12 replies to this topic

[mlauzon]

Are there any plans to possibly make a 64-bit version down the road...?

[exile360]

Greetings Michael, and welcome !

The developers are indeed working on 64bit compatibility for Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, and from what I've heard there isn't an exact ETA yet, however they did say it shouldn't be too long. That's good news for you and me as I'm also a Vista 64 user .

[thekid1]

I have it installed on my 64bit Vista Ultimate and it scans fine, but I dont know if it is scanning the correct files. Someone told me that it will work in the X86 folder but you just cant enable realtime protection, is this true?

[mlauzon]

It does put it in the x86 folder, the reason I posted my question was just to see if they were going to make a 64-bit version.

[exile360]

Yes, no realtime protection in x64 yet, but it's coming . As far as the x86 folder goes, the entire app doesn't need to be 64 bit, mainly just the drivers and the protection module itself so it can access 64 bit processes. For example, Kaspersky AV (which I use) is completely 64 bit compatible but installs to the x86 folder because most of it's components are 32 bit, but the ones that count are 64 bit .

[mlauzon]

Yes, but see that is the problem. Companies don't want to start making 64-bit native applications, they just want to make 32-bit applications with 64-bit emulation. If Microsoft pushed Vista or Windows 7 as 64-bit only it would force companies into making the 64-bit switch; problem is Microsoft is not going to do that -- and possibly not until Windows 8 or when 128-bit CPUs come out....

[AdvancedSetup]

Well you might get your wish. Not sure why but on the MS Technet site you can currently only download the 64 Bit version of Server 2008 R2 - they don't even offer an x86 version right now.

[exile360]

True, and from what I've heard, with the new version of Server they offer the option to not even install the 32 bit emulator, meaning it will be a totally 64 bit environment if configured this way by the user/company. As far as being native 64, it's largely unnecessary as most apps don't even use the amounts of memory that necessitate 64 bit computing (and if MBAM ever did, I'm sure their user base would shrink dramatically). Also, if a native version were developed, that would mean twice the work for the devs since they would have to support 2 versions of the product, that means twice as many (or more) issues to deal with in the support system and side by side development so that when a change or enhancement to the product is made it requires twice the testing and has twice the potential for problems and conflicts. The way Kaspersky does it is with a native 64 process and a native 32 bit process and 64 bit digitally signed kernel level drivers and hooks. It works and is light on resources so I'm not complaining.

[mlauzon]

AdvancedSetup, on Apr 4 2009, 06:37 PM, said:

Well you might get your wish. Not sure why but on the MS Technet site you can currently only download the 64 Bit version of Server 2008 R2 - they don't even offer an x86 version right now.

I have no use for Server software, and if I did; it would be Linux all the way!

[AdvancedSetup]

No concern for me which OS you like. Was just saying that even though 64 Bit has been around now on the Microsoft side for a decade it still has not fully caught on. For that matter neither has it for Linux.

[TerryS]

AdvancedSetup, on Apr 5 2009, 02:07 AM, said:

...even though 64 Bit has been around now...it still has not fully caught on....neither has it for Linux.

Slackware 12.2 has 64-Bit support.
http://www.slackware.org
Anything with a new kernel "should" support it, technically speaking, but drivers included/loaded would often be distro-dependent.

[AdvancedSetup]

Linux/Unix have both supported a 64 Bit kernel for even longer than Windows which has to be at least the past decade. But by caught on, I mean that installers, software, drivers, etc are not fully available for every device for 64 Bit on either Linux or Windows.

Just because an OS can run 64 bit does not mean it's fully functional and usable with all 64 Bit drivers and software. It's still hit and miss for both operating systems.

[TerryS]

AdvancedSetup, on Apr 7 2009, 04:24 AM, said:

Linux/Unix have both supported a 64 Bit kernel for even longer than Windows which has to be at least the past decade. But by caught on, I mean that installers, software, drivers, etc are not fully available for every device for 64 Bit on either Linux or Windows.

Just because an OS can run 64 bit does not mean it's fully functional and usable with all 64 Bit drivers and software. It's still hit and miss for both operating systems.

Yes, indeed. It's not a good idea to install an OS which is not OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer, coming pre-installed on your computer, ) unless you have researched your hardware thoroughly online and know if you need to compile and/or install your own drivers...and in case of Linux are comfortable doing such stuff. Or just try different Linux distros until you find one that works. Often a distro might even have the right drivers available for install, but when the OS loads off the DVD it isn't loading the needed drivers. Install routines often have different success with hardware detection, too, and hardware detection was never totally reliable anyway. (Ever have to restart your computer 10 times to get it to detect new hardware?)

With Windows XP and Ubuntu (Linux), you have to download a separate 64-bit version, though. With Slackware (Linux) 12.2, and probably 12.x or even earlier, you don't. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.