64bit editions of Malwarebytes

[kins]

I just signed up for the forum a few minutes ago. I've been using Malwarebytes for awhile now. I am wondering if there is an actual separate version for 64 bit editions of Windows?. I use XP64 bit right now and the free version seems to work perfectly fine. I'm guessing by the time Windows 7 comes out 32 bit versions of Windows will be a thing of the past. They already sell new systems for 64 bit versions of Vista and have been for sometime now. In my opinion the software makers should all be writing their software to be compatible with 64bit operating systems and the ones that don't are SERIOUSLY BEHIND THE TIMES. Your anti malware product is great, keep up the good work!.

[TeMerc]

Interesting comments but a little off the mark in what one can expect to happen in the near future for the home computer user in my opinion. I sure would not recommend anyone buy 64 bit computer for anything unless there was a special need.

In so far as 'being behind the times', we're not any worse off or better than many other vendors in any field as it relates to 64bit software. There are far fewer who have 64bit compatibility than don't.

And with hundreds of millions of 32 bit machines world wide, what would make you think they would 'be a thing of the past'? You want to bet the ratio of 64bit to 32 bit machines is astronomically disproportionate?

64bit machines while nice are far from the 'standard' in computing and not likely to become so any time soon.

[DaChew]

Almost all cpu's in the last 3 years have been 64 bit capable, someone at MS even conjectured Windows 7 would be only 64 bit, it's all about drivers, the scanner engine can operate in 32 bit mode for a 64 bit OS, the protection module needs a 64 bit driver. At least malware has the same problem. 64 bit sounds great, I am still waiting to see the need for it.

Sure 8 gigs of ram sounds great, 5 usually goes to waste

[GT500]

Sure 8 gigs of ram sounds great, 5 usually goes to waste

That depends of what you are doing. I have 4GB of RAM, and there are plenty of times I'm glad I have it, and some times I wish I had more. Granted not everyone plays Halo 2 Vista while running the dedicated server in a virtual machine that's eating up 1GB of RAM...

Anyway, I've been using 64-bit editions of Windows since Windows XP x64 hit the market. Once Vista Ultimate x64 was available, I grabbed that as well. I haven't run a 32-bit operating system on my desktop in 3 years. I haven't needed one.

As far as the protection module for Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware being 64-bit, don't expect it any time soon. There is a critical technology that our protection module cannot work without that Microsoft has built countermeasures against into the 64-bit editions of Windows.

[AdvancedSetup]

Well not sure why the shift since 64 Bit Windows has been around a long time now, but places like Best Buy are now selling large numbers of 64 Bit Vista instead of the 32 Bit.

[GT500]

Well not sure why the shift since 64 Bit Windows has been around a long time now, but places like Best Buy are now selling large numbers of 64 Bit Vista instead of the 32 Bit.

Software compatibility issues have been minimized for long enough that PC manufacturers have started installing 64-bit editions of Windows by default on certain machines.

[exile360]

Yup, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that ram is so cheap now, not to mention Intel's new chips which run with 3 channel memory (3 sets of slots) instead of dual channel. It's quite common now to see systems shipping with 4-6 gigs of ram with a low price tag and 8 gigs and up is becoming more common as well. The only use I see for it right now is SuperFetch and gaming (some of the newer games will eat up 2gigs of ram by themselves). Unless of course you're into video editing or high-res photo editing.

[GT500]

... The only use I see for it right now is SuperFetch and ...

I always kill the SuperFetch. Worst waste of RAM I need that I have ever seen, and in my tests I saw zero performance gain launching applications while SuperFetch was on. So far Windows 7 has fixed that issue (as in not wasting every Megabyte of my RAM without asking), but who knows what the finished product will do.

[exile360]

Really? I noticed substantial improvements with it on, and if I run an app not prefetched, it reallocates the ram to the task I am using so it doesn't cause problems. I can test it because once I close the app that wasn't "superfetched" my ram usage drops substantially lower than it was before I started the new program. Of course, the additional security of Vista x64 is a big reason I use it as well.

[kins]

Interesting comments but a little off the mark in what one can expect to happen in the near future for the home computer user in my opinion. I sure would not recommend anyone buy 64 bit computer for anything unless there was a special need.

In so far as 'being behind the times', we're not any worse off or better than many other vendors in any field as it relates to 64bit software. There are far fewer who have 64bit compatibility than don't.

And with hundreds of millions of 32 bit machines world wide, what would make you think they would 'be a thing of the past'? You want to bet the ratio of 64bit to 32 bit machines is astronomically disproportionate?

64bit machines while nice are far from the 'standard' in computing and not likely to become so any time soon.

Any machine built within the last 5 years has 64 bit compatible hardware.

At the Microsoft PDC they urged software developers to code for 64bit. There are a TON of programs compatible for 64 bit Operating Systems these days. 64 bit computing has been around for a lot longer than you think. Check out the date on this article,

http://news.cnet.com/Gates-calls-for-64-bi..._3-5205806.html

Most of the Antivirus security programs have 64 bit compatibility,

Trend Micro

Norton Intrnet Security 2009

Eset has had 64 bit versions of its software for years

BitDefender

Ad-Aware 2008

Of course that is just a small listing.

Like others have posted most systems today come with 4GB or more ram. Without a 64bit O.S. you will only be able to use 3-3.5GB of that ram depending on your systems hardware. The final release of Windows 7 may not even have a 32 bit version....

[GT500]

Really? I noticed substantial improvements with it on, and if I run an app not prefetched,

I did not. I have a video somewhere showing that it does not help with Opera, Word, Excel, etc.

it reallocates the ram to the task I am using so it doesn't cause problems.

It does not work that well when gaming and you don't have much RAM. When running Vista on 1GB of RAM you have to disable the SuperFetch in order to play the games, or it will kill them.

[exile360]

Ah, I see. Well I hadn't tested it with a 1gb system, and for Vista (32 or 64) I always recommend at least 2gb anyway, especially if running games or doing any semi-heavy to heavy multitasking. 3gb is best for 32bit and with 64bit, the sky's the limit. I unfortunately have an old motherboard that only supports 4gb of addressable space and doesn't allow me to change the IRQ addressing, so I'm stuck using 4gb as 3gb because of the bandwidth used for my video card and other hardware on the board. But even with only 3gb and an old Pentium D 830 my system runs Vista great and plays games, multitasks and runs all my security software in the background no problem.

[TeMerc]

Any machine built within the last 5 years has 64 bit compatible hardware.

I should have specified software. That's the real problem.

At the Microsoft PDC they urged software developers to code for 64bit. There are a TON of programs compatible for 64 bit Operating Systems these days. 64 bit computing has been around for a lot longer than you think. Check out the date on this article,

http://news.cnet.com/Gates-calls-for-64-bi..._3-5205806.html

That does not impress me what so ever. If there was as many as some of you claim, it would be far more widely accepted, the truth of the matter is, it's just not for the average Joe Net user. Power users and gamers are pretty much the only people who need\want 64bit.

Most of the Antivirus security programs have 64 bit compatibility,

Trend Micro

Norton Intrnet Security 2009

Eset has had 64 bit versions of its software for years

BitDefender

Ad-Aware 2008

Of course that is just a small listing.

That's almost the entire list. You can add Avira, Panda, KAV. but then remove Symantec and McAfee as both of those are enterprise versions. And Ad-Aware don't count, cause they're not even using their own software, just rebranded. Not to mention they're not really an av company either.

[GT500]

That's almost the entire list. You can add Avira, Panda, KAV. but then remove Symantec and McAfee as both of those are enterprise versions. And Ad-Aware don't count, cause they're not even using their own software, just rebranded. Not to mention they're not really an av company either.

Don't forget Comodo. All of their stuff is 64-bit compatible.

Oh, and Alwil Software (avast! Anti-Virus). They've been 64-bit for years, and the way their 64-bit and 32-bit components interact has always been my biggest argument for 32-bit plugin support in 64-bit browsers, although no one ever listened to me.

The truth is, 64-bit has been here for years. Computers are coming from the store with 64-bit editions of Windows on them, and application incompatibility is at an all time low. While 64-bit is not taking the market by storm, there are not a large number of users running 64-bit editions of Windows, and most malware doesn't even run correctly on 64-bit editions of Windows, we have to keep i mind that 64-bit is here and it's just going to continue gaining ground (especially since PC manufacturers are lying to consumers and telling them that you have to have a 64-bit edition of Windows to handle 4GB of RAM, which is no longer true thanks to the latest Service Packs for Windows XP and Vista).

As far as a 64-bit edition of Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware though, the developers need to find a way around the dreaded PatchGuard. That thing is making it impossible to make a true real-time anti-malware protection.

[exile360]

...(especially since PC manufacturers are lying to consumers and telling them that you have to have a 64-bit edition of Windows to handle 4GB of RAM, which is no longer true thanks to the latest Service Packs for Windows XP and Vista).

Actually, that's not the case, all they changed is the fact that you can see it when you show the computer's properties, it still can only actually address 3.25 gb of ram.

note: McAfee Virusscan (personal) does work with x64: http://us.mcafee.com/root/package.asp?pkgid=276

and so does Norton: http://community.norton.com/norton/board/m...thread.id=20128 (note the 3rd post in the thread from the mod).

[DaChew]

I probably ought to retire my old xp amd64 single core w/ 2 x 256 meg sticks and 35 gig raptor, except it boots to a usuable desktop in 30 seconds, opens word in office 2003 in 3 seconds, shuts down in 10 seconds or less

With yourall's virtual servers, infinite layers of protection, gaming and other multitasking, the first law of thermodynamics would dictate that I put a cooling tower on my quad core with 8 gigs of ram

[exile360]

Ha ha, nice Chewy, nice

[GT500]

Actually, that's not the case, all they changed is the fact that you can see it when you show the computer's properties, it still can only actually address 3.25 gb of ram.

Physical Memory Limit in Windows XP

4-Gigabyte Tuning

IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE

Physical Address Extension

Physical Address Extension - PAE Memory and Windows

In Windows XP Service Pack 3, the full 4GB is available for use, but with certain restrictions. I think applications can use 2GB, and the system can use 2GB, so it's not what one would expect, but the full 4GB is usable if you can get the system to eat up 2GB of RAM.

[exile360]

Ah, I guess that's what I was thinking of (the 2gb limit per app). Still, at least for Vista, I do recall people saying that even when they installed SP1 and system info showed 4gb (or more) it still only used 3.25gb. Much like my system now (as I said before about my motherboard limiting it) Vista shows 4gb in system properties, but taskmanager etc show only 3072mb, and I believe this is the same for those using 32bit, at least that's what I recall reading.

[GT500]

Ah, I guess that's what I was thinking of (the 2gb limit per app). Still, at least for Vista, I do recall people saying that even when they installed SP1 and system info showed 4gb (or more) it still only used 3.25gb. Much like my system now (as I said before about my motherboard limiting it) Vista shows 4gb in system properties, but taskmanager etc show only 3072mb, and I believe this is the same for those using 32bit, at least that's what I recall reading.

Many modern motherboards will eat up 256MB of RAM for each PCI-E slot that you install a card in, and then some smaller amount for each PCI slot you install a card in. It's retarded that they can't include the memory on the board instead of eating up your RAM, but you can always expect manufacturers to cheap-out in order to get the most profit out of their product.

[exile360]

Agreed, that's why for my next build (which I can't yet afford) will be a system with at least 16gb of address space (probably one of the newer intel chipsets) and I'll load it up with some stoopid amount of ram like 8gb and use my 1gb video card.

[GT500]

Agreed, that's why for my next build (which I can't yet afford) will be a system with at least 16gb of address space (probably one of the newer intel chipsets) and I'll load it up with some stoopid amount of ram like 8gb and use my 1gb video card.

I was going to shoot for the more modest, yet faster, 6GB of triple-channel. And one of those new GTX295 cards. When I get the money, that is.

[exile360]

I was thinking about going with an i7, but man that ddr3 is expensive, so I was thinking older tech=cheaper price (not that I can afford any of it right now). I do have a Sapphire HD4870 1gb right now though, which is nice.

edit: You think we took this a bit off topic?

[GT500]

edit: You think we took this a bit off topic?

I think we have taken "off topic" to a whole new level of reality.

[kins]

Physical Memory Limit in Windows XP

4-Gigabyte Tuning

IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE

Physical Address Extension

Physical Address Extension - PAE Memory and Windows

In Windows XP Service Pack 3, the full 4GB is available for use, but with certain restrictions. I think applications can use 2GB, and the system can use 2GB, so it's not what one would expect, but the full 4GB is usable if you can get the system to eat up 2GB of RAM.

You seem somewhat confused on the issue. The full 4GB IS NOT USABLE!. Only 3.0-3.5GB is. Take a look around the forum I am going to link,

http://forum.scottmueller.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=847

You might just learn something.....