 32 bit mode.

It's also not necessarily 'twice as good' just because that number doubled. You'll be generally faster if the processor is generally faster (in the sense that 2Ghz runs faster than 1Ghz), but other than that, it really depends on what you're using it for.

Doing a lot of math with large values or requiring a lot of floating point precision? A 64 bit box will definitely be faster, because a 32 bit program for that is going to need to deal with any value that can't be held in 32 bits differently - if you add two and three on a 32 bit box, the result is less than 32 bits, and can be held in one register or one memory location. Add one to 2,147,483,647 on a 32 bit box (assuming a signed 32 bit value here), you're going to need another 32 bit memory location to hold the overflow, and code to manage making sure it's right, displaying those multiword values, etc. You don't have that problem on a 64 bit box until you overflow 64 bits, so something like a bignum library compiled for 64 bits will probably run faster (assuming the authors of the bignum library did things right)

As far as why you're having problems with 32 bit programs - there could be a lot of reasons. It may even be different for different programs. (I could easily see the iPod or fax thing as being a problem with a driver or something, whereas program X may have been written using an assumption that's valid for protected mode, but not for the 32-bit compatibility submode)

TBO
06-16-2009, 08:49
2 bits, 4 bits, 6 bits a dollar, all for Linux stand up and holler!



:tbo:

Glock20 10mm
06-16-2009, 08:51
64 bit allows for larger memory addressing. More RAM for your PC. Been using 64bit Linux for almost 4 years now. It's been around a bit longer than Windows 64bit so it's a bit more mature.

Unless you have a need for dual core or more and large amounts of RAM... oh wait you run Windows, never mind. Okay seriously, unless you are working with large files (images, movies even some databases) there is really no need for anyone to run 64bit. The average user, the person that does a little web surfing, some online shopping and banking and maybe a couple of simple games, well they just don't need a 64bit system. And the definitely don't need a dual core system.

It really comes down to your needs. But if you want to run the latest from Microsoft then yes you need all the power you can get in order to get decent performance. But again the big bonus with 64bit over 32bit is memory addressing.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/64Bit-Linux-Is-Already-Here/

http://compscistuff.com/2009/06/understanding-what-is-32-bit-and-64-bit/ - here is a good read that will help a bit...

http://forums.amd.com/devblog/blogpost.cfm?threadid=93648&catid=317

TBO
06-16-2009, 08:53
<----can't stand immature operating systems. Their humor is anything but funny.

void *
06-16-2009, 08:54
In reality, 64-bit computing isn't going to help you "crunch numbers" any faster.

That entirely depends on the numbers you're crunching. Like I said above, if all the numbers you're crunching, and their results, will fit in a 32 bit register with no overflow, then you won't get faster number crunching.

If you require values that exceed 32 bits but can be contained in 64, you will, because you won't need the code overhead for dealing with the top bits.

JohnBT
06-16-2009, 09:16
"The average user, the person that does a little web surfing, some online shopping and banking and maybe a couple of simple games, well they just don't need a 64bit system. And the definitely don't need a dual core system."

Dang, does this mean I have to return my Q9450 and go back to an 8086 or 286?

Everybody has an opinion and thinks they're an expert and that their advice is worthwhile. I love it.

John

aircarver
06-16-2009, 09:19
2 bits, 4 bits, 6 bits a dollar, all for Linux stand up and holler!



:tbo:

:woohoo:

Glock20 10mm
06-16-2009, 09:43
"The average user, the person that does a little web surfing, some online shopping and banking and maybe a couple of simple games, well they just don't need a 64bit system. And the definitely don't need a dual core system."

Dang, does this mean I have to return my Q9450 and go back to an 8086 or 286?

Everybody has an opinion and thinks they're an expert and that their advice is worthwhile. I love it.

John

And you seem to be unable to understand simple logic. You missed the entire point of the prose... which is not really a surprise considering... The simple fact is you can run what ever you want. I don't care, I wasn't dictating what to run, I pointed out a simple logical fact. The average user can suffice with a single core system if all they are doing is basic tasks. There is no need for a 64bit system for average users. It's like using a nuke on a gnat... sure it gets the job done but it's a bit overkill.

Maybe you are not an average user or maybe you like to have the latest and greatest. Good on you! Now use your big rig to learn basic comprehension. :tongueout::upeyes:

IndyGunFreak
06-16-2009, 10:05
My PC and Laptop are both 64bit, but I have 32bit OS's on them. I just don't use my computer to the extent that I seen any difference. Its real advantage is if you have more than 4gigs of Ram, which I don't.

Linux 64bit lagged a bit when the 64bit craze hit. Now though, most of the 64bit distros are pretty solid. I might go to 64bit the next time I'm doing my reinstalls (October), but we'll see :)

TBO
06-16-2009, 10:19
<----running dual boot with XP 32 bit and Vista 64 bit w/6GB's of DDR3.

Use XP mostly, but for video/photo I use the 64 bit.

TBO

glock19_fan
06-16-2009, 10:32
I'll use 64 bit when Windows 7 comes out. I hear XP 64 bit is too painful, and I detest Vista.

sputnik767
06-16-2009, 17:31
"The average user, the person that does a little web surfing, some online shopping and banking and maybe a couple of simple games, well they just don't need a 64bit system. And the definitely don't need a dual core system."

Dang, does this mean I have to return my Q9450 and go back to an 8086 or 286?

Everybody has an opinion and thinks they're an expert and that their advice is worthwhile. I love it.

John

Exactly. I have a relatively modern single-core laptop (Pentium M CPU), and compared to my Core 2 Duo system, the difference is vast, even for simple web browsing. In fact, it can't really do anything more than internet and video playback at this point. Forget about Divx compression (takes a total of 16 hours) compared to less than 2 hours on my Core 2 Duo system or watching 1080p HD video. Everything takes a lot longer. And if you have a Pentium 4, forget about it.

JohnBT
06-16-2009, 20:09
I went from a P4 @ 2.4 to a Q9450 @ 2.66. Similar speed, but a universe of difference. I buy a new computer every 4 or 5 years whether I need one or not. :)

Toss in my 20/5 FiOS connection and I'm just rolling along. Anyone else remember the old 300 bit/s modems?

John

sputnik767
06-16-2009, 20:25
I went from a P4 @ 2.4 to a Q9450 @ 2.66. Similar speed, but a universe of difference. I buy a new computer every 4 or 5 years whether I need one or not. :)

Toss in my 20/5 FiOS connection and I'm just rolling along. Anyone else remember the old 300 bit/s modems?

John

My first PC had a 33.6K modem, 32 megs of ram, 200 MHz Pentium 1, and a 3.2 gig HD that had to be split into two, b/c Windows 95 did not support "large" drives. The upgrade to a 56k modem was a huge deal. I remember my uncle exclaimed "why will you ever need a hard drive that big?" I still have that computer.

mike7465
06-16-2009, 21:11
Ubuntu made my old P4 system scream. I can't wait to buy a new computer to see how much faster I can... wait, when you have a real OS your only limit online is the speed of your internet connection.

Daynja
06-16-2009, 21:23
(64 is TWICE as good as 32, right?)

Actually it's 4,294,967,296 times better. :rofl:

I considered going to 64 bit xp despite the issues that I would certainly encounter. I would like 4GB+ of RAM, 2GB is not enough. I also needed more than 2TB of storage. But I found a work-around to 32 bit windows xp storage limitations and I just decided to live with 2GB of RAM.

digitspaw
06-16-2009, 21:47
I went from a P4 @ 2.4 to a Q9450 @ 2.66. Similar speed, but a universe of difference. I buy a new computer every 4 or 5 years whether I need one or not. :)

Toss in my 20/5 FiOS connection and I'm just rolling along. Anyone else remember the old 300 bit/s modems?

John

Talking about the Bell 103A modems? I got into the field just as the Bell DataPhone series was maturing (early 70s). I worked on tons of 75/150 baud FSK stuff which was real popular with alarm companies and the military.

pkn.glock23
06-16-2009, 22:31
Word of advice if you are at a retail store and you ask yourself the question Hmm do I need 32bit or 64….. The answer is 32bit.

SnowCajun
06-16-2009, 23:02
I went from a P4 @ 2.4 to a Q9450 @ 2.66. Similar speed, but a universe of difference. I buy a new computer every 4 or 5 years whether I need one or not. :)
My older computer fried so I bought another. I regret ever having seen this piece of junk. I hate Windows Vista, I hate this entire computer, and I hate Best Buy for all the lies they told me about it before I bought it. They guaranteed me it'd work perfectly with my two old games, but only one runs on Vista, the other only half runs when it feels like it and is jerky as heck where it was as smooth as glass on XP. It's not even worth playing most of the time, and this computer has had the Tech's out twice now to fix problems, first to replace the HD, now they're working on the CPU and Motherboard when they come back out this Saturday again. It's a Gateway and I've had great luck with Gateways since I got my first one back around 1990 .. but this thing is pure rubbish class junk IMHO. It's 2.66 also with 3 gigs ram and a good video card .. it's just not anywhere near as usuable as my older one was with Windows XP Pro... and when I bought this there was nothing available with XP anymore unless I built it myself .. which I've not done before.

sputnik767
06-16-2009, 23:11
My older computer fried so I bought another. I regret ever having seen this piece of junk. I hate Windows Vista, I hate this entire computer, and I hate Best Buy for all the lies they told me about it before I bought it. They guaranteed me it'd work perfectly with my two old games, but only one runs on Vista, the other only half runs when it feels like it and is jerky as heck where it was as smooth as glass on XP. It's not even worth playing most of the time, and this computer has had the Tech's out twice now to fix problems, first to replace the HD, now they're working on the CPU and Motherboard when they come back out this Saturday again. It's a Gateway and I've had great luck with Gateways since I got my first one back around 1990 .. but this thing is pure rubbish class junk IMHO. It's 2.66 also with 3 gigs ram and a good video card .. it's just not anywhere near as usuable as my older one was with Windows XP Pro... and when I bought this there was nothing available with XP anymore unless I built it myself .. which I've not done before.

As I mentioned before, if you buy a store-bought PC, you pretty much must wipe the hard drive and install a fresh copy of whatever OS you want to use. All the crap that comes preinstalled on these store-bought PCs as well as the OS install itself is pretty bad. My old Dell XP laptop ran like crap out of the box, until I wiped the drive and installed my own copy of XP. Better yet, learn how to build your own machines, and have complete freedom over what goes in, as well as never have to deal with a locked bios that does not allow for any overclocking. Seriously, don't blame Vista. It has been rock solid reliable for me for almost two years. The only crashes I've had were due to a bad ram module and a hard drive on it's way out. My PC is always on, records my shows, and does everything else w/o a hitch. Vista is much better than XP in every regard, assuming you have a decent computer that can run it. The vast majority of programs will run on Vista. I've only had some trouble with very old, open-source or small manufacturer programs, and I have the 64 bit version.

Sgt. Schultz
06-17-2009, 06:08
My older computer fried so I bought another. I regret ever having seen this piece of junk. I hate Windows Vista, I hate this entire computer, and I hate Best Buy for all the lies they told me about it before I bought it. They guaranteed me it'd work perfectly with my two old games, but only one runs on Vista, the other only half runs when it feels like it and is jerky as heck where it was as smooth as glass on XP. It's not even worth playing most of the time, and this computer has had the Tech's out twice now to fix problems, first to replace the HD, now they're working on the CPU and Motherboard when they come back out this Saturday again. It's a Gateway and I've had great luck with Gateways since I got my first one back around 1990 .. but this thing is pure rubbish class junk IMHO. It's 2.66 also with 3 gigs ram and a good video card .. it's just not anywhere near as usuable as my older one was with Windows XP Pro... and when I bought this there was nothing available with XP anymore unless I built it myself .. which I've not done before.


With all the issues that you are having with your laptop odds are that the "jerky as heck" problems you are having with the games are hardware related and not the OS ... just my two cents.

quickcanary
06-17-2009, 07:04
My first PC had a 33.6K modem, 32 megs of ram, 200 MHz Pentium 1, and a 3.2 gig HD that had to be split into two, b/c Windows 95 did not support "large" drives. The upgrade to a 56k modem was a huge deal. I remember my uncle exclaimed "why will you ever need a hard drive that big?" I still have that computer.

That IS an old PC by today's standards, but I've got ya beat. My first PC had a 486DX2 66MHz CPU, 8MB of RAM, 512kb (half a megabyte!) of video memory, 540MB hard drive, and 14.4k modem! This was right when the Pentiums came out, and my father and I didn't know any better or I would have gotten a Pentium 60 or 75 MHz for just a bit more. I also remember that the 540 MB hard drive was as big as my friend's TWO hard drives, and how exciting it was to upgrade to 16MB of RAM and a 1.6GB hard drive!

I can't complain too much, though. Getting that computer changed my life in that it provided a clear career path for me. :cool:

quickcanary
06-17-2009, 07:38
My older computer fried so I bought another. I regret ever having seen this piece of junk. I hate Windows Vista, I hate this entire computer, and I hate Best Buy for all the lies they told me about it before I bought it. They guaranteed me it'd work perfectly with my two old games, but only one runs on Vista, the other only half runs when it feels like it and is jerky as heck where it was as smooth as glass on XP. It's not even worth playing most of the time, and this computer has had the Tech's out twice now to fix problems, first to replace the HD, now they're working on the CPU and Motherboard when they come back out this Saturday again. It's a Gateway and I've had great luck with Gateways since I got my first one back around 1990 .. but this thing is pure rubbish class junk IMHO. It's 2.66 also with 3 gigs ram and a good video card .. it's just not anywhere near as usuable as my older one was with Windows XP Pro... and when I bought this there was nothing available with XP anymore unless I built it myself .. which I've not done before.

I'm not Vista's biggest fan either. It runs noticeably slower than XP, even on high-end hardware. I've tried Vista 32 & 64-bit as well as Windows 7 RC1 32 & 64-bit on my lowly work PC with a dual core Pentium4 and 4GB of RAM. I'm currently dual-booting XP with Windows 7 64-bit, but find myself using XP most of the time even though it doesn't recognize the full 4GB of RAM. It just feels snappier and quicker on older hardware, and just about any program will run on it.

At home it's a different story; I stuck with XP for as long as I could because I was frustrated with Vista's performance and annoyances. However, I have two quad core PCs, one with 8GB of RAM and the other with 6GB (soon to be 12) and XP was only seeing about 3.25GB of that and limiting my performance. So at home I use Win7 RC1 64-bit and in my opinion it's much better than Vista. It looks similar, but performance and compatibility have been much improved. There have been little changes to the interface that just make sense, and I have been able to get more games working in Win7 than in Vista. Even at the current pre-release stage, Windows 7 feels more stable and polished than Vista.

JohnBT
06-17-2009, 10:09
Dang, I don't know what kind of modems I was using, that was 25 years ago or something.

"My first PC had a 33.6K modem"

My first pc was a Leading Edge Model D with the ram upgraded to 640k and 2 5.25" floppies. It had an 8088 processor running at 4.77MHz, but an old microwave has more power. And NO HARD DRIVE and no modem. Well, I used an external modem but the things were so slow for tasks like downloading the state employment commission's complete list of open jobs. What a pain.

My father's 17" HP laptop from Circuit City runs Vista just fine on 3 gigs, but he's 87 and doesn't tax the system very much. My Q9450 system was built by some guys running a storefront that I've used for the past 10 or 11 years. They let you pick from a list of parts to meet your needs and also do corporate and government contracts too. I paid $30 extra to have it ready in 2 days instead of the normal 3. I was anxious.

John

P.S. - Leading Edge pcs had a pretty good rep back then. They were cheap too - only $1500. :)

"They began producing the Leading Edge Model D in June, 1985, when they began to use Daewoo parts. That model was described as "the quality is good and the price is right." It was a Consumer Reports "Best Buy." It was IBM compatible, using the same Intel 8088 8 bit processor as the IBM PC, with two floppy disc drives, 256K of RAM, and an amber monitor. The machine sold for $1495 (US)[6] They sold 125,000 in the first 13 months, then reduced the price to $1295 (US).[7]

When IBM started offering 20 meg hard drives as standard for its newer PC-XT's, Leading Edge offered a 30 meg hard drive standard.[8] They later released a Model D86 (an Intel 8086), Model D2 in 1988 with a 65 meg hard drive for $2495(US) and a 10 MHz processor (an Intel 80286)[9] and Model D3 (an Intel 80386)"

solomansousana
06-17-2009, 12:13
My wife and I both have Dell quad core laptops with Windows Business Ultimate 64bit OS for use in professional jobs. We both have NIS 2009 installed along with MS-Office Pro 2007 and drivers for our networked HP color lasers. Had no trouble installing anything, but those two programs are all we've installed. Our home computer and server uses Vista business ultimate 32bit.

Hunca Munca
06-17-2009, 12:33
The first computer I ever saw was I think a TRS-80 when I was in 7th grade.

The drive was a cassette tape player. You put in a cassette and hit "play".
About 10 minutes later the program (some math game) was ready.
:wow:

Fast fowarding several years I now use a MacBook Pro laptop with Vista on a partition when I want/need to use Vista.

Vista seems to work fine except it always asks me 5 times if I really want to do something!!''

Linux3
06-17-2009, 12:50
My PC and Laptop are both 64bit, but I have 32bit OS's on them.
Linux 64bit lagged a bit when the 64bit craze hit. Now though, most of the 64bit distros are pretty solid. I might go to 64bit the next time I'm doing my reinstalls (October), but we'll see :)
SGI aka Silicon Graphics 'may it rest in peace' IRIX was 64 bit back in 1994. Everybody else lagged a bit. SGI systems were used for major number crunching and movie special effects and mostly needed 64 bit for address space on logical volumes.
I do miss my SGI Octane2.

The Outrage
06-17-2009, 12:53
Download iTunes for x64. It's been available for a long time. It's right on the iTunes download page. I know it works as I've installed Vista x64 and iTunes x64 for multiple individuals. You're probably trying to install iTunes x86 (32-bit) on Vista x64. If you want to blame someone, blame Apple since they decided to make two seperate installers for both versions of Vista instead of consolidating the packages into a single one. In fact, iTunes x64 really isn't a 64-bit program. It's simply a compatability fix to make the 32-bit version work with Vista x64.