Hi Jack,
confusing, isn't it? Let's look at the address width first, 32 bit or 64 bit. Strictly, this isn't a performance issue, it simply defines how much internal memory (RAM) the processor can address. It is actually the length of the address in memory, so 32 bit processors can address 2 to the 32nd power addresses, or 4 Gigabytes (GB). 64 bits address 2 to the 64th power or 4 billion times as much! That isn't to say that there are any machines currently capable of accommodating that much memory - economically, 8 or 16 GB is today's limit. Also, it can depend on the operating system how much can be addressed, for instance, while 32 bit Vista will address 4 GB, XP is limited to 3 GB. The 64 bit versions of both operating systems will address all the memory currently available in commercial 64 bit PCs.
As far as the processor hardware is concerned, all the currently available processors from Intel (Core 2) and AMD (Athlon and Phenom) are 64 bit capable and will run either the 32 bit or 64 bit operating systems in native node.
Why would you need the additional memory offered by 64 bit systems? If you just want to send email, surf the web and use, say, MS Office, you don't - they will all run happily in 32 bit environments. If, however, you have a large database to process, or images to edit, particularly video editing, then you would see a significant benefit from the additional memory, in that more data can be held in RAM, rather than have to keep paging it in from disk. If you are into heavy gaming, most of the advanced games are being rewritten for quad core 64 bit platforms and on the examples I've seen, the 64 bit versions are very impressive.
Another issue to consider is that not all devices have 64 bit drivers available - the situation is much better now than it was 12 months ago but if you have any older printers, scanners, etc., you may find that 64 bit drivers are not available.
Similarly, there are more software application programs available for 32 bit than 64 bit. As with drivers, the situation is improving but if you use any old or unusual software, you should check with the suppliers' web sites to see if they are 64 bit compatible.
64 bit is clearly the way of the future but there may be reasons to hold off a while. If you buy a current model processor, it will be "future proof" BUT the system in which it is installed may not - for example, if your motherboard won't accept more than 2 GB memory, you won't be able to take much advantage of 64 bit with either a Core 2 or Phenom CPU. While you could run a 64 bit OS on it, it would probably be slower than 32 bit.
Moving on, what operating system should you choose? I've assumed throughout that you are a home user, rather than business, so in 9 days time, you won't have a choice, since retailers will not be allowed by MS to sell XP machines (with one or two low end exceptions) after June 30th. But I suppose you might find an XP machine on the clearance rack. Personally, I prefer XP at the moment, it's reliable and less resource hungry than Vista and for the work I do, I don't see any value in the additional functionality Vista offers. But if you are into Video editing or gaming, you'd probably make more use of Vista's enhancements.
Most PCs in retail outlets are sold with Vista Home Premium, which is adequate for most home user applications. Avoid Home Basic - it is VERY basic! If you need to connect to a domain server (unlikely in a home situation) you will need Vista Business or Vista Ultimate - Home Premium will only connect to a workgroup. If you have the hardware to support it - decent processor, plenty of RAM (4 GB) and a good graphics card, then you could choose Vista Ultimate and get all the "eye candy" such as the Aero Glass interface and the bells and whistles but only you can decide whether these are worth the extra cost. Get your friendly PC store to demonstrate them if you want to check them out.
Or you could try Linux, of course, or a Mac but since that's not what you asked, we won't go there!
Good luck!
I can't seem to find the information anymore, but I believe that in one of the Microsoft presentations, that I attended, there was a reference to using the Vista 64 bit version to exploit the full capabilities of the Intel Quad Core processors (no mention of the AMD Quad processors). Under Vista 32 bit, the max use of processors concurrently is 2. Vista 64 bit, however, can utilize and control all four processors independently. The suggestion from Microsoft was that if you go quad core processing you needed Vista 64 or Windows XP 64 to utilize the full capability of the processor. Anyone care to comment or confirm what I thought I understood from Microsoft?
than one processor; but the real predicament is if you can get the progams, drivers, and applications to support multiprocessors!
Without that whats the advantage? Gamers know what I'm talking about especially!
64 bit allows you to address more than 3gb of memory and allows some programs prepared for it to run faster. Some people will tell you to got with 64bit as the wave of the future as all newer CPUs are 64bit compatible. In my experience, I recenty installed Windows 64bit on a high end destop, as I similarly tried about a year ago, and found that I could still not find driver for much of my hardware, including simple things like printers. Sure brand new hardware will have 64 bit driver support, but if you plan on using items you already have, check first to see if they are supported, including software! Personally, I do not think the time for 64 bit computing for everyday users has yet arrived, mostly due to the programs we use not requiring 64bit. For certain professionals the story is different, and I do not know what you do. Good luck.
I found the same problem and good thing I checked before going ahead with purchase.
I also found some people are buying so computers, with a system tha is simular to vista and think they are getting vista, instead they are getting a windows system simular and does not work as well. A friend purchase a new one and thaought it was vista.
To answer your question the best, here is the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit. If you don't want to know the details in Technobabble, skip down to the next heading. There I will use English to give you the informed decision.
---TECHNOBABBLE---
The difference between 32-bit and 64-bit is the ability to process larger amounts of data per clock. This means a boost in performance, if it is utilized by the people that write programs. Currently, very few programs actually run 64-bit, and even fewer take advantage of the 64-bit processing. The speed boost is minimal at best.
There is also another difference between the two. Memory addressing. 32-bit systems can only accept 4 Gigabytes of RAM. It does not matter how much RAM you cram into the system, it is not exceeding 4GB in the Operating System if it is running 32-bit. 64-bit systems can handle much MUCH more ram: 16 Exabytes (GBx1024->TBX1024->PBX1024->EB)! But you're probably thinking: "4 GB is more than enough; I'll never need more than that!" That's what Bill Gates said about 640 KB of RAM back in the DOS days! Vista runs smoothly only when you have 2 GB of RAM or more... when the next Service Pack comes out, it might become 4 GB! If you are running 32-bit, you have reached the limit of your Operating System! If you are able to upgrade to the next OS after Vista, your 4 GB system is going to grind to a halt! Having a 64-bit system with 8 GB will be the new minimum!
---END OF TECHNOBABBLE---
Only a very rare and hard to find new computer will still be only 32-bit capable. Almost every new computer on the market has a 64-bit capable processor. I recommend 64-bit Windows because you can upgrade it beyond what 32-bit Windows can handle, because in the future you will need to upgrade your RAM. HOWEVER, you need to check with all your hardware makers and confirm that all your hardware, like printers, scanners, cameras, and that drawing tablet collecting dust have 64-bit drivers. If they do not, and you can't replace that hardware, you may stay with 32-bit. Your 32-bit programs will run in 64-bit Windows, unless they "break the rules" in design, making the program not run in 64-bit. Check with your software makers. Once its all clear, enjoy running a 64-bit Vista computer.
I would suggest ditching Windows for now and just getting a Mac. I have both a Mac and a windows machine. My Dell Inspiron 1525 with 3GB of ram and windows vista business is slow and extremely buggy, and has been that way from the very beginning. My much older Mac with only 512MB of ram runs faster and never locks up for no apparent reason, the way vista does. My opinion is that vista is one of the worst operating systems since windows me. I can completely understand why people are flocking to Apple. I am in the process of making my final complete transition to Mac only hardware.
Someone wrote (I would say implied but it was a bit more than that) a statement concerning the next OS after Vista requiring 8gb and therefore, by implication, requiring a 64bit OS. I would suggest that prior to taking that statement as fact you do some research regarding Microsoft's plans for its next OS (Windows 7 [formerly known as Blackcomb and Vienna]) which will be released in both 32bit and 64bit forms. Once again dispite the techo talk the essential question to answer is are there drivers available for everything you plan to hook up to your system? Moreover, if programs are written for everyday users which will run more efficiently with more than 3gb of ram at some time in the future then there will be nothing to stop you from upgrading. I, for one, am not going to even think about 64bit again until Windows 7 is released, tenatively in late 2009. I would also do your own research on all you read, including everything I have written, and including whether people are "flocking" to Apple computers. They are to the iPhone but research the rest yourself. Good luck.
1. Mac OS X Leopard is 32 and 64 bit top to bottom, and so are the processors that come in them, intel core 2 duo
2. Mac OS X is by far wayyyy faster than windows will ever be
3. Little to no viruses or spyware on a mac
4. Compatible with all of your documents, music, pictures and videos
5. Very beautiful computers, the iMac in particular
6. All have wireless and Bluetooth, and some have a built in camera and mic standard
7. Apple does tech support and training in all of their stores, chances are there is one near you
8. Gorgeous OS compared to windows, and much easier to use
And for the best reason...
9. If you need to for any reason, you can run windows xp or vista on your mac seamlessly, and even faster than on a pc.
Believe it or not, I can come up with many more reasons, but these are the best ones. Watch this video:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=1bZtPU9lrEl&feature=related
but it's not there! Maybe you can reload it and let me know on feduchin@yahoo.com.au.
nt
here I'm pasting the review of iMac from CNET
The good: Along with its best-in-class design and solid-feeling, thin keyboard, the new Apple iMac desktop offers more performance and features than many Windows-based PCs; robust iLife '08 digital media suite.
The bad: No word on means of upgrading to Apple's new Leopard OS when it's released; anemic phone support.
The bottom line: With its super-elegant new design and a strong configuration, Apple's new iMac competes with the PC desktop market better than perhaps any previous Mac to date. Unless you're a gamer or an upgrade enthusiast, we can think of very few reasons not to make an iMac your next desktop.
http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple-imac-20-inch/4505-3118_7-32564364.html?tag=prod.txt.2
This Youtube viedo is like 22 minutes long and I was a sucker enough to sit through it waiting for something remotely technical. It's just trying to get you to believe that Mac's can do "most" things a PC can do while giving you an easy user experience...if you don't want to do much with a computer or some crap like that.
Waste of time. Don't bother watching it. It belongs in another topic.
| Forum legend: | |
| Locked thread | |
| Moderator | |
![]() |
CNET staff |
![]() |
Samsung staff |
| Norton Authorized Support team | |
| AVG staff | |
| Windows Outreach team | |
![]() |
Dell staff |
| Intel staff | |