32 bit to 64 bit

[@@]

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.