32-Bit or 64-Bit

[Shadowjk]

Ok thre Reason people think that XP ais better is because Vista had Problems at the Start when it first came out Now after SP2 it is Smoother and BSOD's appear less frequently

 

[Patonb]

Actually, Vista had no issues.... the Hardware just had no support

Also Vista was pushed out too hard as an update to XP, but the hardware wasn't up to the task of what they claimed it could do.

I think on 2 machines, I've had 1 BSOD, not due to oc'ing, in 2 years, and my desktop is on 24/7 and running mnultiple F@h clients.

 

[niemiro]

Actually, Vista had no issues.... the Hardware just had no support

Also Vista was pushed out too hard as an update to XP, but the hardware wasn't up to the task of what they claimed it could do.

I think on 2 machines, I've had 1 BSOD, not due to oc'ing, in 2 years, and my desktop is on 24/7 and running mnultiple F@h clients.

I have no problems with Vista. In its life, 4 BSoDs, all a known cause, all definitely NOT Vista's fault (GMER) and when it first came out, it was a little sluggish for me, but that turned out to only be a dying hard disk. I still use it, have no problems, and my ageing peripherals happen to not work on 7 Beta. I know you are going to say it was in Beta then, but I still see no reason to upgrade from the very good Vista.

 

[roy69]

64bit is better for a lot more reasons than have been mentioned.
However, you need the proper hardware to use it properley. This is where alot of people use to fall over.
Now that most hardware is designed to work with 64 bit os times are getting better.
Most of the early problems to do with driver support was not vistas fault but the manufacturers of the device.
If you put a new audio system in your car and it did not work would you blame the car maker?

64bit os can also handle larger numbers in maths before it has to break them down.
They can handle larger programs for the simple reason they have more memory addresses.
This is more noticable on specialised programs and, the more the computer world progresses the less of a difference it will make.

Look at it this way a 4 bit os can handle 4 bits
this is 1111 in binary which is 15 in denary

now say there was a 5 bit os this can handle an extra digit that is worth 16 in dinary making maths slightly faster.
The more bits you get the larger the number the os can handle, however the number that a 32bit os can handle is very large. Unless you are using specific programs you will not notice much of a difference between them.

This is just my opinion, feel free to add to anything I have said.

 

[Shadowjk]

That is a Very Good point Roy69, Just one question why is a 32-Bit computer x84 and a 64-Bit x64?

Many thanks,
Josh

 

[MrNeeds]

That is a Very Good point Roy69, Just one question why is a 32-Bit computer x84 and a 64-Bit x64?

Many thanks,
Josh

intel's architecture on processors was innovative in the 90s, they released an architecture called 8086 which brought operating systems into 32bit revolution, its reffered to as 86-32, then x64 came along and was reffered to as 86-64, its just the original intel architecture that branded it the name x86.

Dave

 

[roy69]

I have seen a little about x84, however the proper name as Mr Needs has said is x86.
There was also the 386 and 486 processor.
The main diference is x86 can handle 16bit apps where as x64 has a major problem with them.

 

[Dwarf]

The reason why 32-bit is sometimes referred to as x86 comes from the x86 series of Intel processors - the 286, 386, 486, 586 (pentium), etc. The two terms became synonymous, and people use them interchangeably. There isn't an equivalent for 64-bit, so this became known as x64 just as a shorthand way of writing it. True, 32-bit could also be written as x32, but the x86 representation is well established and used. Even MS use the x86 suffix to distinguish between 32-bit and 64-bit folders, such as Program Files (x86) and Program Files.