Settle a debate: how many of you use a 64-bit OS or >=4 GB RAM?

[night_wolf_in]

32bit cpu, 2gigram, 32 os.

n it works flawlessly

 

[cpburns]

That's true, but if you were to count non-enthusists, you would find there are a lot of people like my daughter in law who bought a Vista 64 OS because that's what the store offered, and she got 4 gig of ram because that's what the guy in the store said was best. I think she's like the majority of buyers at Best Buy, etc. They don't know what they're buying and they really don't care, but they'll do as the salesman directs because he said that's what to buy.

and this is why -- despite my skill with repairing and building and installing computers -- i have thus far refused to work at best buy or other major PC retailers. 😀

 

[cyberjock]

I'm using XP 32 with 4 GB of RAM. It sees only 3.25 GB but it's more than I need anyway. I'll buy Vista 64 after the service pack is out, if the service pack gets good reviews.

Where did you get your reviews? Everything I've read so far say something like "So.. it fixes a billion bugs, but it runs even slower than SP0."

 

[LoneEagle]

Where did you get your reviews? Everything I've read so far say something like "So.. it fixes a billion bugs, but it runs even slower than SP0."

He's probably talkin in future tense. He's waiting for the SP1 be official and available, that people install it, review it and then he will see if should install it or not.

Joke: I prefer to run a car that go slower and safe than a super car that crash too often!

I read many places that the SP1 (beta) is improving the overall performance.

Like I said elsewhere, I was part of feew people who jumped on XP when It came out. Gamers were complaining that XP was not good and they prefered to stay with Win98. Yes, It took SP2 to convert to XP.

Resistance is futile: You will be converted...Eventually (Vista SP2?)

If you are fine with XP, good for you. Me, i am fine with Vista 64 and 4GB!

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

32bit cpu, 2gigram, 32 os.

n it works flawlessly

Night wolf, the CPU listed in your sig is 64-bit.

 

[LoneEagle]

Q6600 = 64bits

 

[Amiga500]

If it is XP 64, I have had nothing but issues with that OS. Vista 64bit, never had one Microsoft fault issue.

/quotemsg]

Yeah, its XP 64.


But the software I'm using is supposed to be compatible, indeed, there is a bespoke XP64 installation for it. But its unstable and doesn't do everything it should.


I'm not even sure if Vista versions are out, probably are, but its moot since I don't think we have vista.

 

[hjjfffaa]

I run 4gb of ram on a 64bit cpu, with a 32bit OS. Was thinking about a 64bit OS, but vista not that great. Might reconsider IF the service pack actually makes vista worth it.....

what about 64 bit xp

 

[curaga]

You forgot one match: 64bit cpu, 64bit kernel, but 32bit software. Either mac or linux.

 

[irishman22]

First Post!

I use 32bit Vista and 4GB Ram. Ram is so cheap these days so I don't mind that Vista only sees 3.25 Ghz.

 

[LoneEagle]

You forgot one match: 64bit cpu, 64bit kernel, but 32bit software. Either mac or linux.

I don't think anyone is strictly 64bits all the way. Even today, there are some people that may use old 16bits applications.

 

[MU_Engineer]

You forgot one match: 64bit cpu, 64bit kernel, but 32bit software. Either mac or linux.

That would primarily be MacOS 10.4 on PPC. 64-bit CPU, 64-bit kernel, 32-bit userland. I suppose you could run your userland inside of a 32-bit chroot jail on 64-bit Linux, but that begs the question: why?

@LoneEagle: I also doubt there are many of us that use purely 64-bit systems as all Windows users and even the vast majority of 64-bit *nix users have multilib setups. So even if you are not running any 32-bit code, there are still 32-bit libraries and a 32-bit execution path available. I highly doubt that any Windows user is using nothing but 64-bit applications as there are remarkably few of those out there at the present. Most of MS's own products aren't even 64-bit yet- there is no 64-bit MS Office, for example. I'd bet that some *nix users might be only running 64-bit binaries, but things like Adobe Flash Player and such are 32-bit only, so most will probably be running a couple of 32-bit apps. I can personally think of two 32-bit apps I run: Flash player is one, the Folding@Home SMP Linux client is another. The FAH client itself is 64-bit, but mpiexec is 32-bit and needs ia32 emulation to run.

 

[reconviperone1]

MU - Thanks for the edit: Vote submitted accordingly.

And I think you may find 64 bit and 4GB categories (32 and 64 bit) to be over-represented vis~a~vis the general user population. This being an enthusiast site consisting of users with e~Peens. :lol: (and Yes, I count myself in that group...)

LOL, I was thinking the same thing

 

[reconviperone1]

You need megatasking platformance!

Maybe he should have a quadfx, the megatasking king,LOL. Btw, TC i was in your town last night, at some hole in the wall kareoke bar, next to dunkin donuts, gotta love the mad heights

 

[OlSkoolChopper]

First Post!

I use 32bit Vista and 4GB Ram. Ram is so cheap these days so I don't mind that Vista only sees 3.25 Ghz.

Dia dhuit from a (long ago) former Corkman. May Saint Finbarr look over you and your Guinness! Just a quick note that you mean 3.25 GB. RAM is measured in amounts of bytes of total memory. GHz is a measure of frequency used for procesors, etc.

 

[reconviperone1]

I am replacing my 2x1gb sticks with 2x2gb sticks after i see the damge from xmas on my card statements. I will continue to run xp pro, but i want to upgrade to vista 64 this year(if the drivers are better) at which point i will put my 2x1gb sticks back on board for a total of 6gb. I want to edit my vhs tapes to mpeg4 or divx this year so i can throw them out so i need the memory(and a decent quad from amd so i wont have to replace my cpu and mobo) and the 64bit os to help things along,.

 

[The_King]

Is it just me or do all these voting polls not work correctly. If you select an option and vote then click see results it says "Sorry you voted already".
If you click See results even after refreshing th page it says "Sorry you have voted already !!!! Really frustrating and this is not the first poll on this site that this happens.

 

[The_King]

Is it just me or do all these voting polls not work correctly. If you select an option and vote then click see results it says "Sorry you voted already".
If you click See results even after refreshing th page it says "Sorry you have voted already !!!! Really frustrating and this is not the first poll on this site that this happens.

 

[Wgfalcon]

just went from xp pro 64 and 4 gig ram to vista home premium with 4 gig ram processor x2 6000

 

[nihility]

I can't seem to see the resaults. I voted (64 windows) but wasn't taken to a resaults page and when I click see resaults I get "Sorry, you have already voted! ".
What am I missing?

 

[LoneEagle]

Try a refresh page (F5 in Internet Explorer) or close the browser and restart it.

 

[nihility]

Still no go, tried in FF and explorer.

 

[LoneEagle]

Try clearing your cache.

That weird... Two different browser same thing. Working fine for me...

You may have to reinstall Windows! 😀

 

[LoneEagle]

Here a quick result:
[fixed]
20.6 % 68 votes 1. 32 bit CPU, 32 bit OS, less than 4 GB RAM.
3.9 % 13 votes 2. 32 bit CPU, 32 bit OS, 4 or more GB RAM.
24.8 % 82 votes 3. 64 bit CPU, 32 bit OS, less than 4 GB RAM.
7.3 % 24 votes 4. 64 bit CPU, 32 bit OS, 4 or more GB RAM.
7.0 % 23 votes 5. 64 bit CPU, 64 bit Windows, less than 4 GB RAM.
1.2 % 4 votes 6. 64 bit CPU, 64 bit Linux or UNIX, less than 4 GB RAM.
33.0 % 109 votes 7. 64 bit CPU, 64 bit Windows, 4 or more GB RAM.
2.1 % 7 votes 8. 64 bit CPU, 64 bit Linux or UNIX, 4 or more GB RAM.[/fixed]

 

[nihility]

thanks, still can't get it to work. erased all caches and temporaries and cookies and what not.
I think what caused it was that I first clicked view resaults and when I couldn't see I logged in and then voted but still couldn't see. probably screwed up the permissons. or something.