Get to know the Zune HD>>
Community Newsletter: Q&A: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system?
- 7/18/08 3:07 PM
I just bought a 64 bit top of the line dual core processor
by iluvdvds - 6/21/08 10:01 AM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I have almost everything on this, yes it is faster. I have dual core intel processor Q6600 without shared memory, 4 GB,DVD/Cd Burner, Cd/dvd storage area on the CPU, a Personal media drive Bay, 15 in 1 card reader etc.. It is a Hp Media Center with wireless lan. I can add tv has antenna and programing, several audio options, excellent graphics also a remote controller etc.. I also have windows Vista Home Premium OS. However note!!! there are alot of my software programs that I was using on my 32 bit that will not work on this one. Just remember that some will require updates and or you to purchase different software. Is excellent for internet bussiness and or gaming etc...
I run 64 bit XP
by pixelsmith - 6/21/08 10:51 AM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
The difference between the two is that 32 bits of data vs 64 bits of data are processed by the OS at a time (that's a lot more than 2x by the way).
I have a dual quad Intel processor machine with 8 GB RAM for running 64 bit Maya under XP-64. Most people who run 64 bit OS's still run XP, not Vista and use it for 3D or other intense applications written specifically to run on 64 bit machines. Driver support is limited and many 32 bit applications won't run on it. Your choice of antivirus applications is also limited as many don't support 64 bit OS's yet. No DOS programs will run under it at all in a CMD window. That's something to consider when deciding whether or not to run a 32 bit vs a 64 bit OS. Similarly, many Scanners don't have 64 bit drivers either (none of the Microteks have 64 bit drivers and several good color calibration and/or matching applications don't support 64 bit OS's such as SilverFastAi).
Unless you plan on running dual quad processor machines, or more than 4 GB or RAM, I'd recommend you stick with a 32 bit OS at this time.
A 64 bit OS is indeed the way of the future, but vendors, both hardware and software, aren't generally ready to make the transition and I doubt they will be for several years to come. Also, your 32 bit programs won't run any faster on a 64 bit OS machine.
As to "future proofing", there will likely be so many other things in terms of hardware that will change in the next year or two, it would be difficult to future proof yourself. Any machine you will purchase is likely to be obsolete to some degree as soon as you walk out the door of the store with it. You may also want to stick with XP-Pro instead of going to Vista unless there's a feature in Vista that you feel you really need. Many vendors such as Nvidia have had a lot of driver issues just supporting the 32 bit version of Vista. You'll notice that most businesses are sticking with XP for the time being and for good reasons.
Good luck with whatever choice you make.
- pixel
I tried x64 XP too!
by JCitizen - 6/28/08 10:39 AM In reply to: I run 64 bit XP by pixelsmithAnd it really smoked on my laptop. Reminded me of how desktop computing used to be! Your right about the availability of programs, drivers, and applications of course. But I am suprised how this changes for the better every week.
Unfortunately; I was hoping XPx64 would take off and bury Vista, because I feel it was more utilitarian. Also if you could find a Server 2003 driver it would work under XP because the code was the same. This made it a little easier to find drivers and some programs for this edition.
I'm still praying Vista falls flat on its face but, I'm not holding my breath either. Its impossible to stop a lumbering clumsy juggernaut like Microsoft. They are big enough that they don't even have to appologize for their mistakes.
32 bit vs. 64 bit
by dflick00 - 6/21/08 11:13 AM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Jack,
The first thing that you want to consider is what you are oing to use the computer for. If you want to use it for general Internet, word processing, etc., then 32 bit is more than adequate. The designaton 32 bit refers to the number of bits that a CPU can handle per cycle. An instruction for the CPU is eight bits, so a 32 bit CPU can handle four instrcutions per cycle. If you decide to buy a 64 bit computer, your best bet is 64 bit Windos Vista because 32 bit Vista won't take full advantage of the power of your CPU. I hope that this answers yur question, and good luck!
Dave
64-bit o.s.
by donwoodruff - 6/27/08 6:29 PM In reply to: 32 bit vs. 64 bit by dflick00Does Microsoft sell a 64-bit Vista O.S.?
Thank you!
It depends on many variables
by rsimanski - 6/21/08 12:24 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
According to The Computer Desktop Encyclopedia (CDE), published by The Computer Language Company, "everything in the digital world is measured in bits and bytes. Bits are a measurement of different components and functions depending on what is being referenced."
In the case of the CPU, we are talking about the size of its internal registers. According to the CDE, "this is the computer's 'word' size, which is the amount of data the CPU can compute at the same time." In theory, all other things being equal, a 64-bit computer would work twice as fast internally as a 32-bit computer. In practice, however, this is rarely the case. Thus, a 64-bit computer may or may not be twice as fast as a 32-bit computer.
The CDE continues: "In order to take advantage of a CPU with larger words, operating systems and applications must be recompiled with a compiler that supports the larger word size. If not, the older software may actually run slower in the bigger CPU, but this is totally dependent on the mix of instructions used in the program.
"Most important, this measurement does not result in twice as much actual work being done for the user, as the computer's cache size and bus and disk speeds are all part of the performance equation."
Assuming that you have a 64-bit system, the 64-bit version of Windows should run faster on it than the 32-bit version. However, in order to take full advantage of the 64-bit architecture, your software would also have to be recompiled into 64-bit versions.
If I were looking toward the future, I would probably buy a 64-bit system and install the 64-bit version of Windows. However, it might take several years for my applications software to catch up, so I might not get the full benefit of the 64-bit architecture for some time.
good and bad of 32 vs 64 bit cpu
by justchuck69 - 6/21/08 1:42 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
pluses
32 bit
- more wider driver support
64 bit
- can address twice as much system ram
-if a program is coded for 64 bit it should run faster and use less resources
minuses
64 bit ( vista home premium 64 bit for me has been a rocking road but they may have caught up now . . . i hope 
) driver support has slowly catching up with 32 bit ( installed at xmas time both ubuntu 7.10 64 bit and vista home premium 64 bit and it took four months for the sound chip driver in vista to sound as good as it did in ubuntu thanks realtek )
good luck and take care
chuck
Max memory support for Vista 64 is 128Gb
by philips14c - 6/28/08 12:07 AM In reply to: good and bad of 32 vs 64 bit cpu by justchuck69"can address twice as much system ram"?? LOL!
What are you talking about? On a 64bit OS the CPU can adress 16.8 million terabytes of RAM or 16 exabytes! Compare that with the 4 Gbytes of Ram that an 32 bit OS can adress! 64bit means 10 billion times more RAM supported than 32bit!
BTW: Vista 64 was artificially limited to support max 128Gb! But this may change in the future!
?
by someoldguy - 6/28/08 2:29 AM In reply to: Max memory support for Vista 64 is 128Gb by philips14cIsn't the real issue how much RAM you want or need for your purposes, rather than how much memory can potentially be used? There are better arguments for 64bit processors and OS's than the ability to use a (truncated) 128Gb of memory. My advice is go for a 32bit processor and OS with 4Gb of RAM. Your computer will probably come with Vista whether you want it or not. Just do not, that's do not accept a computer with Basic loaded. Beyond that, trick out your computer for your needs and budget, not what other people think your needs are.
What's wrong with Basic?
by JCitizen - 6/28/08 10:31 AM In reply to: ? by someoldguyMost tech forums say that is the only version that will run on some of the first systems introduced when Vista came out; especially if it says,"Vista Capable" on the logo.
I agree that if you have a medium to high end machine Basic would be stupid; but some of us are on tight budgets or got screwed by the hardware manufacturers with the fraudulant logo program, Microsoft rammed down their throats!
I'm on a tight budget, too.
by someoldguy - 6/28/08 2:09 PM In reply to: What's wrong with Basic? by JCitizenIf you've already ended up with Basic on you computer, I guess you'd be out of luck. It's a stripped down version designed for older computers. I'd advise you to stay away from it. I bought a reconditioned Dell desktop and saved around $400. I made a point to make sure Home Premium was loaded when it shipped. I would recommend that if you are in the market for a new computer you pay the extra for the Home Premium version. As far as the XP versus Vista debate. I had to do a lot of tweaking on my XP Pro system when I first bought it. I was ready to go back to Win2000, but I got it working the way I wanted it to and it has been fine. With my Vista computer, I had the same problem. I tweaked it for a time until I got it the way I want it. It works fine, now, and since I view HD content and other visual content, use Photoshop and do some video editing it is a good choice for me. The only thing I'd have done differently in buying my computer would be to buy Ultimate instead of Home Premium, but money was tight.
I'm glad premium worked out for you...
by JCitizen - 6/28/08 5:57 PM In reply to: I'm on a tight budget, too. by someoldguyA lot of my clients have had to use basic so it would run at all. The one that did try Home Premium had to uninstall it, and fortunately the machine was designed for XP so she didn't get rooked even worse.
Actually, you're all wrong...
by rasmasyean - 7/12/08 7:07 PM In reply to: ? by someoldguyTechnically…
"…all 64-bit versions of Microsoft operating systems currently impose a 16 TB limit on address space and allow no more than 128 GB of physical memory due to the impracticality of having 16 TB of RAM. Processes created on Windows Vista x64 Edition are allotted 8 TB in virtual memory for user processes and 8 TB for kernel processes to create a virtual memory of 16 TB."
google “A Closer Look at Windows Vista, Part III: 32-Bit vs. 64-Bit Windows”
Don't worry about it
by wingbird101 - 6/21/08 2:55 PM In reply to: Should I go with a 32bit or 64bit computer system? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
If you don't already know the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit then you shouldn't be worrying about it. Most processors made these days are 64-bit processors, but they support 32-bit O.S.'s. You should only get the 32-bit of Vista unless you want to use the full 64-bit mode. There is a performance difference, but since 64-bit is still new most programs are only 32-bit. You can run 32-bit programs on a 64-bit O.S. through an emulator, but like I said, you really should only get regular Vista if you don't already know the difference.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
