32 bit to 64 bit

[@@]

Do I need for moving from the system. 32-bit to 64-bit to adjust the Hard ware specification of the computer or  .
For example, I have a ram memory 2 GB.

[Cityscape]

Do I need for moving from the system. 32-bit to 64-bit to adjust the Hard ware specification of the computer or  .
For example, I have a ram memory 2 GB.

Not really but first make sure you have a 64-bit capable processor (almost all are nowadays) and that your other hardware (video card for example) has 64-bit drivers.

64-bit (Windows I assume) can run well with 2GB RAM but you should have more if you want nice performance. 2GB RAM on a 64-bit system is almost like having 1GB-1.5GB on a 32-bit system.

[patio]

2GB RAM on a 64-bit system is almost like having 1GB-1.5GB on a 32-bit system.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...if you have 2G of RAM it's 2G of RAM no matter what OS is running...

Balderdash i say.

[@@]

OK Cityscape  &  patio     
Is there more features to the 64-bit system at this time. Do you advise me to install

[Quantos]

Is there more features to the 64-bit system at this time. Do you advise me to install

If you have everything in order then why not?

[kpac]

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=differences+between+32+and+64+bit+windows&aq=1&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=differences+between+32&gs_rfai=&fp=6cc71230ada67292

[@@]

OK   Quantos    kpac
thanks a lot
It seems that the future of this system

[Cityscape]

OK Cityscape  &  patio     
Is there more features to the 64-bit system at this time. Do you advise me to install

I would wait to switch. There are programs that are not yet available for 64-bit, an example would be Adobe Flash Player. It is true that support for 64-bit has gotten better but it will still continue to get better in the future. I wait about a year or 2 until a larger percent of the market adopts 64-bit and then switch to 64-bit. By then it'll be much better supported.

[kpac]

Flash player does not support 64 bit browsers, but works on any 64 bit OS.

[Cityscape]

True but then there is no advantage over using 64 bit, flash player won't be optimized for 64 bit so it won't run any better on a 64 bit system then it would on a 32 bit one. Quite a few programs are like that so I would stick with 32 bit a while longer.

PS: I heard a rumor that Adobe Flash player 64 bit was being released for Linux only.

[kpac]

 

How many people actually use a 64 bit browser such as IE 64 bit? I'm using Firefox on Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit now.

[Cityscape]

How many people actually use a 64 bit browser such as IE 64 bit? I'm using Firefox on Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit now.

Not too many probably. It not worth it (in my opinion) to switch to 64 and use mainly 32 bit app.

PS: I heard a rumor that Adobe Flash player 64 bit was being released for Linux only.

Maybe it wasn't rumor, check this out: http://blogs.computerworld.com/64_bit_linux_adobe_flash_player_surprisingly_good

[kpac]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765

I don't see many people using 64 bit browsers just for Flash, either.

[Cityscape]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765

I don't see many people using 64 bit browsers just for Flash, either.

Sorry, I can't access anything from Microsoft. They're stuff never works on Linux, i think they do that on purpose. 

[Geek-9pm]

Let me restate the OP's original question.
32 bit to 64 bit
She may wish to have a simple, direct answer.
Say you have a 64 bit CPU and the right 32 and 64 bit drivers
You have both 32 and 64 bit windows 7
You have 4GB of RAM only.
All the applications programs are 32 bit.
Given that,
Is the a significant, if any, difference with using either version of the OS?

[@@]

She may wish to have a simple, direct answer.

Correct   
but I am happy with the rich and useful discussion. Between  Cityscape   &  kpac

You have 4GB of RAM only.

2 GB only

[Cityscape]

2 GB only

Exactly why I say stick with 32 bit. It is common knowledge that 64 bit needs more RAM than 32 bit does to run as smoothly. A lot of people & I too recommend having 3 GB of RAM for a 64 bit OS. Your computer with 64 bit will be able to do all the basics with only 2 GB but you will notice some lag (I can't say how much) with multitasking.

And because quite a few programs are still in 32 bit only there would not be a ton of performance gain. Just because you have a 64 bit processor does not mean it is wise to go 64 bit, 64 bit processors have been around for 7 years. And it is only just starting to get feasible to switch to 64 bit (notice I only said "starting").

I say wait another year or 2 before going 64-bit. I will not go 64 bit before 2011. I can't see much point in switching to 64 bit at this time.

@@: what would your reason for switching to 64 bit be?

[BC_Programmer]

Exactly why I say stick with 32 bit. It is common knowledge that 64 bit needs more RAM than 32 bit does to run as smoothly.

No, that's a common misconception. When you have a 64-bit OS, you can run 64-bit programs which use 64-bit instructions. when you run a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit processor it's like disabling a core on a dual core machine.

A lot of people & I too recommend having 3 GB of RAM for a 64 bit OS. Your computer with 64 bit will be able to do all the basics with only 2 GB but you will notice some lag (I can't say how much) with multitasking.

This is no different with the 32-bit versions of Vista or 7. 2GB of RAM is about average... I'd say it equates to windows 95 with 4MB. Also why does everybody use the word "lag" completely out of context? Lag is only for network connections. nothing else. locally, it's "choppiness" and "slowness" but not lag. Yes I'm being pedantic.

And because quite a few programs are still in 32 bit only there would not be a ton of performance gain.

the programs still interface with the machine through 64-bit drivers. all the drivers and services running on the machine will be 64-bit.

Just because you have a 64 bit processor does not mean it is wise to go 64 bit, 64 bit processors have been around for 7 years. And it is only just starting to get feasible to switch to 64 bit (notice I only said "starting").

The only reason people can even hold out with a 32-bit OS and say it's faster is because of AMD's AMD64 architecture. Try running a 32-bit OS on a Intel Itanium (IA-64) and then tell me how much "faster" it is. And that was 7 years ago.

Running a 64-bit  Operating System has been perfectly feasible since the release of 64-bit processors and Operating Systems to run them. Windows XP x64 (not to be confused with Windows XP 64-bit edition, which is completely different) runs faster on the same hardware as XP 32-bit with any amount of memory, and the same is true of Vista and 7.

I say wait another year or 2 before going 64-bit. I will not go 64 bit before 2011. I can't see much point in switching to 64 bit at this time.

And there is no point in not switching, either. Sticking with 32-bit if you have a 64-bit processor now is equatable to sticking with 16-bit after the Pentium was released. Only a few hold-outs with specious and inaccurate arguments did and do so.

@@: what would your reason for switching to 64 bit be?

So now they need a reason? I think a bigger question is what reasons they have for sticking to 32-bit when they have a 64-bit processor. Because none exist.

[Geek-9pm]

So now they need a reason? I think a bigger question is what reasons they have for sticking to 32-bit when they have a 64-bit processor. Because none exist.

BC_Programmer , are you looking for an argument?
It seems that the market movers decided for us that we need 64bit systems. Nobody ever did a marker study did  they?
They could have given user a choice. Is it too late now?

To complete your order,
Please select one of the following:
1.A Wimpy 24 bit system that will run some old DOS games very well.
2. Areal 32 bit system that runs all the major Desktop programs.
3. A 48 bit system that has not been designed yet.
4. A 64 Bit system that will need new drivers for you hardware.

I would have asked to number 3. Just to see if they would do it!

Now a real quote. I didn't make this up;

While Mac OS X version 10.6 ships with a number of 64-bit native applications, the kernel itself defaults to 32-bit, unless the user holds down the "6" and "4" keys during boot time, at which point the 64-bit kernel is loaded. Only Apple's X-Serve products, using Snow Leopard Server, boot into a 64-bit kernel by default.

So Apple must think 32 is better most users. Right?   

[BC_Programmer]

BC_Programmer , are you looking for an argument?
It seems that the market movers decided for us that we need 64bit systems. Nobody ever did a marker study did  they?

Did they do a study for the switch to 32-bit? Because I sure don't remember any. Nor do I remember any context for a study, either.

They could have given user a choice.

There is a choice. this very topic is proof of that.

1.A Wimpy 24 bit system that will run some old DOS games very well.

There is no 24-bit system, and if they existed they couldn't run DOS natively anyway, since DOS is 16-bit.

2. Areal 32 bit system that runs all the major Desktop programs.

As opposed to a "fake" 32-bit system.

4. A 64 Bit system that will need new drivers for you hardware.

you only need "new" drivers if you're running old drivers, and you're only running old drivers if you have old hardware, in which case your system probably isn't 64-bit to begin with.
[/quote]

Now a real quote.

 I didn't make this up

While Mac OS X version 10.6 ships with a number of 64-bit native applications, the kernel itself defaults to 32-bit, unless the user holds down the "6" and "4" keys during boot time, at which point the 64-bit kernel is loaded. Only Apple's X-Serve products, using Snow Leopard Server, boot into a 64-bit kernel by default.

So Apple must think 32 is better most users. Right?   

No. The difference is that loading 64-bit kernel on an Apple system means you can <only> run 64-bit applications; 32-bit PowerPC (assuming they even let you run thouse ancient 3 year old programs anymore) and Mac x86 programs simply will not run, period. The difference here is that the 64-bit Apple systems are designed for server applications which are generally designed from the get-go to be able to use a lot of memory and multiple processors and take advantage of 64-bit; the question is why Apple took almost ten years to create a limited 64-bit architecture similar to what Intel had in 2001 with the Itanium.

[rthompson80819]

@@, why do you feel you need to go to change?  It can't hurt, but do you need to go through the trouble at this point?  I would add some more memory at some point.

Geek, where did this quote come from?

To complete your order,
Please select one of the following:
1.A Wimpy 24 bit system that will run some old DOS games very well.
2. Areal 32 bit system that runs all the major Desktop programs.
3. A 48 bit system that has not been designed yet.
4. A 64 Bit system that will need new drivers for you hardware.

All mainstream operating systems have been multiples of eight because of binary code and hardware.  8,16,32,64,128.  Well maybe 128 wasn't exactly mainstream but it has been used.

[Geek-9pm]

All mainstream operating systems have been multiples of eight because of binary code and hardware.  8,16,32,64,128.  Well maybe 128 wasn't exactly mainstream but it has been used.

Well, 24 is a multiple of 8 also. The old "16 bit" systems using 24 bit addressing. How and why only Intel knows. Somehow it was called a 16 bit system. But if you wrote code in the large model, you could use all 24 lines from the CPU to fetch 16 bits out of the memory. So you had a 16 bit data path with a 24 bit address space.
The eight bit system, the 8080 and Z80,  the 6502 and the 6800 and the 1802 and others of that era ere 8 bit data paths with 16 bit addressing available.Forgot to mention. the 8088 was Intel's contribution that stated the IBM PC. It was an 8 bit data path, would load 16 bits values. It would address either 16 bits or 24 bits. It was really an 8086 with some of its legs cut off. Back  then it was very important to have the cheapest CPU on the market that would still work. Thus we were given the oddball 24 bit Intel offset  thing.
Never mind. That is now dead history.

Oh, about the "Make you selection". That just pooed out of my head. I fell asleep and have a dream that AMD  had a drive up window in Silicon Valley. The place was called
CPUs to go. We make em, you bake em
I think is was a dream!

[Salmon Trout]

Also why does everybody use the word "lag" completely out of context? Lag is only for network connections. nothing else. locally, it's "choppiness" and "slowness" but not lag. Yes I'm being pedantic.

This gets my goat as well. I hate it even more when they write 'lagg' 

[@@]

@@: what would your reason for switching to 64 bit be?

The same reason, the transition from 16-bit to 32 bit. And from Vista to Windows 7: the transition to the latest , And especially that there are possibilities

[Salmon Trout]

Am I missing something here? We don't actually know what the OP means by "switching from 32 to 64 bit".

[@@]

What is the difference
xp 64-bit OS   &    x 64

[2x3i5x]

Am I missing something here? We don't actually know what the OP means by "switching from 32 to 64 bit".

I think OP wanted to ask about how well switching from 32 to 64 bit OS would be and whether or not it's actually worth the trouble at this point in time. I'm seeing that 32 bit is still well and alive for the foreseeable future at the moment.

I've thought for now, only benefits 64 bit operating system has is a faster system s a result of being able to utilize more memory, applications run better if they're 64 bit apps, and perhaps a more secure system. Else why choose 64 bit over 32 bit at the moment?

[patio]

What is the difference
xp 64-bit OS   &    x 64

No difference...
Just 2 different ways of stating the same thing.

[BC_Programmer]

XP 64-bit edition was for Itanium Processors. XP x64 edition came later and worked with the AMD64 and EM64T architectures.

[Cityscape]

I think OP wanted to ask about how well switching from 32 to 64 bit OS would be and whether or not it's actually worth the trouble at this point in time. I'm seeing that 32 bit is still well and alive for the foreseeable future at the moment.

I've thought for now, only benefits 64 bit operating system has is a faster system s a result of being able to utilize more memory, applications run better if they're 64 bit apps, and perhaps a more secure system. Else why choose 64 bit over 32 bit at the moment?

Exactly what I wanted to point out. There is no "real" reason for @@ to switch to 64 bit unless she has a need for more than 3GB RAM (which she doesn't) or a performance boost when using mostly 64 bit software (but a lot of software is not available in 64 bit anyway).

My advice to @@ is to stick with 32 bit.

[johngetter]

ya i tried running a 64 bit on acrappy computer and it just gave me lagg and tons of errors. so make sure ur hardware is correct

[Cityscape]

ya i tried running a 64 bit on acrappy computer and it just gave me lagg and tons of errors. so make sure ur hardware is correct

Hmm, just what I was trying to point out earlier. 2 GB RAM is not much for 64 bit, you should have 3 GB for 64 bit to run smoothly.

[Cityscape]

This gets my goat as well. I hate it even more when they write 'lagg' 

Well johngetter just used the word 'lagg', I wonder what Salmon Trout will think about that!

[Salmon Trout]

Well johngetter just used the word 'lagg', I wonder what Salmon Trout will think about that!

Profile says "Boise, Idaho"... need I say more?

[johngetter]

haha ya

[johngetter]

well 2 GB ram is fine for what i do. i have a 2008 model of a computer. its 2GB ram. i would like to upgrade to 4GB but why waste money on something im fine with. other than microsoft Flight Simulator i dont need 4GB.
haha im not that seirous with idaho

[BC_Programmer]

It's not lag unless  there is a network involved

Sorry Cityscape, Salmon Trout is far from the only person who dislikes people using words incorrectly.

Hmm, just what I was trying to point out earlier. 2 GB RAM is not much for 64 bit, you should have 3 GB for 64 bit to run smoothly.

You should have more then 2GB for 32-bit, as well.

The 64-bit editions don't consume any more RAM then the 32-bit versions.

[johngetter]

my brother has an XPS laptop with 4GB ram. he has 64 bit windows 7 professional (he got it for 30 bucks becaouse he was at college) its a great gaming computer. he like WOW... anyways i can run halo 2 c@c tibrum wars., generals,Counterstike,and other interbrowsers without my computer slowin down or ram fillin up all the way. so 2GB is fine for me like i sayed i would NEVER go down i will only go up.

[Cityscape]

well 2 GB ram is fine for what i do. i have a 2008 model of a computer. its 2GB ram. i would like to upgrade to 4GB but why waste money on something im fine with. other than microsoft Flight Simulator i dont need 4GB.

The main desktop I use is from 2007. It has 2 GB RAM, in fact the motherboard does not support more than two. 2 GB runs everything fine.

[johngetter]

we use lagg" for gaming...dont u know ? 

It's not lag unless  there is a network involved

Sorry Cityscape, Salmon Trout is far from the only person who dislikes people using words incorrectly.



You should have more then 2GB for 32-bit, as well.

The 64-bit editions don't consume any more RAM then the 32-bit versions.

[Salmon Trout]

we use lagg" for gaming...dont u know ? 

Who are 'we'... illiterate 12 year olds?

[Geek-9pm]

....
You should have more then 2GB for 32-bit, as well.
The 64-bit editions don't consume any more RAM then the 32-bit versions.

Really?How do you know?

[Cityscape]

You should have more then 2GB for 32-bit, as well.

The 64-bit editions don't consume any more RAM then the 32-bit versions.

That's crazy. My 32 bit desktop has had 2 GB RAM for years and run fine. I wouldn't get more Ram for it because there is no need. 2 GB is fine for a 32 bit system.

But I bet you that if I switch to 64 bit my performance would go down. Because 64 does want more RAM.

[BC_Programmer]

That's crazy. My 32 bit desktop has had 2 GB RAM for years and run fine. I wouldn't get more Ram for it because there is no need. 2 GB is fine for a 32 bit system.

I mean, i terms of 32-bit VISTA and windows 7. 1GB, or even 512MB, is fine for XP. It's important to realize that while 32-bit systems often run windows XP, Windows XP's x64 edition is not nearly as popular or widely available as the Vista or windows 7 versions.

Because 64 does want more RAM.

No. It doesn't.

[2x3i5x]

64 bit O.S. does not NEED more ram than 32 bit O.S. , it just has the ability to USE more ram.

[Geek-9pm]

Cityscape: Because 64 does want more RAM.
BC_Programmer: No. It doesn't.

Microsoft KB: It has more memory overhead.

[patio]

No it doesn't...

[BC_Programmer]

You know what, they are both right. I just checked. as has been stated, handles are now 64-bits.

My PC currently has, in total, 4,097 open handles.

if those handles were 32-bit, they would consume 4,097*4 bytes=  8194 bytes.

But... It's horrible! AWFUL!

because that is totally inaccurate! Only 2,570 if those handles are in fact 32-bit! that leaves a whopping  1,527 handles that are actually 64-bit. Oh the HORRORS!

so those 1,527 handles each use 4 extra bytes, so while if my PC was 32-bit I would have a "overhead" of 8194 bytes, I now have to deal with the crushing truth that, because of my huge mistake in choosing 64-bit, I now have to live with the awful knowledge that I am wasting a whopping  6108 bytes of storage!

DEAR GAWD! This is HORRIBLE! How could somebody with only 2GB of RAM POSSIBLY spare that much RAM! Nope, they should stick with 32-bit.

Don't know how I can go on, knowing that I have that wasted 6,108 bytes of storage simply because I have an x64 OS. Sure, I can access >4GB of RAM, but it's the principle of the thing. I'm going to by crying myself to sleep over this for weeks.


oh, and by the way, that was thick sarcasm. I thought I'd mention that before anybody started recommending therapists.

[Geek-9pm]

oh, and by the way, that was thick sarcasm. I thought I'd mention that before anybody started recommending therapists.

You may still need a therapist.
Did you know that the Intel X64 specification does indicate that pointers and other memory references are 64 bit when the system wants to use more the the possible 4GB range available in 32 bit. Yes you know that.
But now for the ugly details.
Only 56 of the 64 bits can actually work! They cut off 8 bits that should have gone into the hyperspace. Instead, the unwanted bits are lost inside the CPU, falling into a virtual black hole. What a waste! Just think of it! every 64 bit handle, procedure call, or data tree calculated as 64 bits, but only 56 are available.
[dark sarcasm]
Those wasted 8  bits could have been donated to old-timers still using CP/M and treasure every extra tasty 8 bits can get.
[/dark sarcasm] 

[tomy]

The subject of question is very important .
After these discussions. Wish summarize it. I mean, define general requirements for 64-bit system

[Allan]

@@ = Tomy!

[Salmon Trout]

The subject of question is very important .
After these discussions. Wish summarize it. I mean, define general requirements for 64-bit system

Suitable hardware. That's it. Google is your friend.

[tomy]

@@ = tomy^2  x  ?
E = m x v^2

[BC_Programmer]

@@ = tomy^2  x  ?
E = m x v^2

Energy = mass * velocity squared? what backwards physics classes have you been taking?

[Quantos]

@@ = Tomy!

I do believe that you've just nailed it.

[Salmon Trout]

Energy = mass * velocity squared? what backwards physics classes have you been taking?

The ones about kinetic energy, but she took the classes twice?

[tomy]

For awhile. No one could solve the equation first. The challenge of a girl aged 18
. Can be used. Site www.wolframalpha.com
@@≠ tomy     really

[tomy]

For awhile. No one could solve the equation first. The challenge of a small girl
. Can be used. Site www.wolframalpha.com
@@≠ tomy     really

[Allan]

I do believe that you've just nailed it.

I guaranty it !

[Quantos]

@@≠ tomy     really

Right, as soon as your done blowing smoke up there you need to grow up.

[Salmon Trout]

The kinetic energy of a moving object (for speeds considerably less than c) is given by



Energy in joules, velocity in m/sec, mass in kg

so @@ was out by a factor of 2.

No one could solve the equation first.

Typical silly nonsense from this person.

[tomy]

Mr. Fish (Salmon Trout) Take care of yourself. Does not end up in a box. Such as sardines.
If anyone was upset. Take the capsule Bantan or whiskey barrel

[Salmon Trout]

Threatening. Reported.

[tomy]

 

[Quantos]

Mr. Fish (Salmon Trout) Take care of yourself. Does not end up in a box. Such as sardines.
If anyone was upset. Take the capsule Bantan or whiskey barrel

I just HAVE to use this here.

[recovering disk space - old attachment deleted by admin]

[kpac]

I thought sardines came in tins?

[Geek-9pm]

I thought sardines came in tins?

Salmon and Trout...
 are tastier  fresh frozen.

[Salmon Trout]

herring boxes
without topses

[Cityscape]

The subject of question is very important .
After these discussions. Wish summarize it. I mean, define general requirements for 64-bit system

For 64 bit Vista & 7:
- 1 GHz or higher 64-bit (x64) processor
- 2 GB RAM, 3 GB needed for multitasking
- 40 GB hard drive
- a Direct X 9 compatible video card with at least 128 MB of graphics memory

[patio]

Since this one won't die a natural death i think i'll close the door...

   

[zf490]

It is not natural death. It's attempted murder. Joint (multinational forces)

[patio]

On that note...

Topic Closed.

New ISP Treval ? ?