xxxalpinexxx80
New Member
i have vista 64bit but what are the main differnces between the 32bit and 64bit
i know 64bit recognises more ram but what else?
i know 64bit recognises more ram but what else?
vista 32bit vs 64bit
- Thread starter xxxalpinexxx80
- Start date
Besides it being a little more stable and secure then the 32bit versions of Windows being based on the Windows Server 2003 architecture a good look over of two blogs seen at the links gives a far better description of the actual differences. Even the next new version of Windows due out in 2010 will still see 32bit and 64bit editions there.
One short blog with reader comments is found at http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2006/05/28/609372.aspx That's based on the lengthy 2006 article seen at http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x64.asp
One short blog with reader comments is found at http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2006/05/28/609372.aspx That's based on the lengthy 2006 article seen at http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x64.asp
What is now seen in Vista is the increase in support for running 32bit programs unlike the limitations seen with the first 64bit version of Windows. XP Pro 64 was what you would call the pioneer there.
But take one look at the history of Windows to see why the transition and demand for 64bit edtions is much slower then that seen when moving up from 16 to 32bit. The market and demand is still geared for 32bit and will remain that way for some time to come. One critism about the 64bit edtion of Vista was in gaming where the loss in frame rates was seen.
That sheds some light on the explaination besides the 3gb barrier seen with 32bit that many have for expecting an increase in overall performance. Just like what was seen when moving up from 16bit the platform is more stable and sees better overall secuirty. That's the real benefits while lacking a market at this time.
But take one look at the history of Windows to see why the transition and demand for 64bit edtions is much slower then that seen when moving up from 16 to 32bit. The market and demand is still geared for 32bit and will remain that way for some time to come. One critism about the 64bit edtion of Vista was in gaming where the loss in frame rates was seen.
That sheds some light on the explaination besides the 3gb barrier seen with 32bit that many have for expecting an increase in overall performance. Just like what was seen when moving up from 16bit the platform is more stable and sees better overall secuirty. That's the real benefits while lacking a market at this time.
ThatGuy16
VIP Member
Get 64bit, i have no problems... i have had no driver problems, and i think its just as supported as 32bit because the retail version is sold with 64 and 32bit as XP retail was only sold with 32bit.
I doubt your ever going to see a decrease in frame rates.. i have never heard of this before.
I doubt your ever going to see a decrease in frame rates.. i have never heard of this before.
I don't know where you get the XP Pro 64bit was only sold what? OEM only? That was also sold retail while being directed to a different type of user. for general desktop use it was sadly lacking with a limited amount of softwares included. Vista is now the latest MS glory being heavily promoted. Like Linux is now seeing drivers are becoming increasingly available while the games and aps remain mainly 32bit.
thegreenblob
New Member
Unless you have a specific need to 64bit, personally, I would just use 32bit.
I knew there was a 64bit Linux distro available but not the flavor as far as what distro that was seen in?
XP Pro64 was based on the shadow copy process seen in Windows Server 2003 and was strictly limited software wise then. The big move by both AMD and Intel to see 32/64 capable cpus was kind of waste in too many ways since the market and support is just now starting with Vista. The bulk of softwars and games are still what? 32bit! and will be that way for some time to come.
I had Mandriva 2007 x86_64 running here. Recently the MB died on me and I had to swap the hdd to an old p4 2.4 gig and use that, which meant going back to 32 bit. I mainly had the 64 bit due to the 'better' memory model with lots of ram. And it was about 30% faster for some tasks like audio and video encoding, but also fairly ram hungry.
I have now rebuilt the 64 box with a new MB, but installed 32 bit OS (Slack 12 and XP) this time - using it right now in the slack I installed yesterday. It's just easier to just have 32 bit across all machines so I don't have to get separate 32 bit and 64bit OS's and 32bit and 64bit video drivers and all the rest.
Plus of course you had to run 32 bit firefox anyway so you could use 32 bit plugins.
For the moment it's just a bit easier running 32bit in most cases, tho I would run 64 if all the machines here were 64. Currently upgrading machines to 32 bit Mandriva 2008 or Slack 12 as it's the 'easy' way. Might use slack more as mandriva is getting a bit heavy, needs mods to get mp3 working, etc... Slack is somehow lighter and quicker, even with the same kde version.
No vista here yet. It's a wait and see thing. Will only get it if it come preinstalled on a laptop or something.
And gee all this time I thought Linux was 24bit not 32 since the distros I ran were on 24bit VFat. At least AMD has taken notice of Linux with a site dedicated to open source softwares seen at http://www.x86-64.org/
Linux also sees artcles on what to expect from 64bit versions as seen at http://www.linux.com/articles/56984
Linux also sees artcles on what to expect from 64bit versions as seen at http://www.linux.com/articles/56984
The article covers the main issues. Of course 64 bit linux was way better (for getting precompiled 64bit apps) in 2007 then 2006 when the article was written. Mandriva 2006 64 was more painful than the 2007 version.
You will have to run 32 bit third party binaries, but no real issue and they are not really the apps that need speed, tho a 64 bit OOo might be a good idea
64 firefox can be aquired, but way easier and more realistic to run 32 bit. But it certainly is easier to run a 32 bit OS at this stage in the game, linux or MS. 32 bit games, apps, etc...
But I have run 64 bit frozen bubble and solitaire
At this point in time there's certainly no gain with any 64bit OS as far as anything except those that think 4gb is going to see a big gaming boost. NADA! Pc games are well within the 2gb parameter while larger video caturing, graphics design, programming, and other things like CAD are the actual memory hounds.
With most distros you won't find a great need for having a ton od memory installed in order to run most programs. Go back just to 2004-05 to see some small distros only requiring as little as 4mb of memory. The 64bit platform gets you past the 3gb or so barrier while chipsets for boards despite the 8-16gb capacities now seen are lacking there due to design. In many cases only 7gb is seen out of 8gb on an 8gb max board.
With most distros you won't find a great need for having a ton od memory installed in order to run most programs. Go back just to 2004-05 to see some small distros only requiring as little as 4mb of memory. The 64bit platform gets you past the 3gb or so barrier while chipsets for boards despite the 8-16gb capacities now seen are lacking there due to design. In many cases only 7gb is seen out of 8gb on an 8gb max board.