Teo en Ming, the ChromiumOS64 project lead, says of the download:

"The original Chromium OS project does not support 64-bit platforms. This is because the majority of the netbooks in the market are based on Intel Atom processors, which are mostly 32-bit."

With Chrome OS launching properly at the tail-end of 2010, we've got a full year to wait before we see anything more solid become available. And even then, it'll only be available on Google-branded devices, with Acer hoping to launch the first official netbook running it.

Let us know how you get on with the 64-bit Chromium browser below. [ChromiumOS64 via TechRadar]

That's the scoop gleaned off the LinkIn Profile for Robert Morgan, Senior Research & Development at Microsoft, anyway:

Working in high security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and longterm projects. Research & Development projects including 128bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP, and IBM.

Robert Morgan is working to get IA-128 working backwards with full binary compatibility on the existing IA-64 instructions in the hardware simulation to work for Windows 8 and definitely Windows 9.

Ars has a ton more super-nerdy tidbits about what's possible in Windows 8 that's worth checking out, if you're a supernerd, anyway. [Ars]

As it stands right now, with the current build (10a432, which may be the final release), the answer ranges somewhere between "sort of" and "no." Essentially, desktop and laptop Macs will by default boot into 32-bit. However, you can force 64-bit booting by holding the 6 and 4 keys while starting up, and even if you don't, those machines will still be able to run 64-bit programs without trouble. So the restriction from automatic 64-bit booting is an intentional move from Apple.

Update: We've gotten some explanation from Apple on the issue at hand. The deal is, Mac desktops and laptops will indeed boot with a 32-bit kernel, while only the Xserve will be 64-bit. But this won't matter to the consumer. Our Apple contact explained:

The 32-bit kernel fully supports 64-bit applications, all system libraries that 64-bit applications use are fully 64-bit, and 64-bit applications have a full 64-bit virtual address space of 16 exabytes available to them on Mac OS X. The primary benefit of a 64-bit kernel is to improve the efficiency of accessing over 32GB of RAM.

As a whole, machines with lots of RAM (over 4GB) are more efficient with a 64-bit kernel, but even though consumer Macs will have a 32-bit kernel, all Intel-based Macs will run 64-bit programs automatically, which gives you the most obvious benefits. So really the only benefit to having a 64-bit kernel is if you've got 32GB of memory, a frankly monstrous amount of RAM, and hell, the hardware won't even allow that much. All 64-bit applications will run on the Macs with either Intel Xeon or Intel Core 2 Duo processors, so this 32-bit brouhaha is pretty much a misunderstanding. [Ars Technica and OS News and MacWorld]

Who Should Go 64-bit?

Basically, anyone geeky enough to read this. If you have an Intel Core 2 Duo or newer processor, you've got a 64-bit CPU, and you should install the 64-bit version of Windows 7 to play with. (Here's how. You've got like 5 days left, BTW.) Microsoft itself is pimping 64-bit over 32-bit now and notebook makers have already started pushing 64-bit Windows Vista over 32-bit. Mac OS 10.6 Snow Leopard will be 64-bit down to its kernel, so you won't be alone by any means. 64-bit is going mainstream.

Why Should I?
We explained what's so awesome about 64-bit in detail a couple months ago, but to recap in a single word: Memory. With 32-bit Windows, you're stuck at 4GB of RAM, and even then, you're only using about 3.3GB of it, give or take. With 64-bit, 4GB of RAM is the new minimum standard, and with 4GB, you can run tons of applications with zero slowdown. Windows 7 (and Vista for that matter) runs so beautifully with 4GB of RAM you'll wonder how you ever did with less. It makes your system more futureproof too, so you can take your system to 8GB, 32GB or even a terabyte, before too long.

Who Shouldn't Go 64-Bit?
If you're not planning on going to 4GB of RAM anytime soon, you might wanna hold back, since you need 4GB of RAM to take full advantage of 64-bit's memory management. That said, RAM is so disgustingly cheap right now, and has such an intense bang-to-buck ratio, you should definitely upgrade to 4GB if you haven't already. Anyone who runs specialized or older gear (see below) should probably not jump into 64-bit.

64-bit Sniggles
It's true that 64-bit Windows used to be dicey on the driver and compatibility front, but from Vista onward, it's typically nothing you have to worry about. Most new hardware has 64-bit drivers, and even though most applications aren't 64-bit native yet, 32-bit ones usually run just fine.

Still, the biggest issue is hardware. If a gadget doesn't have 64-bit drivers, it won't work with your 64-bit OS, since 32-bit drivers aren't supported. Most non-crusty gadgets should be okay. (Seriously, I've run 64-bit Vista for a year, and now Windows 7, and everything I've tested for Giz plugs in just fine.) But if you run legacy goods, it might be kinda sticky, and you should still double check your gear just to be safe.

There are a few software issues to look out for, too. Google's Chrome, for instance, doesn't play nice with Windows 7 64-bit for some people (like me). Adobe Flash doesn't run in 64-bit browsers, but that's not really a problem—you can just run the regular 32-bit browser instead. iTunes had problems with 64-bit versions of Windows in the past, too (granted, Apple's not the most fastidious Windows app developer out there). Most of these issues have been or will be resolved, but if you use specialized mission-critical software, definitely read up on its 64-bit compatibility.

Really, Go 64-Bit
The caveat section looks longer than the "DO IT" section, but really, you'll probably be just fine running 64-bit. A ton of other people will be 64-bit with this generation of OSes/hardware too, so you won't be alone. The benefits of oodles of RAM, given all the crap you're running simultaneously, are just too good to pass up, especially once more apps are 64-bit native. Besides, the more people that jump on the 64-bit Express, the faster developers will transition their apps to 64-bit, and any bumps in the road will be smoothed out. So don't just do it for yourself, do it for everyone.

Since the Windows 7 beta is free (for a time), it's also a great time to play around with Windows on your Mac via Bootcamp if you haven't done so yet (like me)—since you don't have to drop money or pirate points on a legit Vista or XP license.

SimpleHelp's guide is exhaustive, save for one little tidbit: running the 64-bit version may take a little tweaking, depending on your machine. If your machine officially supports the Boot Camp 2.1 64-bit update (any recent "Pro" model), grab that for you driver install under Windows. Recent Macbooks may also require a new video and audio driver—find them according to these instructions.

If you have a Macbook Regular or any other machine with 64-bit hardware but no official seal of approval from Apple, this thread on Mac Rumors can help you. You can also just run the 32-bit version.

The whole thing looks pretty painless, and I'm going to start it up tonight after my Time Machine backup finishes. [SimpleHelp via Lifehacker]

The phrase "64-bit" has been tossed around lately, the most it's been since the Nintendo 64. If you haven't heard it, pay attention. One of the most important steps forward in computer power is happening right under your nose, but most people don't know thanks to the sneaky efforts of Microsoft and Apple. Though fully 64-bit operating systems are the OSes of tomorrow, you can taste some of that power today with 64-bit versions of Windows and OS X. Here's why 64-bit computing is so awesome:

In a word, memory. We're not going to get super nerdy on you here (Wikipedia will gladly go there). To keep it simple, the whole bit thing (16-bit, 32-bit, 64-bit) refers to how much data the computer can keep track of, or talk to, at once, and that's what determines how much memory it can handle. A processor with 32-bit memory addresses can basically roll with 4GB of RAM. A 64-bit system can rock, on the other hand, 16 exabytes of RAM. That's 16.8 bmillion terabytes. Of RAM. You're not going to get that kind of memory, not anytime soon; for now, from a user standpoint, this means there's simply no ceiling to memory expansion.

So while 32-bit hardware and software—the current norm in PC-land—limited you to 4GB of RAM (Physical Address Extension will let you have more, but 32-bit software will still only use 4GB), with 64-bit hardware and software, you can use vast amounts of RAM, which enables a whole new world of possibilities for applications, since they'll have a massive amounts of memory to work with.

The road to 64-bit rather conveniently dovetails with the multi-core processor arms race, using graphics cards for processing and growth of parallel processing in mainstream computing. In other words, in just a short generation, applications will be able to harness an exponential increase in power over what they can use today—a crapload of processors working together with a smorgasbord of memory at their disposal. With 64-bit, computers can also crunch bigass numbers way faster, so it's excellent for science-y things. So get ready for some cool stuff.

You're probably asking: Why not now? I've heard of this 64-bit stuff before. Well, the hardware has been around for a while—64-bit super computers go back decades, and AMD brought 64-bit processors to the mainstream a few years ago with the Athlon 64, for instance. The PowerPC G5 for Macs was also 64-bit. And if you buy a Core 2 Duo today, it's 64-bit. But the operating systems regular people use have essentially been slow to adopt 64-bit until recently, and won't plunge excluslively into 64-bit for another generation, Windows guru Ed Bott explained to us. Windows Vista ships with separate 32-bit and 64-bit editions, with Vista 64-bit being the first consumer-usable 64-bit version of Windows. Apple has been moving more and more of OS X over to a 64-bit architecture with every new version. Bott told us that while Windows 7 will have 32-bit and 64-bit versions, its eventual successor, Windows 8 (or whatever it's called) will likely be the first Windows that's exclusively 64-bit. Reportedly, next year's Mac OS X Snow Leopard will be 64-bit down to the kernel.

The reason 64-bit is the future and not the present is that 64-bit is a whole different architecture from the 32-bit status quo—different kernel means different drivers, application compatibility issues, that kind of stuff. A swift, clean break means lots of headaches, especially for the corporate world, which, as Bott told us, is as big of a concern for Microsoft as the consumer space. That's why Apple has been transitioning OS X to total 64-bit over time, and why Microsoft will still ship a 32-bit version of Windows 7. And likely, Bott says, an exclusively 64-bit Windows 8 would have a virtualization setup to run 32-bit apps. "Fortuitously," he told us, "an x64 system with lots of memory should scream at virtualization."

Another hitch on the path to true 64-bit glory that Bott raised is the question of "When will people outside of the specialized work software" like Adobe (Photoshop CS4 will be a native 64-bit application in Windows, though not in OS X) write 64-bit apps? With the coming wave of many-core parallel processing and ridiculous amounts of memory to take advantage of, programmers have a lot to play (and deal) with. Applications have to be re-written to take advantage of the multiple cores and huge amounts of memory at their disposable, and that transition is going to take some time. The other slight downside 64-bit Bott mentioned—and it is slight—is that hibernation will be slower, since all that memory means more to write to the hibernation file, and more to read when it wakes up.

While that awesomeness sounds like it's too be good to be the norm anytime soon, it's not. Leopard already does quite a bit of 64-bit voodoo, like having a 64-bit GUI and Vista 64-bit is supplanting 32-bit on computer maker's systems, now that the driver situation isn't so abysmal. And while four totally usable gigs of RAM in a Vista machine is a thing of beauty, 6GB and 12GB will quickly become the standard for performance machines with the launch of Intel's Core i7, since it uses triple-channel memory—three delicious sticks of RAM—so 64-bit couldn't come soon enough.

It's actually a significant process, since as Craig Mundie, Microsoft’s Chief Research and Strategy Officer, admits, “Win32 was never designed for highly concurrent, asynchronous processing" and "parallelism requires adjustments at every level of the stack." The first steps toward the larger project of re-arranging tasks and runtimes in different layers to take advantage of multiple-core will happen in Windows 7 though, such as an updated scheduler. There will be other adjustments along these lines as well, though we probably won't know everything until October.

So while it's unlikely that Windows 7 be as deeply in tune with parallel processing as Snow Leopard looks to be, it'll definitely be able to use a SWAT team of cores better than your Vista box will, and set the stage for Windows 8 to have a solid parallel processing foundation. [ZD Net]

Long story short (cutting out the technical details because we've forgotten everything we learned in our computer science lectures), if you're running a 32-bit operating system, you will only be able to address 32-bits of memory at a time. Multiply that out and you get 4GB, but when you take into consideration the memory reserved for video RAM and bios space, you won't be able to hit all 4GB.

Point being? Get 3GB and you should do fine. Either that, or get a 64-bit operating system. – Jason Chen

Dude, Where's My 4 Gigabytes of RAM? [Coding Horror via Digg]

Intel Yonah hidden features exposed [Hexus.net via Technology Sweden]