64-bit: More than just the RAM

TomW · May 3, 2009

Yeah... lol. Remember when 850MB hard drives and Fat 32 was the ****?! Fastest thing around! I remember when I read in the business section of my newspaper that Intel was planning to release a 200mHz Pentium processor... my response was something like, 'My God! How fast do they need to go?!' lmao at myself now...

That really was a great article about 64 bit architecture. I learned a lot. Now where can I get me fingers on a copy of Windows 7 RC1?
Thanks much in advance!

Blackhawk7188 · May 3, 2009

TomW said:
Yeah... lol. Remember when 850MB hard drives and Fat 32 was the ****?! Fastest thing around! I remember when I read in the business section of my newspaper that Intel was planning to release a 200mHz Pentium processor... my response was something like, 'My God! How fast do they need to go?!' lmao at myself now...

That really was a great article about 64 bit architecture. I learned a lot. Now where can I get me fingers on a copy of Windows 7 RC1?
Thanks much in advance!

I actually remember that my first PC was a 100MHz Hewitt Packard with 1.0125GB hard drive and 16MB RAM and at the time it was top of the line. Amazing that now we have RAM that has more memory than those hard drives. And cell phones that process faster than the pc did.

I never quite understood what was so special about 64 bit until I upgraded to it and now I dont want to go back to anything else.

TomW · May 3, 2009

I upgraded to a Pentium 100 after using my first 'real' PC... a 486 w/ 2 MB of ram. My first PC was a 3000.00 IBM 8088 with, um, NO ram... lol. It had a 15 mb hard drive, 5.25" floppys were what all the software came on.
After upgrading to Windows 95, I went out to upgrade my ram from 8 to 16 mb... that extra 8 mb of ram cost me $325.00! For 8MB. Nowadays you can buy a PC with 2 GB of Ram for about the same. Remember MS saying Win95 worked great w/ 8mb of ram? And they're STILL B.S.ing us! lol...

I can't see using anything else but a 64 bit OS myself, brother. And to think I put off installing my copy of Ultimate 64 for almost two years!

paliometoxo · May 11, 2009

they say vista should have 1GB of ram but its not enough.. i think 4GB is about right.. not perfect but good..

toml_12953 · May 31, 2009

roy69 said:
64 bits are better than 32 in a programmers eye. Not only can you see more memory but the variables can hold more data. This alone can creat a speed increase. I agree with SQUID on two points, 64 is better than 32 for speed and performance. Don`t forget that this is a young os. As time goes buy more people will get used to it, more people will support it and it WILL grow.

In a programmer's eye certainly. In an end-user's eye, no. I still recommend x86 to clients who have less than 4 GB RAM. x64 is larger and, on all the benchmarks I've run, slower than x86 on machines with 4 GB or less. Until the minimum memory available on PCs is 6 GB, I'll continue to push x86 and have happier clients. In real-world terms, it *is* all about the RAM.

unreal · May 31, 2009

i'm using vista ultimate x64 but i have some friends that use xp x32 and they have 4gb RAM dual processors and i've tried to tell them that's not good but they just keep useing the xp...

KrossX · Jun 1, 2009

If it works for them, let them be at ease.

unreal · Jun 1, 2009

what about 6gb of RAM

)? and still using xp x32 they lose :D not me

rasmasyean · Jun 6, 2009

May 2009 survey by Valve Corporation indicated that 39.9% of gamers are running Windows Vista or Windows 7 beta (46% of which are 64-bit versions)
Windows Vista - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chris2005 · Jul 7, 2009

I hear they plan to do away with 32bit after Windows 7.

rasmasyean · Jul 7, 2009

Chris2005 said:
I hear they plan to do away with 32bit after Windows 7.

Well, even as it stands now. 32-bit Vista is really a "compatability version" of Vista that was meant for those people who needed to use old stuff that doesn't work or won't get upgrades. 64-bit does have a 32-bit emulator built-in but it's not 100%. And 32-bit has a 16-bit emulator. That's not perfect either but practically all 16-bit software that doesn't work on 32-bit has been long history. It will take a while before all 32-bit software is history too, but by that time, if you really really need to run it, you can use a virtual machine that will only take like 2% of a modern machine.

TheShadow · Jul 7, 2009

I feel certain that some of you who contribute to this forum are not old enough to remember the transition from 8 bit computing to 16 bit. Just a few short years later again the jump from 16 bit to 32 bit and now we're going through the pains of yet another transition from 32 to 64 bit. I have no doubt that someday, those of us who live long enough will see 128 bit processors in home computers.

It costs the hardware manufacturers a lot of money to develop a new processor and then continue to make the older processor that's being phased out.

Likewise the Software writers, wanting to be on the cutting edge but still trying to fill the demand of the older processor users.

When I decided to test Vista, I built myself a new PC with a 64 bit dual core CPU.
In testing Vista and now Windows 7, I've used nothing but the 64 bit Ultimate versions of those OS's. To do otherwise would be a great waste of my time and effort.
Both Vista 64 and Win-7 64 run great on 4 to 6 gig's of Dual Channel Ram.
Installing any more, to me, would be a great waste of money.

Y'all have a great day now, Y'hear?

The Shadow :cool:

rasmasyean · Jul 7, 2009

And don’t forget the hold-outs. You will still find some threads around with ppl saying that 64-bit is a waste because it’s not practical and over-kill for blah blah blah. They are slowly diminishing as average laptops in Best Buy are 64-bit now too, but you still have the naysayers and people who “justify” not upgrading.

I still remember my first 486DX 50 MHz purchase. The PC Builder at that time said “You don’t need to spend the extra money for the Pentium. That’s like a mainframe and you’ll never need it.” Well Pentiums DID cost a lot more at that time, but of course paying $2,300 for just a 486 in early 90’s USD was like an automobile purchase decision.

I think with Windows 7 and the multi-touch trend, you will have a lot of higher power requirements to process all those multiple input gestures operating on multiple objects simultaneously and stuff like that…on top of all the extra bloat…I mean features…that large software packages will add.

luckystar · Jul 7, 2009

unreal said:
i'm using vista ultimate x64 but i have some friends that use xp x32 and they have 4gb RAM dual processors and i've tried to tell them that's not good but they just keep useing the xp...

To be honest, if it were'nt for win 7 being released on RC terms, i would have gone back to xp pro x86, co's to be honest it was a lot better, in stability terms and compatibility terms, than vista.

But now, since upgrading from 768mb (in my old dell) to 8gb (in my current first build), i only use xp for torrents and just generally messing about. Where as, since 7 came along - bye bye vista ultimate 64 (£162 down the pigging drain) and hello se7en (bring on october 22nd for the rtm release)!!!!

Chris2005 · Jul 7, 2009

I still use a Pentium 4 w/ HT, which has both the 32-bit and 64-bit architectures.

WildMan · Jul 8, 2009

Hello everyone,

I've got a new laptop coming a HP Pavilion dv7-1273cl with 4 gig's of memory and Vista Home Premium 64. I got this one new at a price that makes me want to take out the old asbestos gloves (it's really not hot). I've heard of so many different opinions from so many that I wonder if there is a list of software that will/willnot run on the operating system. Also in doing some research on the new system I have found that one program will not run that I need to work from home unless I use ReadyDriverPlus to disable the coding digital signature check feature. Can someone tell me what this amounts too? When they are talking about the digital signature check feature are they talking about in Xp amounts to "this driver is not M$ certified and it has a continue anyway button" or is it something more serious than that?

Thanks in advance for any info.

Chris2005 · Jul 9, 2009

"Supposedly" 32bit apps are compatible in a 64bit OS, but I don't really use 64bit, so I am not sure how to help you on that issue.

shor · Aug 5, 2009

Chappy said:
rhlblue said:

there's not doubt that x64 is better than x32

Click to expand...

Hi

Just so some "Nit-Picker" doesn't call you out on this someday, we need to get your terminology straight. There is no such thing as x32, the 32bit instructions are known as x86 and 64 bit is x64. When talking "bits" then it's 32bit and 64bit, but when you put an "x" in front, you're now talking architecture instructions and that's x86 and x64.
I know you're just using it in a contextual form (x32) but in places like this there's always someone who'll jump on you for that little gaff (not me tho!!) just an FYI..

@Shawn - Great article buddy!
While I do know the differences between 32bit and 64bit other than the RAM benefits, that article put things in a far better way than I can describe them to users, so it's now my Bookmarked page to send users too, to learn a little more than just the basic differences.
I was fortunate I guess, when in 1972 I was able to use one of those MONSTER IBM 64bit machines...darn thing was bigger then the 4x4 truck I own now and ran on punch card technology. Super cool tho, I wrote a program that required some 24,000 cards to perform and it made a 6' x 32" poster of a girl in a bikini by using lots of "x, !, %, <, >..." and so on....LOL!!
What can I say, I was 16 at the time and not much else was going thru my adolescent brain.
At the time that computer was the only one around for about 500 miles and we got to play with it for a week for our High School Computer class, which was in it's first year BTW. Other than that we simply made little "Plug boards" at school that when you hooked up the wires in different plugs you could make different lights go on/off..etc.
That was our Computer Class back then...just a tad different today.

Chubby I did the same with punch cards around the same time except I did mine on a Gigantic Multix system and at that time the largest Computer on any American Campus. We took turns every other year with MIT..COBOL, FORTRAN, PL1, Assembly..etc....all ancient stuff.....

roy69 · Aug 6, 2009

I started on a honeywell machine. Not as bad as puched card or tape but was still a large machine.
The first program I made was of a skier going down a slope.
You had to avoide the "H" symbol. How graphics have improved:D.

shor · Aug 6, 2009

I did a similar thing with a COBAL program. A the end of the program I had it write "this program deserves a big A+" and the "A" was huge. I remember it vividly because I had this gorgous blonde teacher and I always sat on the front row. She came in the morning winked at me and showed my program to the class. Gosh she was gorgerous and naturally I never cut that class.

I picked up a book C++ By Example, read a few chapters and learned that it really has not changed that much. Still have to assign variables with values etc. If I really had a need I could do what I need to in C++ but doubt I will ever find a real need other than just the challenge of writing a program to write it in C++.

Ok enough of that we need to move on to tech support here..

Shor

64-bit: More than just the RAM

New Member

My Computer

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

My Computer

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

My Computer

Chris2005

My Computer

My Computer

Retired PC Builder

My Computer

My Computer

My Computer

Chris2005

My Computer

My Computer

Chris2005

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

47,65,65,6B

My Computer

New Member

My Computer