SQLServerCentral / Editorials / SQLServerCentral.com / Still 32 / Latest Posts

RE: Still 32

David Conn — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:58:15 GMT

Bit late to the party but my 2c worth.Decided to go full 64 bit with SQL Server 2008 R2, Server R2 & Windows 7 64 bit.I had trouble with Office 2010 64 bit & An Excel add-in from IBM. IBM didn't have a 64-Bit solution but there was a work-around.I had one SSIS Package that used a 32-Bit ODBC Driver. Worked out that SSIS would run in 32-Bit Mode.Results: SQL Server & Desktop run faster and very reliable.I'd run Windows 8 but don't think I can find a Business Reason yet as I did for Windows 7 / Office 2010 & PowerPivot.Newer is usually better. Only real disappointments were Vista, Windows 98 SE & Windows ME.David

RE: Still 32

Revenant — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:17:27 GMT

[quote][b]djackson 22568 (1/28/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]Revenant (1/28/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]djackson 22568 (1/28/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]Revenant (1/28/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]djackson 22568 (1/28/2013)[/b][hr]... Windows 8 has ads embedded in the start page, why would I buy an OS that forces me to see their ads? . . .[/quote]Where did you buy it? Did it come on a new machine?I would bet those ads were put there by an OEM - certainly not by MSFT.[/quote]What I have read is that it is embedded in the OS, and is put there by MS. Google "Windows 8 ads on desktop" and you will see a huge number of articles that discuss this, many of which indicate it was enabled by Microsoft and their own metro apps have ads.There were enough articles about this that I returned a copy I had purchased with the intent to run it using Parallels on my MacBook Pro. Not sure why I even considered doing something so stupid anyhow.[/quote]Oh my. However, this is not happening with my Win8 Pro, that's why I suspected OEMs.However, this gets us form the 32/64 bit discussion; sorry.[/quote]Well, sort of. However I believe Windows 8 is all 64bit, no 32bit. Assuming I am correct, and assuming that implementation of it is slower than MS anticipated, that affects the transition to 64bit on the desktop. Windows 7 is available in both flavors, and while I run 64bit there, most of the installs I am around are 32bit. Of course this won't affect server side implementations.For your copy of Windows 8, do you use whatever the "metro apps" are, because they are also supposed to have ads.[/quote]Probably not - I use my machine as a dev platform and from the standard apps I use only the media player, I think.

RE: Still 32

lptech — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:11:48 GMT

Steve, excellent point, to isolate 32 bit stragglers in their own VM's. For those who are content to be 'dumb and happy', and I got this term from a user who referred to himself as that, they need to know the cost they are imposing on the enterprise.

RE: Still 32

djackson 22568 — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:57:28 GMT

[quote][b]Revenant (1/28/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]djackson 22568 (1/28/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]Revenant (1/28/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]djackson 22568 (1/28/2013)[/b][hr]... Windows 8 has ads embedded in the start page, why would I buy an OS that forces me to see their ads? . . .[/quote]Where did you buy it? Did it come on a new machine?I would bet those ads were put there by an OEM - certainly not by MSFT.[/quote]What I have read is that it is embedded in the OS, and is put there by MS. Google "Windows 8 ads on desktop" and you will see a huge number of articles that discuss this, many of which indicate it was enabled by Microsoft and their own metro apps have ads.There were enough articles about this that I returned a copy I had purchased with the intent to run it using Parallels on my MacBook Pro. Not sure why I even considered doing something so stupid anyhow.[/quote]Oh my. However, this is not happening with my Win8 Pro, that's why I suspected OEMs.However, this gets us form the 32/64 bit discussion; sorry.[/quote]Well, sort of. However I believe Windows 8 is all 64bit, no 32bit. Assuming I am correct, and assuming that implementation of it is slower than MS anticipated, that affects the transition to 64bit on the desktop. Windows 7 is available in both flavors, and while I run 64bit there, most of the installs I am around are 32bit. Of course this won't affect server side implementations.For your copy of Windows 8, do you use whatever the "metro apps" are, because they are also supposed to have ads.

RE: Still 32

Revenant — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:13:33 GMT

[quote][b]djackson 22568 (1/28/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]Revenant (1/28/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]djackson 22568 (1/28/2013)[/b][hr]... Windows 8 has ads embedded in the start page, why would I buy an OS that forces me to see their ads? . . .[/quote]Where did you buy it? Did it come on a new machine?I would bet those ads were put there by an OEM - certainly not by MSFT.[/quote]What I have read is that it is embedded in the OS, and is put there by MS. Google "Windows 8 ads on desktop" and you will see a huge number of articles that discuss this, many of which indicate it was enabled by Microsoft and their own metro apps have ads.There were enough articles about this that I returned a copy I had purchased with the intent to run it using Parallels on my MacBook Pro. Not sure why I even considered doing something so stupid anyhow.[/quote]Oh my. However, this is not happening with my Win8 Pro, that's why I suspected OEMs.However, this gets us form the 32/64 bit discussion; sorry.

RE: Still 32

djackson 22568 — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:50:20 GMT

[quote][b]Revenant (1/28/2013)[/b][hr][quote][b]djackson 22568 (1/28/2013)[/b][hr]... Windows 8 has ads embedded in the start page, why would I buy an OS that forces me to see their ads? . . .[/quote]Where did you buy it? Did it come on a new machine?I would bet those ads were put there by an OEM - certainly not by MSFT.[/quote]What I have read is that it is embedded in the OS, and is put there by MS. Google "Windows 8 ads on desktop" and you will see a huge number of articles that discuss this, many of which indicate it was enabled by Microsoft and their own metro apps have ads.There were enough articles about this that I returned a copy I had purchased with the intent to run it using Parallels on my MacBook Pro. Not sure why I even considered doing something so stupid anyhow.

RE: Still 32

Revenant — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:38:38 GMT

[quote][b]djackson 22568 (1/28/2013)[/b][hr]... Windows 8 has ads embedded in the start page, why would I buy an OS that forces me to see their ads? . . .[/quote]Where did you buy it? Did it come on a new machine?I would bet those ads were put there by an OEM - certainly not by MSFT.

RE: Still 32

djackson 22568 — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:22:14 GMT

I work for a medium size health care organization that has to follow government mandates due to HIPAA, the president's health care plan, ICD10 and other changes. We also have to implement new software to continue to improve productivity for areas that need it, upgrade software for everything we already have, handle incoming calls on new issues that arise, and a bunch of other tasks. We do this in an environment that requires us to maintain old hardware and software due to limited resources - that is simply a fact in health care today due to the excessive government regulations. We still have SQL Server installs older than SQL 2000, we still have an NT domain, we still have servers running Windows NT. 95% of our desktop/laptop installs run Windows XP or older OS versions, thankfully I do not believe anything older than Windows 2000. We have PCs and servers that are more than 10 years old. Yes, we have 64bit hardware, yes we are using VMWare, but that is for new installations and products that have seen a recent major upgrade. A lot of systems simply can't be upgraded for various reasons. I doubt we will fully migrate to 64bit until 256 bit hardware is prevalent, which most likely will come after 128bit. My guess, sometime around 2035. Um, wait, isn't that the year we are going to see the "Y2K for Unix" issue? Sigh.

RE: Still 32

djackson 22568 — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:10:22 GMT

[quote][b]chrisn-585491 (1/28/2013)[/b][hr]We've had two plus decades of sales pressure and promotion from Redmond and others "encouraging" us to upgrade. After a while users realize that the newer versions of software aren't always necessary or anymore useful than the older ones and in some cases, (Vista, Windows 8, etc...), they can be confusing and costly to implement.[/quote]Windows 8, do you mean Vista 2? That is what I call it. I laughed at all the media articles saying Windows 8 was outselling Windows 7, and I really started laughing when Microsoft finally admitted it was selling WORSE THAN Vista!Windows 8 has ads embedded in the start page, why would I buy an OS that forces me to see their ads?It mimics the XBox screen - really, are we a business or do we encourage our employees to play games all day?PC sales are down right now, and I bet the ENTIRE reason is the incredibly poor decisions made by Microsoft to try to force everyone to use a tablet OS on a desktop. Businesses need productivity. Windows 8 WILL NOT make anyone more productive on a desktop, it will make them less productive. Before anyone thinks I am just against change, I embraced the ribbon bar in Office even though it took me a while to do so, and I still struggle to do some things. I recognize that there are advantages to the design in spite of my learning curve. I do not believe Windows 8 offers any value along those lines.

RE: Still 32

Andrew-H — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:59:58 GMT

Very true. That's what we do. Not sure if we even have any 32 bit hardware other than several desktop machines. All 32 bit servers we manage are VM's.

RE: Still 32

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:54:06 GMT

[quote][b]lptech (1/28/2013)[/b][hr]There are always people who will be penny wise and pound foolish. Servers need to be replaced, so why not take advantage of more powerful hardware? Not everybody wants to be bleeding edge, but certainly no need to wait more than 1-2 years. Also, people get paid with real money. So it's a waste of time and money to spend endless time working of performance issues that could be solved with hardware that costs less than the salary for all those involved. The business would be better served if said individuals were working on new systems. The vendor app issue is the one thing that can be really hard to get around. I remember a few times over the years when the business was perfectly happy with the older version that hadn't been certified newer versions of just about everything.[/quote]Note that hardware doesn't necessarily remove the need for 32 bit software.I agree that x86 hardware should go, if for no other reason than DR. You can't easily replace x86 hardware. But you might need 32 bit software, and you can run that in a VM if needed.

RE: Still 32

David.Poole — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:54:18 GMT

Don't forget that 64bit removes the limit on the size of the proc cache. Under 32bit SQL proc cache was limited to 2GB so it would never munch its way throught he buffer cache.Some businesses migrate on a cost vs benefit principle. I have software that works better than it needs to running on platform 'x', why would I pay for an upgrade for no tangible benefit?The fact that it runs on old hardware that might break or causes headaches for us in IT is seen as irrelevant.

RE: Still 32

Revenant — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:36:19 GMT

I am surprised that no one mentioned the 2 GB (or 3 GB under Win7) memory limit. In my experience, need for more memory is a pretty good reason to go to 64 bits.

RE: Still 32

lptech — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:10:48 GMT

There are always people who will be penny wise and pound foolish. Servers need to be replaced, so why not take advantage of more powerful hardware? Not everybody wants to be bleeding edge, but certainly no need to wait more than 1-2 years. Also, people get paid with real money. So it's a waste of time and money to spend endless time working of performance issues that could be solved with hardware that costs less than the salary for all those involved. The business would be better served if said individuals were working on new systems. The vendor app issue is the one thing that can be really hard to get around. I remember a few times over the years when the business was perfectly happy with the older version that hadn't been certified newer versions of just about everything.

RE: Still 32

Andrew-H — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:49:08 GMT

We run 64 bit for most new builds with one exception, some old finical reporting software that is tied to our ERP system requires 32 bit. This software is no longer being developed or upgraded by the vendor. We cannot switch to another tool without writing it ourselves and that will not happen because the ERP system will be upgraded to a different vendor soon. …by soon I mean they will start working on the upgrade soon. So, long story short, we still have at least 2 years on 32 bit for this dusty old software.

RE: Still 32

TravisDBA — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:26:05 GMT

We have one legacy 32-Bit SQL box. The rest are all 64-Bit installs. It's our standard install simply because 64-bit architecture blows right past the 3 GB barrier and can theoretically address up to 18 Exabytes (18 billion GB) of system memory, not that you would ever have that much memory. Plus, 64-bit computers are much faster and more efficient than 32-bit computers because the processor can swallow and digest larger chunks of data with each and every bite. So, they are the hands down choice over 32-bit systems. Anyway, that architecture is extremely dated and is dying a very fast death.:-D

RE: Still 32

Dave62 — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:21:18 GMT

Good editorial Steve!I vaguely remember a similar debate, many years ago, regarding 16 or 32 bit. I guess the more things change the more they stay the same. :laugh:There may be a few places where 16 bit is still running fine but for the most part it has been replaced. If history is any indicator the same will be true for 32 bit. As new hardware and software comes out 64 bit will slowly become the standard and there will be fewer and fewer places where 32 bit continues to run fine.It will be interesting to see what kind of breakthrough will be discovered to replace 64 bit...Enjoy!

RE: Still 32

majorbloodnock — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:54:12 GMT

[quote]I was listening to a presentation recently and the presenter talked about some of the restrictions in working with 32 bit SQL Server on 64 bit Windows hosts. Another person joked that any companies still running 32 bit software were way behind the times. I heard a comment that surely everyone runs 64 bit hardware these days, don't they?[/quote]I can picture the scene perfectly in my mind's eye. Throwaway comments from techies being arrogant or smug, or simply making unsafe assumptions. None of those are attributes to fill me with confidence in those techies' abilities.I agree that 64 bit is a good and perfectly safe choice, but there are always edge cases. Just because something's a good choice if you have a blank canvas isn't sufficient justification for all other setups to be updated. Technical excellence and fitness for business purpose are not always the same thing.

RE: Still 32

GilaMonster — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:22:56 GMT

I've been running 64 bit on my home machine for over 5 years now. Some software is installed 64 bit, most as 32 bit. Minimal problems, most were VPN clients that didn't have 64-bit drivers (hello virtual machine).I'd honestly recommend 64 bit OS without exception. SQL too, unless there's a really, really good reason not to.

RE: Still 32

chrisn-585491 — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:15:20 GMT

We've had two plus decades of sales pressure and promotion from Redmond and others "encouraging" us to upgrade. After a while users realize that the newer versions of software aren't always necessary or anymore useful than the older ones and in some cases, (Vista, Windows 8, etc...), they can be confusing and costly to implement.

RE: Still 32

Andy Leonard — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:51:37 GMT

Excellent points, Steve,Each time I'm reminded of the decision to [i]not[/i] build 64-bit Excel drivers I think, "Think of all the money they saved!" Meanwhile, I've seen data integration shops struggle with the overhead of learning to execute SSIS in 32-bit mode to accommodate that decision.:{\

Still 32

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:32:19 GMT

Comments posted to this topic are about the item [B]Still 32[/B]