theuerkorn
Distinguished
- Jan 30, 2009
- 270
- 0
- 18,780
- Status
ThePatriot
Distinguished
- May 12, 2006
- 147
- 0
- 18,680
Giganews retains 365 days. To download all headers from some of the news groups you have to have 64-bit. 32 bits cannot address it.
buzznut
Splendid
- Sep 26, 2007
- 3,650
- 2
- 23,465
Its an interesting question that I've been debating with myself. I currently run XP64 (on my power desktop)and find some things extremely difficult to do. It doesn't have the software support from manufacturers, when asked they simply state "Sorry, we aren't planning a 64bit version for windows XP," citing low install base.
Also my understanding from reading certain articles is that overclocking acheives best results under the 32 bit OS. So do I really want to access 4 gigs of memory, or maximize my overclocking potential?
If I keep my current version of XP64, I would be inclined to install Win7 32 bit. The problem with that is I wouldn't have the extra ram for virtualization and other things. If I keep XP64 and utilize Win7 64, how aboout oc'ing?
So I'm thinking my best bet would be dual boot with XP32 and Win7 64. Now I have to wipe my drive and start all over. Then I will prolly sell my XP 64 because no one I know will want it after all the times they've seen me struggle with 64 bit.
And yes, its been a struggle, especially with burning software, older 32 bit programs, and newer hardware (an All in one printer from canon).
Anyway, there are a lot of pros and cons for me, although I think I would like to run Win 7 64 because it seems to be very compatible. The compatibility mode works better than WOW64, at least in my experience of currently running Win7 64 on my laptop.
My dad came out for a visit, he is very resistant to newer technologies and is one of those steadfast XP users who just doesn't want to change. After using my laptop a couple of times he had me burn the RC for him. But he asked for 32 bit, he is 67 and will prolly never see a need for more than 3 gigs of ram. As long as he can do his photos and email he is pretty happy.
Also my understanding from reading certain articles is that overclocking acheives best results under the 32 bit OS. So do I really want to access 4 gigs of memory, or maximize my overclocking potential?
If I keep my current version of XP64, I would be inclined to install Win7 32 bit. The problem with that is I wouldn't have the extra ram for virtualization and other things. If I keep XP64 and utilize Win7 64, how aboout oc'ing?
So I'm thinking my best bet would be dual boot with XP32 and Win7 64. Now I have to wipe my drive and start all over. Then I will prolly sell my XP 64 because no one I know will want it after all the times they've seen me struggle with 64 bit.
And yes, its been a struggle, especially with burning software, older 32 bit programs, and newer hardware (an All in one printer from canon).
Anyway, there are a lot of pros and cons for me, although I think I would like to run Win 7 64 because it seems to be very compatible. The compatibility mode works better than WOW64, at least in my experience of currently running Win7 64 on my laptop.
My dad came out for a visit, he is very resistant to newer technologies and is one of those steadfast XP users who just doesn't want to change. After using my laptop a couple of times he had me burn the RC for him. But he asked for 32 bit, he is 67 and will prolly never see a need for more than 3 gigs of ram. As long as he can do his photos and email he is pretty happy.
1.
Toms is falling into the common trap of 64 bit being all about the ram...
http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1
2. Even with less than 4 gb of RAM your 64 bit CPU runs better in a 64 bit environment, your 32 bit applications run better in a 64 bit environment...
http://www.sevenforums.com/news/10183-windows-7-x64-vs-windows-7-x86-fight.html
Toms is falling into the common trap of 64 bit being all about the ram...
http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1
2. Even with less than 4 gb of RAM your 64 bit CPU runs better in a 64 bit environment, your 32 bit applications run better in a 64 bit environment...
http://www.sevenforums.com/news/10183-windows-7-x64-vs-windows-7-x86-fight.html
afrobacon
Distinguished
- Feb 20, 2008
- 396
- 0
- 18,790
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]Im sorry but i dont use hardware from 2001, i use new hardware with a new OS - the way it should be, id prefer the extra features, smooth performance and better looks to an extra ~1% performance - dont care about that factor at all.Vista is crap for low end pcs, and im not saying windows 7 is worse (or better for that matter) - its still not 100% completed but is looking good yes.I also dont care about laptops and pcs pre-installed with bloatware - if you bother doing a fresh install, raising pagefile manually to ~4gb (both figures - max and min to stop fragmentation), disable uac and sec. sentre, disable system restore, enable caching and the sidebar that OS is fkn sweet - it is not a bad OS.[/citation]
...that seems like alot of work to have a decent running OS...
Anyway, I thought this article was about 32bit vs 64bit.
...that seems like alot of work to have a decent running OS...
Anyway, I thought this article was about 32bit vs 64bit.
[citation][nom]miesc[/nom]I haven't decided yet, but probably 64 bit. My main concern with 64 bits will be extra bugs and loss of frames while gaming. Does anyone else share my concerns?[/citation]
you should actually b experiencing the opposite
you should actually b experiencing the opposite
xxsk8er101xx
Splendid
- Dec 31, 2007
- 3,967
- 4
- 22,815
Well even your video memory counts as addressable memory and is included with the 4GB limit. If you purchase one of those 1.7GB video cards in theory you should see your system RAM cut even more. From the 3GBs you have to closer to 2 or even 1GB of system memory. You won't notice it in windows vista as it only shows the total your system has not what is actually there. You'll have to go under task manager->performance and look under physical memory.
I'm not sure which takes precedence video or system but it's all included in the 32bit limitations. If you plan on using one of those video cards with 1GB or more video memory you should go 64bit.
I personal went 64bit for that reason as well as buying 8GB of ram was cheap. I plan to use 64bit windows 7 and upgrade from vista ultimate 64bit.
I'm not sure which takes precedence video or system but it's all included in the 32bit limitations. If you plan on using one of those video cards with 1GB or more video memory you should go 64bit.
I personal went 64bit for that reason as well as buying 8GB of ram was cheap. I plan to use 64bit windows 7 and upgrade from vista ultimate 64bit.
apache_lives
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2002
- 6,873
- 1
- 26,160
[citation][nom]afrobacon[/nom]...that seems like alot of work to have a decent running OS...Anyway, I thought this article was about 32bit vs 64bit.[/citation]
New hardware = New OS - nothing hard about that, and some tweaks - 2 minutes work tops to get some more performance, not as if anyone doesnt do anything different in XP or any other OS when installing it with drivers etc.
New hardware = New OS - nothing hard about that, and some tweaks - 2 minutes work tops to get some more performance, not as if anyone doesnt do anything different in XP or any other OS when installing it with drivers etc.
duckmanx88
Distinguished
- Oct 23, 2008
- 287
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]fucktardd[/nom]64 bit, the only people that will buy 32 bit versions are people who either a) dont know about computers that much to even benefit from it or.. b) people with out the funds to purchase a computer with more than 3gb of memmory[/citation]
only a fucktard would double post. people can't afford the extra $20 for 6GB of ram? ever think that maybe they don't need it? please don't kid yourself. you've at least has one application or internal/external hardware whose drivers were the problem. way to turn a simple QQTD into a personal bashing.
only a fucktard would double post. people can't afford the extra $20 for 6GB of ram? ever think that maybe they don't need it? please don't kid yourself. you've at least has one application or internal/external hardware whose drivers were the problem. way to turn a simple QQTD into a personal bashing.
Main rig: 64bit (6-12Gb of ram)
HTPC: 32bit (4Gb of ram)
Nettop or Laptop: 32bit (2-4Gb of ram)
Kids PCs: Ubuntu 😉 (so they don't destroy the PC with all the crap they will be downloading without reading or understanding the warnings) (also no more than 4Gb of ram)
HTPC: 32bit (4Gb of ram)
Nettop or Laptop: 32bit (2-4Gb of ram)
Kids PCs: Ubuntu 😉 (so they don't destroy the PC with all the crap they will be downloading without reading or understanding the warnings) (also no more than 4Gb of ram)
netbanshee
Distinguished
- Jun 23, 2009
- 18
- 0
- 18,510
Nuke_Meltdown
Distinguished
- Aug 5, 2008
- 21
- 0
- 18,510
Stardude82
Distinguished
- Apr 7, 2006
- 560
- 5
- 19,015
I went from a E7200 to a new E6300 (a lateral step and still only 2 cores, the E6300 overclocks better though.) So I could run Windows 7 in 64 bit with the 32 bit XP emulation.
The 64 bit Vista, XP and Linux machines I run handle most thing just fine now, though there were some hiccups at the beginning.
The 64 bit Vista, XP and Linux machines I run handle most thing just fine now, though there were some hiccups at the beginning.
Belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,545
- 2
- 22,795
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2280811,00.asp[citation][nom]fakeasdf[/nom]1. Toms is falling into the common trap of 64 bit being all about the ram...http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/ [...] _the_ram/12. Even with less than 4 gb of RAM your 64 bit CPU runs better in a 64 bit environment, your 32 bit applications run better in a 64 bit environment...http://www.sevenforums.com/news/10 [...] fight.html[/citation]
Your sources are flawed:
1 - www.bit-tech.net = Speculation. Its a good article about HOW 64bit should be good, but NO-REAL-WORLD benchmarks. I was at industry tech cons when AMD64 first came out in which software should be running faster. Of course, only LINUX had a 64bit OS that worked for years. MS support for 64bit was years later. (And people think MS is state of the art?)
2- www.sevenforums.com is a forum site in which anyone can post. The display of results is bad with graphics slight too big that EACH one had to be opened to view. The results are badly done, the "test" system is fairly low-end and the author contradicts his own results. IE: He wants 64bit to be "GOD". With a phrase like : "n every test, except the installation, the 64 bit OS was faster."
His own badly made graphs show otherwise from the rather sparse testing. In two other tests, 32bit OS was faster. And in areas where "64bit WON!" the impressive graphs showing HUGE differences, until you look at the numbers. The funny one is WinRar a Win7 ISO, where 64bit destoryed 32bit... Actual {rough} scores (tester didn't present exact numbers)
64bit OS = 15m 08s
32bit OS = 16m 28s
Everything below 14m 24s is cut out. Like many of the results, the graphs are cut. In another test, the difference is 3seconds for video compression (32bit OS/software WON by 2seconds - one of the test the author forgot that Win7 64bit lost)
Here is a far more professional test with 64bit Vista with 64bit software vs 32bit versions:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2280811,00.asp
Its over a year old and Photoshop has released CS4 since then which has 64bit and quad core support. The test was done on a 4GB rig, which is fair. I don't remember the PRO review I read earler in which 64bit gets FASTER with 6-8GB.
Your sources are flawed:
1 - www.bit-tech.net = Speculation. Its a good article about HOW 64bit should be good, but NO-REAL-WORLD benchmarks. I was at industry tech cons when AMD64 first came out in which software should be running faster. Of course, only LINUX had a 64bit OS that worked for years. MS support for 64bit was years later. (And people think MS is state of the art?)
2- www.sevenforums.com is a forum site in which anyone can post. The display of results is bad with graphics slight too big that EACH one had to be opened to view. The results are badly done, the "test" system is fairly low-end and the author contradicts his own results. IE: He wants 64bit to be "GOD". With a phrase like : "n every test, except the installation, the 64 bit OS was faster."
His own badly made graphs show otherwise from the rather sparse testing. In two other tests, 32bit OS was faster. And in areas where "64bit WON!" the impressive graphs showing HUGE differences, until you look at the numbers. The funny one is WinRar a Win7 ISO, where 64bit destoryed 32bit... Actual {rough} scores (tester didn't present exact numbers)
64bit OS = 15m 08s
32bit OS = 16m 28s
Everything below 14m 24s is cut out. Like many of the results, the graphs are cut. In another test, the difference is 3seconds for video compression (32bit OS/software WON by 2seconds - one of the test the author forgot that Win7 64bit lost)
Here is a far more professional test with 64bit Vista with 64bit software vs 32bit versions:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2280811,00.asp
Its over a year old and Photoshop has released CS4 since then which has 64bit and quad core support. The test was done on a 4GB rig, which is fair. I don't remember the PRO review I read earler in which 64bit gets FASTER with 6-8GB.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question Proposed system upgrade - opinions & what old components can be kept?
- Started by CaptainObviousau
- Replies: 2
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram