32 and 64 bit

GSAV55

New Member
1. What is the actual difference between the two?

2. Why can 32bit only see 3.2G of RAM whereas 64bit can see a whole lot of RAM (???lol).

3. Why does everyone think that 64bit XP sucked?

4. How is 64vista better than 64 xp?

Its a lot of questions, lol, you dont have to answer them all:o
 
1. One is 64bit one is 32bit :P
2. A 32bit OS has 32bits of addressable space, this translates to 4GB total. Of that 4GB a certain amount, which is system dependant, is used for addressing things other than RAM. A 64bit OS has 64bits of addressable space, that is a much bigger real number (64bit integer vs 32bit integer).
3. Driver support wasn't very good.
4. Driver support is better now.
 
yeah xp 64 has bad driver support because its not actually based on xp , its based on the core of windows server 2003

vista x64 driver suppiort is much better
 
1. One is 64bit one is 32bit :P
2. A 32bit OS has 32bits of addressable space, this translates to 4GB total. Of that 4GB a certain amount, which is system dependant, is used for addressing things other than RAM. A 64bit OS has 64bits of addressable space, that is a much bigger real number (64bit integer vs 32bit integer).
3. Driver support wasn't very good.
4. Driver support is better now.

How does the bit to RAM ratio work out? Because 64 is twice 32, but the 64 bit doesnt max out at 8G right?
 
from wiki:

Most CPUs are designed so that the contents of a single integer register can store the address (location) of any datum in the computer's virtual memory. Therefore, the total number of addresses in the virtual memory – the total amount of data the computer can keep in its working area – is determined by the width of these registers. 32 bit was convenient as a 32-bit register could reference 232 addresses, or 4 GB of RAM.

The range of integers values able to be stored in a 32 bit variable is 0 through 4,294,967,295 (if not using twos complement, where one bit is used to hold the sign) . If using it, the range is −2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647 . Therefore, a OS with 32-bit memory addressing can directly access 4 GB of RAM.

Some operating systems reserve portions of process address space for OS use, effectively reducing the total address space available for mapping memory for user programs. For instance, Windows XP DLLs and userland OS components are mapped into each process's address space, leaving only 2 to 3.8 GB (depending on the settings) address space available, even if the computer has 4 GB of RAM.

The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that relative to 32-bit architectures the same data occupies more space in memory (due to swollen pointers and possibly other types and alignment padding). This increases the memory requirements of a given process and can have implications for efficient processor cache utilization. Maintaining a partial 32-bit model is one way to handle this and is in general reasonably effective. In fact, the highly performance-oriented z/OS operating system takes this approach currently, requiring program code to reside in any number of 32-bit address spaces while data objects can (optionally) reside in 64-bit regions.

The emergence of the 64-bit architecture effectively increases the memory ceiling to 264 addresses, equivalent to approximately 17.2 billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM. To put this in perspective, in the days when 4 MB of main memory was commonplace, the maximum memory ceiling of 232 addresses was about 1,000 times larger than typical memory configurations. Today, when 2 GB of main memory is common, the ceiling of 264 addresses is about ten billion times larger, i.e. ten million times more headroom than the 232 case.
 
so theoretically you could have like 20,000,000G of RAM in 64bit (obviously the technology to do this isnt available yet, but theoretically?)
 
so theoretically you could have like 20,000,000G of RAM in 64bit (obviously the technology to do this isnt available yet, but theoretically?)

he emergence of the 64-bit architecture effectively increases the memory ceiling to 264 addresses, equivalent to approximately 17.2 billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM.

lalala
 
gotcha. Do you think we'll see the day when its like, yeah man, this version of windows is a real system hog, you better upgrade from 1 exabyte to maybe 2, or 4 if your doing heavy gaming.
 
Im getting Vista Ultimate 64-bit, because im about to get another 2Gb of ram. Can anyone tell me what problems i might run into?
Such as like, will i run into any program trouble? like if there isnt a 64-bit version, will a 32-bit version still work fine in most cases?
Anything else i should be worrying about?

Sorry for thread jacking, but im not gonna start a new thread when I can ask in this one.
 
Sorry for thread jacking, but im not gonna start a new thread when I can ask in this one.

lol its all good.

Im getting Vista Ultimate 64-bit, because im about to get another 2Gb of ram. Can anyone tell me what problems i might run into?
Such as like, will i run into any program trouble? like if there isnt a 64-bit version, will a 32-bit version still work fine in most cases?
Anything else i should be worrying about?

This might answer your question, jdbennet got it from wiki:

The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that relative to 32-bit architectures the same data occupies more space in memory (due to swollen pointers and possibly other types and alignment padding). This increases the memory requirements of a given process and can have implications for efficient processor cache utilization. Maintaining a partial 32-bit model is one way to handle this and is in general reasonably effective. In fact, the highly performance-oriented z/OS operating system takes this approach currently, requiring program code to reside in any number of 32-bit address spaces while data objects can (optionally) reside in 64-bit regions.
 
I'm not sure if that quote is actually relevent to your question, but it seems like it. Someone can correct if thats not right though.
 
Back
Top