Author Topic: 32 bit OS v. 64 bit OS (Read 14272 times)

elkatman · « **on:** August 18, 2009, 07:15:35 AM »

Hi,

I am thinking of adopting 64 bit instead of 32 bit windows vista or 7. My CPU is AMD 64 Athlonx2. Can anyone tell me if there is any advantage or disadvantages going with 64 bit system instead of 32 bit system?

patio · « **Reply #1 on:** August 18, 2009, 07:53:17 AM »

You can use more than 3+G of RAM...
It's the future...
Apps that are written for it are more responsive and efficient...

Wade2462 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 19, 2009, 11:01:20 AM »

do 32 bit programs work on 64 bit os?

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #3 on:** August 19, 2009, 11:06:37 AM »

Quote from: Wade2462 on August 19, 2009, 11:01:20 AM

do 32 bit programs work on 64 bit os?

Yes.

WyattSoft · « **Reply #4 on:** August 19, 2009, 02:44:16 PM »

Quote from: Wade2462 on August 19, 2009, 11:01:20 AM

do 32 bit programs work on 64 bit os?

Programs yes.

Drivers no, drivers have to support 64bit.

smeezekitty · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2009, 12:03:05 AM »

programs usuly work
but the bigest problem is with drivers
it needs to be 64bit and signed
stupid microsoft
if you do get a 64os good luck

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2009, 08:46:52 AM »

it doesn't need to be signed in test mode...

Besides, the signing business was designed to prevent drivers- the cause of over 99% of all blue screen errors - to be put through rigorous testing. They found that all driver related crashes (IE, not hardware related) on XP were from installing unsigned drivers, so they made it mandatory.

Mulreay · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2009, 09:09:46 AM »

Quote from: BC_Programmer on August 20, 2009, 08:46:52 AM

it doesn't need to be signed in test mode...

Besides, the signing business was designed to prevent drivers- the cause of over 99% of all blue screen errors - to be put through rigorous testing. They found that all driver related crashes (IE, not hardware related) on XP were from installing unsigned drivers, so they made it mandatory.

Makes sense to me.

smeezekitty · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2009, 11:39:40 AM »

i do not like the OS makeing the discision for me
if i want to risk BSoD i should beable to do it
i think there is a way around the driver signing
if thats the case then you will be fine with 64bit os
----edit----
how much memory does your computer havE?

Mulreay · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2009, 12:05:36 PM »

Quote from: smeezekitty on August 20, 2009, 11:39:40 AM

i do not like the OS makeing the discision for me
if i want to risk BSoD i should beable to do it

So you you would rather have a BSOD and have major problems because you don't want a driver that has been thoroughly tested?

patio · « **Reply #10 on:** August 20, 2009, 12:06:13 PM »

You bash UAC...
You bash 64Bit OS's...

You should switch to Linux and stop giving careless Windows advice.

smeezekitty · « **Reply #11 on:** August 20, 2009, 01:44:13 PM »

vista is 15GB talk about being to big
i still think XP is better then vista
i would rather have BSoD then deal with the OS blocking me
i am in a bad mood today

Mulreay · « **Reply #12 on:** August 20, 2009, 01:47:18 PM »

Quote from: smeezekitty on August 20, 2009, 01:44:13 PM

vista is 15GB talk about being to big
i still think XP is better then vista
i would rather have BSoD then deal with the OS blocking me
i am in a bad mood today

Were here to give sound advice not deal with your bad moods.

Quantos · « **Reply #13 on:** August 20, 2009, 09:53:44 PM »

Quote from: smeezekitty on August 20, 2009, 01:44:13 PM

vista is 15GB talk about being to big
i still think XP is better then vista
i would rather have BSoD then deal with the OS blocking me
i am in a bad mood today

15GB is nothing, storage is cheap.
You're wrong.
You're wrong.
Who cares?

Quantos · « **Reply #14 on:** August 20, 2009, 09:55:45 PM »

Quote from: elkatman on August 18, 2009, 07:15:35 AM

Can anyone tell me if there is any advantage or disadvantages going with 64 bit system instead of 32 bit system?

If the hardware that you have in your computer has drivers available for a x64 system, then go with the 64 bit OS. There will be more software that supports it in the future.

smeezekitty · « **Reply #15 on:** August 20, 2009, 10:02:20 PM »

64bit doesnt support 16bit apps
i know 16 bit apps are dead but
loss of support was uncalled for

Quantos · « **Reply #16 on:** August 20, 2009, 10:03:59 PM »

Quote from: smeezekitty on August 20, 2009, 10:02:20 PM

64bit doesnt support 16bit apps
i know 16 bit apps are dead but
loss of support was uncalled for

You need to take your head out of your ... ...filing cabinet.

No typical user needs 16 bit apps.

smeezekitty · « **Reply #17 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:55:39 AM »

i am using vista 32bit
and i am use 16bit apps all the time
i have atleast 14 running right now

patio · « **Reply #18 on:** August 21, 2009, 03:03:01 AM »

List ? ?

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #19 on:** August 21, 2009, 09:22:36 AM »

you know what's unbelievable- Aero Glass doesn't support CGA!

patio · « **Reply #20 on:** August 21, 2009, 09:31:51 AM »

Yer killin me BC...

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #21 on:** August 21, 2009, 09:37:29 AM »

Even Worse! Vista doesn't even have a Driver for EGA! Let alone CGA, MGA, or MDA!

and you need a DVD drive! How am I supposed to install Vista on this PC Jr? It only has a Floppy drive! I tried shoving the DVD in, but it didn't sound good.

Without CGA support I'm not sure how they expect to perform any tricks.

Quote from: smeezekitty on August 20, 2009, 10:02:20 PM

64bit doesnt support 16bit apps
i know 16 bit apps are dead but
loss of support was uncalled for

Somebody needs to pay closer attention. DOS programs have been deprecated (to some extent) in ALL versions of NT.

patio · « **Reply #22 on:** August 21, 2009, 09:41:48 AM »

I still want to see a list of the 14 apps...

Personally i can't think of that many i would still be running.

And if need be i still have a Win95/Win98 dual boot machine so i just don't get it...

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #23 on:** August 21, 2009, 09:43:23 AM »

And there is always virtual Machines... Besides, the 16-bit emulation on all NT versions left a lot to be desired.

patio · « **Reply #24 on:** August 21, 2009, 09:46:18 AM »

It was pretty much carp....which makes it a moot point...

He's seeming to preach like this is a recent development.

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #25 on:** August 21, 2009, 09:55:42 AM »

Well, If I came out of a cave where I had become accustomed to programming a CGA with a barely functional version of Borland C and working with "new" 16-bit programs on my "new" 16-bit CPU I'd definitely express surprise too, so I imagine we can give poor old Smeezekitty that much.

smeezekitty · « **Reply #26 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:42:58 AM »

there not dos programs
they are windows 3.x programs
i am tierd of argueing because i like old stuff
and i keep the vista aero glass off because i dont like it
right now i only have 5 16bit apps running
borland compiler (actully dos)
msvc++ ver 1.52
a bitmap viewing program
XN view 16bit (i dont know why i am not using the 32bit version)
a gradent generator program (i wrote with msvc)

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #27 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:45:04 AM »

Quote from: smeezekitty on August 21, 2009, 11:42:58 AM

there not dos programs
they are windows 3.x programs
i am tierd of argueing because i like old stuff
and i keep the vista aero glass off because i dont like it
right now i only have 5 16bit apps running
borland compiler (actully dos)
msvc++ ver 1.52
a bitmap viewing program
XN view 16bit (i dont know why i am not using the 32bit version)
a gradent generator program (i wrote with msvc)

I like old stuff too.

In your case you should actually be using a system running DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.1. Stay away from NT operating systems, they use confusing unicode and whatnot. very confusing.

smeezekitty · « **Reply #28 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:47:05 AM »

i would rather use 32bit then 16bit
i find its faster and is the most compatable

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #29 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:49:30 AM »

but... why are you still using 16-bit then?

64-bit programs are actually the fastest... for reasons that should be obvious... but they (again, obviously) won't run on 32-bit programs.

On the other hand, windows.h does define WIN64 or another similar constant, so it's not too difficult to have a 16-bit,32-bit, and 64-bit version of a program from the same codebase.

smeezekitty · « **Reply #30 on:** August 21, 2009, 11:52:48 AM »

32 bit has been around for so long and has worked so well
now they want to change it?
what happened to if it ain't broke dont fix it?
and this will happen again when we go to 128 bit and
will lose compatibility for 32bit programs

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #31 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:04:49 PM »

8 bit was around for a long time to (1982-1987, when the 386 was released) and it worked fine, why did those bastards at intel go and make that 80386 processor, with it's protected mode, and it's 32-bit bus width?

32-bit went from 1987 to.. hmm, well I'd say around the release of the Itanium, so around 2001, I believe. A tab longer, but not by much.

Here's a news flash. Technology changes.

Why did we bother using computers in the first place? I mean, they could have easily done broken the enigma code with pen and paper. I mean, bah, what's a few years here or there? 2 years, as is often cited, being how much faster the war was ended by the ability of "The Collosus" to help break the enigma code. I suppose instead they were supposed to lie around trying to break ciphers by hand with pen and paper, have pillowfights and dance the jitterbug.

smeezekitty · « **Reply #32 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:07:08 PM »

1982-1987 was all 16bit not 8 bit
it has an 8 bus but ran 16 bbit code

smeezekitty · « **Reply #33 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:14:30 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #34 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:21:13 PM »

hmm, somebody needs to get the facts straight. the 8086 and the 8088 were BOTH 8-bit CPUs. the 8086 had a 16-bit data bus instead of the 8-bit bus possessed by the 8088.

two address lines were grafted on (essentially) allowing it to access 1024KB of RAM, considered gobs of RAM (and priced accordingly at the time).

That being said however it was the 286, not the 386 that made the jump to a higher bit width instruction-wise. It also had the bound instruction, and protected mode from which you couldn't escape! yay!

Quote from: smeezekitty on August 21, 2009, 12:14:30 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086

Why the heck are you proving yourself wrong

the original IBM PC used a 8088 processor. the 8086 was used in the IBM XT (IIRC), and regardless of that fact, it was the data bus that was 16-bit, not the processor itself. it could only process a byte at a time.

smeezekitty · « **Reply #35 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:24:07 PM »

but it ran msdos a 16bit OS
explain that
it ran 16bit os with 16bit programs
but you said its only 8 bits-how?

kpac · « **Reply #36 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:32:02 PM »

Quote

what happened to if it ain't broke dont fix it?

This is technology we're talking about....

smeezekitty · « **Reply #37 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:34:26 PM »

Quote from: kpac on August 21, 2009, 12:32:02 PM

This is technology we're talking about....

so?

kpac · « **Reply #38 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:41:37 PM »

Quote from: smeezekitty on August 21, 2009, 12:34:26 PM

so?

It's evolving. Fast. If you don't like it, don't use it.

BC_Programmer · « **Reply #39 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:43:11 PM »

try installing MS-DOS 5 on a orginal IBM-PC or XT.

Go ahead.

I dares ya.

Quote from: smeezekitty on August 21, 2009, 12:34:26 PM

so?

I already covered this point. but there were a lot of words to read.

patio · « **Reply #40 on:** August 21, 2009, 03:15:05 PM »

When you find yourself in a deep hole ...it's best to stop digging...

Where's the list of 14 apps ? ?
Strangely enough you could only come up with an alleged 5 and only named 2 of them...

smeezekitty · « **Reply #41 on:** August 21, 2009, 04:24:07 PM »

i made 2 of them
and i almost forgot paint shop pro 2.01
i can not live without 16bit app support
80% of my programs running are 32bit
20% are 16
btw i am running 97 programs

patio · « **Reply #42 on:** August 21, 2009, 04:30:03 PM »

Best of Luck to you...

Computer Hope Forum

News:

Author Topic: 32 bit OS v. 64 bit OS (Read 14272 times)

elkatman

patio

Wade2462

BC_Programmer

WyattSoft

smeezekitty

BC_Programmer

Mulreay

smeezekitty

Mulreay

patio

smeezekitty

Mulreay

Quantos

Quantos

smeezekitty

Quantos

smeezekitty

patio

BC_Programmer

patio

BC_Programmer

patio

BC_Programmer

patio

BC_Programmer

smeezekitty

BC_Programmer

smeezekitty

BC_Programmer

smeezekitty

BC_Programmer

smeezekitty

smeezekitty

BC_Programmer

smeezekitty

kpac

smeezekitty

kpac

BC_Programmer

patio

smeezekitty

patio