Dell, Microsoft and Intel: the great 64-bit scam
I want you to think about this before you spend your money on that new PC for Christmas or sign off that purchase order for your company. Your new PC isn’t going to work as well as you think it should.
I don’t mean its going to breakdown. I mean it won’t work like they say. It’s all a giant con. And Dell, Microsoft and Intel know it.
I’ll admit that Dell aren’t the only tinware box-shifter in on this. But I don’t see any other hardware companies coming clean either. And Dell’s the most blatant and arrogant about it. What am I talking about?
How many bits are driving your PC – 32 or 64?
Well, here’s the thing. Intel is the processor of choice for Apple and the majority of PC manufacturers. So the odds are your new workstation will be powered by Intel’s latest and greatest piece of silicon wizardry. But guess what.
That new chip’s not much better than the last one you had. No matter how much you spend, that Microsoft software is for a 32-bit architecture. The 64-bit version’s no faster. You’re being sold a false dream. Its all a lie.
I know. I don’t mind admitting. I fell for it. Hook, line and sinker. Let me tell you a story.
My old Dell Workstation had a 32-bit Intel Pentium-2 processor. It was showing signs of age and the graphics chip was playing up. So, I thought, I’ll go for a nice new Dell, more memory space, faster SATA hard drive and oh yes. A 64-bit Dual Core Intel Processor.
Oh, but to run a 64-bit operating system, I’ll need more memory. 1Gb won’t do. 2Gb is not much better. I’ll go for 4Gb. This was back in March. As regular readers know, I hate Vista. And my workstation came with Vista Home Premium. Dell forced me to have it.
Dell wouldn’t give me Ubuntu, or even Windows XP. It had to be Vista. But no matter, I get an upgrade to windows 7 for free when it comes out…
So far so good. I had a Vista partition, but installed Ubuntu as a 64-bit version on another drive in the workstation. The Vista I kept to synchronise my Blackberry. Sad, but true, Blackberrys won’t sync on Ubuntu, or any other version of Linux!
Dell – 64-bit workstations, 32-bit operating systems
Now the pain started. My Vista was 32-bit. I couldn’t work out why. Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Microsoft XP, Vista and Windows 7 cost the same. In fact, buy Windows 7 retail and you’ll get the 32-bit and 64-bit in the same box. So, I made sure I asked for the 64-bit version when I placed my order for my free Windows 7 upgrade.
A couple of weeks ago, my Windows 7 arrived. Yes, you’ve guessed. The 32-bit version. Dell, apparently “don’t support the 64-bit version.” Dell won’t certify the 64-bit drivers. You have to have the 32-bit, like it or not. But why, I pleaded?
Dell’s support is in India. Reading from a script like every other off-shore facility, they couldn’t help. After throwing my toys out of the pram, ranting and raving I eventually reached a more senior customer relations guy, Kaya Diaz, in Ireland. This is what he said.
“I understand that you have been presented with a highly stressful and frustrating pressure that you feel we have exacerbated. It is of course, never our intention to do so. I can understand the frustration that you may have felt due to this issue and by the service. Had I been in your shoes, I would most certainly, have felt similarly.”
So, no 64-bit Windows 7. But I did have Dell’ s sympathy. Well, I’m nothing if not persistent. I started to dig. And this is what I found out. You aren’t going to like this.
Microsoft – 32-bit operating systems for 64-bit platforms
No 64-bit version of Microsoft software will run any faster than its 32-bit counterpart. It can’t use the full system bus. The only thing the 64-bit version may be able to do – but this is not guaranteed in any way – is it may be able to run more applications at the same time. But only if you lay out cash on the extra memory that the 64-bit version supports.
In fact, running 32-bit software like Microsoft Office on a 64-bit operating system will actually run slower than on a 32-bit system because of the emulation it must use!
Here’s the con. The great scam. What No one tells you. You think your 64-bit PC will be quicker because its twice as big as a 32-bit processor. It’s your PC’s brain, isn’t it?
Intel – 64-bit processors that can’t run Microsoft software any quicker
But Microsoft doesn’t make software that runs any quicker, Dell say you must have a dual core, because its quicker and Intel sells you a processor they say is better. So unless you’re looking to run a dozen applications at the same time – but not Microsoft applications, Its all a lie. Everything.
I wrote about another Intel scam in a previous post. You may like to see this as well!
Welcome to the greatest con-trick of the millennium. Do I hear anyone saying “antitrust”?
Final note: I downloaded the 64-bit version of Ubuntu, which, ironically, actually came from Dell’s own unsupported Linux blog. It works fine – so you know what you should do…
on December 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 pm
I recently upgraded my Intel-based Mac to the latest generation Quad-Core based version and found quite a substantial speed improvement. I’m not sure its right to say that Intel 64-bit processors won’t provide a benefit. For me, my Quad-Core Nehalem processor was certainly worth spending on. 4Gb of memory and all!
on December 2nd, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Thanks for this, Dave – and I agree, with your Unix derived, Apple operating system you’ll certainly see the benefits that Microsoft users won’t.
The point of my post was to show that Microsoft know that their 64-bit version is no better and that Dell know this too, yet neither make any attempt to tell people this, or recommend Linux to get the benefit.
My objection to Intel’s stance is that they have a vested interest in simply selling processors; they don’t care if the users get the benefit or not. I totally agree with you, an Intel processor in a Mac will run very well, just as it will in a PC if the user chooses Ubuntu or any other flavour of Linux.
I just wish they would have the conscience to say that on their website!
on December 3rd, 2009 at 8:50 am
Are you saying that only Unix or Linux operating systems can use Intel 64-bit chips, because that seems to go against Microsoft’s Server products, which were the first to be offered as 64-bit systems?
DC
on December 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 am
Danny, what I’m saying with regards to Microsoft operating systems powering 64-bit operating systems is that you won’t see a speed improvement. I’m also making the point that unless the applications chosen to run on them are compatible with such systems, the 32-bit emulators will see them running more slowly than on a similarly specified 32-bit system.
In the case of servers, we have a somewhat different situation. Servers are required to massively multi-task, serving applications or processing power to many users, far more than would be expected of as workstation. That requires the allocation of a great deal of memory resources. That’s where 64-bit systems, with their far greater address space, will score over 32-bit systems, whether running a Microsoft or Unix OS.
Its all down to bus width. Of course, few server operating systems can properly use the full pipelining capabilities of Intel’s chips, which is something I alluded to in my previous post about Intel processors.
As Unix systems have had the benefit of wider bus systems for many years, such as Sun’s SPARC, HP’s HA and IBM’s bespoke systems, they are inherently more aligned with such architectures.
And that’s why Unix and Linux scale so much better than any Microsoft OS.
But its not true to say that Microsoft were the first to offer 64-bit operating systems. That honour went to Unix many years before Microsoft even considered the move and is a matter of public record!