sounds amateurish!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I have been a avid reader of all questions and replies posted in this forum.
They are really good. Now a more basic question. What machine specs support
32 bit and what support 64 bit? Which is best, 32 bit version or 64 bit
version ? Why ?
 
ceebezee said:
I have been a avid reader of all questions and replies posted in this forum.
They are really good. Now a more basic question. What machine specs support
32 bit and what support 64 bit? Which is best, 32 bit version or 64 bit
version ? Why ?
Click to expand...


Put it this way... a 64 bit CPU can support either a 32bit or a 64bit
operating system...
but a 32bit CPU can only support a 32bit OS.

64bit is better ...but depending on what you are using your machine for...
you may not need it
 
The processor drives that. If you have a 32 bit processor you can only run
x86 and obviously you cannot run x64. If you have a 64bit processor then
you can run either x86 or x64.

"Best" depends on you. Without knowing what software and hardware you
already have I would't venture a guess. If you are relatively uniformed on
the issues of 32bit and 64bit drivers and why some programs don't work on
x64 then I suggest you stick with 32bits even if you have a 64bit processor.
You probably wouldn't benefit enough to offset the hassle.
 
Vista x86 or 32-bit requires 32-bit capable processor and can address 2 to the 32nd power memory
address space (approx 4GB but more like 3.25 or so actually usable).

Vista x64 or 64-bit requires 64-bit capable processor and can address 2 to the 64th power memory
address space. (HUGE --gave up after tera)

There are much, much more programs and hardware with 32-bit support.

The cost difference is not that much and most 64-bit processors also have a dual core (2 processors
on one die).
The two processors are not interchangeable -- you have to have the appropriate motherboard.

64-bit system can run 32-bit software.


|I have been a avid reader of all questions and replies posted in this forum.
| They are really good. Now a more basic question. What machine specs support
| 32 bit and what support 64 bit? Which is best, 32 bit version or 64 bit
| version ? Why ?
 
Hi,

The driver issues are for hardware designed for 32-bit (x86) systems, which
has been the standard for the past 10 years. A system designed for x64
usually doesn't have driver issues. The problem is all the add-on hardware,
much of it was put out there for 32-bit systems, and the manufacturers of
said devices aren't putting out 64-bit signed drivers.

The second problem is legacy software. While most modern 32-bit software
runs fine under x64, there are still some 16-bit apps that people haven't
let go of, and these will not run under x64 - no how, no way.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
 
ceebezee said:
I have been a avid reader of all questions and replies posted in this
forum.
They are really good. Now a more basic question. What machine specs
support
32 bit and what support 64 bit? Which is best, 32 bit version or 64 bit
version ? Why ?
Click to expand...


64-bit's advantage is the amount of memory can be used and during Vista's
life the average computer will have these sorts of amounts due to necessity.

Considering the modern hardware requirements of Vista, Microsoft really
should never have released a 32-bit version and taken the plunge into 64-bit
only. This would have forced all other companies to make signed 64-bit
drivers.

Currently, unless you need more than 3 or 4GB* of RAM, going 64-bit will
only mean driver problems with older hardware (as well as some new hardware)
and a few application incompatibilities from what I have read around the
place.

* I still have only 2GB of RAM, but it looks like I will be needing more for
multitasking with the apps I use, but I have read that only 3GB is available
to Windows with 32-bit. My motherboard only supports upto 4GB, so even with
that restriction it looks like I will have to move to 64-bit pretty soon,
and as soon as I know that I will not suffer driver and application
incompatibilities .

ss.
 
I'm running Vista x64 on a p5b deluxe with an E6600 - it runs fine. The
problems (if you have any) will be with sound cards, and other add-on cards,
but that's a general vista problem.

The other problem is than some utilities will need to be 64-bit to work
fully but there are usually alternatives.

However, previous posters are right in that you are more likely to have more
minor teething troubles with x64 than with x86, so if you want an easy life
stick with 32-bit. If you want a little more performance and don't mind the
potential for a little hassle, try x64.
 
DCR said:
Vista x86 or 32-bit requires 32-bit capable processor and can address 2 to
the 32nd power memory
address space (approx 4GB but more like 3.25 or so actually usable).

Vista x64 or 64-bit requires 64-bit capable processor and can address 2 to
the 64th power memory
address space. (HUGE --gave up after tera)
Click to expand...

18,446,744,073,709,551,616.

That's 18.4 exabytes of RAM. In other words -- ALOT.

Who could ever need that much, right? OTOH, Windows2025 will probably need
that much just for the kernel ;)

In all seriousness, that's some major expandability.
 
jwardl said:
18,446,744,073,709,551,616.

That's 18.4 exabytes of RAM. In other words -- ALOT.

Who could ever need that much, right? OTOH, Windows2025 will probably need
that much just for the kernel ;)
Click to expand...

People will be complaining about the "artificial" limitations imposed by the
64 bit architecture, and heralding the arrival of 128 bits!

Remember, 640K was once a *huge* amount.

Mike
 
Didn't Billy Boy Gates himself once say that he saw no reason why one would
EVER need more than 640k memory (or some such)?

Actually aren't very large databases the only applications that really benefit from
64-bit?

I have read about a few 64-bit desktop boxes that currently have 8 GB of RAM
installation capability, but no more. (Vista Ultimate can use 128GB.)

Right now, wouldn't more multi-processor, multi-threaded applications be of more use?

DCR

| | > | > 18,446,744,073,709,551,616.
| >
| > That's 18.4 exabytes of RAM. In other words -- ALOT.
| >
| > Who could ever need that much, right? OTOH, Windows2025 will probably need
| > that much just for the kernel ;)
|
| People will be complaining about the "artificial" limitations imposed by the
| 64 bit architecture, and heralding the arrival of 128 bits!
|
| Remember, 640K was once a *huge* amount.
|
| Mike
|
 
Video editing certainly benefits from 64bits as does anything with heavy
duty calculating engines. First person shooter games written natively for
64bits also benefit noticeably.
 
DCR said:
Didn't Billy Boy Gates himself once say that he saw no reason why one
would
EVER need more than 640k memory (or some such)?
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. It's widely believed that he did, but no one has ever
produced the actual quote.

IAC, you have to remember that at the time, 640K was 10 times the amount of
RAM that most machines of the time had. There were Apple 2s with 128K (and
more), but the business standard was a 64K CP/M machine.

Mike
 
But the theoretical memory support is not so important with this latest
Windows release.

The capabilities of 64 bit Vista are:
Home Basic - 8GB RAM
Home Premium - 16GB RAM
Business, enterprise and ultimate - 128GB RAM.

That is, of course, only referring to physical memory. It will be able
to have big swap files as well. However, Vista is not going to support
anything in the terabyte physical memory range.
It is interesting though. Home basic edition will have end-of-support in
2012. Some home users are already buying systems from OEMs with 4GB RAM
in them, so I do wonder if that 8GB limitation is going to make home
basic a bad investment in the long run. I guess it is an open question...

Regards,
Frantz Dhin
 
The swap file max in x64 is 2TB. Obviously one would have to span a lot of
volumes!
 
Correction: The swap file max is 16TB, not 2TB.

Colin Barnhorst said:
The swap file max in x64 is 2TB. Obviously one would have to span a lot
of volumes!
Click to expand...
 
In 1984 I was a school principal in a school with a Tandy/RS equipped
computer lab. The teacher was running a dozen student stations and one
server. The server had a 3MB hard drive. Halfway through the semester she
commented that it was filling up.
 
LOL.



Colin Barnhorst said:
In 1984 I was a school principal in a school with a Tandy/RS equipped
computer lab. The teacher was running a dozen student stations and one
server. The server had a 3MB hard drive. Halfway through the semester
she commented that it was filling up.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top