64-bit: More than just the RAM

squid · Oct 18, 2007

Thanks for that.
Never one to shy away from a challenge i've allways gone for the 64 bit route XP was ok but i find Vista far easier to work with,someday everyone will see the light instead of being scared of it due to what there mates uncles brother said ??

Thanks again

Brink · Oct 19, 2007

Squid,

64 bit will only get better over time to as there becomes more and more support for it. :D

Shawn

squid · Oct 19, 2007

brink said:
Squid,

64 bit will only get better over time to as there becomes more and more support for it. :D

Shawn

And over the years i've noticed that most manufacturers of both hardware and software are beginning to appreciate 64 bit over 32,

sosrandom · Oct 21, 2007

But theres better support for multithreading and quad cores with upcoming games bacause of PS3 and Xbox tri-core thingy

rhlblue · Oct 27, 2007

there's not doubt that x64 is better than x32.....its only the time which makes people to believe that x32 is the better choice....

i never used x32 vista.....Started from x64 and still on it....first i thought that vista is not good so i kept my xp also and dual booted them.....
the only reason i thought this was because of all the crap and hype on the internet about x64......
now my Xp is gone.....no more dual boot....I don't need it anymore...because its old...it may be still better than vista till now.....but no looking back now...hehe

now i'm so happy with my decision and really enjoyin it....

really nice article by Brett

roy69 · Nov 12, 2007

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.

Chappy · Jul 8, 2008

rhlblue said:
there's not doubt that x64 is better than x32

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.

SCSIraidGURU · Jul 8, 2008

I been using XP x64 and Vista x64 for years. I have had dual CPUs (single core, dual cores, and quad cores) for years. 64-bit programming has been a promise for years. Most companies are not doing 64-bit because they don't find a need for it. I would never want to see Microsoft Office 2007 64-bit. It is like multi-core or SMP progamming. Most applications still hit one processor or core only. This would be more helpful than 64-bit. Photoshop CS4 and some of my other A/V and CAD apps are 64-bit and multi-core capable. They need it for the post processing and rendering procedures. I find giving 2GB per core is best formula for performance. I have 8 Xeon cores and 16GB of RAM. I would like to see more highend games in 64-bit. My favorite game Stronghold 2 would benefit with 64-bit. It maxs out at 2GB of RAM. 64-bit would allow it to grow beyond 4GB. It is also single processor only. More RAM and CPUs would make it an extreme game. They won't recompile it.

acadamis2000 · Jul 8, 2008

Great article link. That is very true regarding the memory, most people strictly refer to the ability to see more memory which don't get me wrong is wonderful but that's not it.

Vista Enterprise x64

WildEagle · Jul 8, 2008

Some people might not agree with me, but I've found 64bit Vista to be more stable than 32bit Vista or 32bit XP in my expirence. I also like that I've found 64bit drivers for all my hardware.

fieseler · Jul 8, 2008

Funny, i found that mine was more stable too!

Overall i find that the ppl i know who dont like x64, dont like it coz they're favourite game/software wont work or something. i was too impulsive not to try it, especially when id bought a processor that was capabale of running x64.

My advice is if your pc is fairly modern, try the x64 version of vista before the x86. You're going to have to move to 64 bit at some point!!!

tksuther · Jul 8, 2008

This is very informative, thanks! I recently received my new computer loaded with Vista Home Premium x64 and just like many others I was very apprehensive and concerned after reading all the blogs online. But I went for it and couldn't be more pleased! I really like the interface and speed. I think the folks that have a bad experience simply ignore doing a little research to make sure x64 will work within their hardware/software environment.

johngalt · Jul 9, 2008

WildEagle, I'll agree with you, and will even wager that most other *users* of Vista x64 will find that it is a lot more stable than Vista 32bit.

WildEagle · Jul 9, 2008

johngalt, you got that right. Only thing I haven't done yet, is turn on hardware virtualization, in the bios of my motherboard. I haven't found a definitive answer on the net if it should be turned on, or left off, where virtualization and stability is concerned.

johngalt · Jul 9, 2008

Let me put it this way:

Look at my specs, click on my CPUID banner (er, I mean click here - http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=375727 http://valid.x86-secret.com/cache/banner/375727.png) and read my overclock specs - and then realize that I run *both* HPET and Hardware virtualization in the BIOS.

Of course, I don't have to tell you that YMMV.

WildEagle · Jul 9, 2008

As for HPET, I tried it, and wound up getting a lockups. Other people on various websites, have reported lockups and other problems when HPET is enabled, so I have it disabled.

From what I found out, recently there are fewer problems having hardware virtualization enabled in the bios, but I haven't gotten around to enabling it, until I can find me a definitive answer, as to whether or not it should be enabled or left on disabled.

Clevo · Jul 9, 2008

When this PC I am using was being built the toughest decision was which OS to use....I must admit that I was a bit worried about choosing the 64 bit Vista. December last year I knew very little about 64 bit and spent a lot of time reading horror story after horror story about Vista let alone potential issues with 64 bit. The Vista articles I read I noticed were pretty old.

I felt happy that all new drivers for Vista must also be written for 64 bit....so I was told.

I think it won;t be long before 64 bit software is in the majority. I'm very happy with my 64 bit OS and really haven;t had any problems driver wise.

I'm just ready for the future!

KrossX · Jul 9, 2008

Indeed, Vista x64 is more stable, and more secure actually, than Vista 32bits. The same can be said about XP x64, although it was based on 2003 rather than XP. (assuming all drivers have been found for 64bits)

@Chappy:

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..

*jumps*
Actually, it's x86-32 and x86-64. The "x64" is just marketing. Also, as for architectures, both are wrong... IA32, EM64T or AMD64 should be used in that regard.
*givesh cookie*

johngalt · Jul 10, 2008

It will be a lot longer than you think - because all the whiners that were complaining about Vista not running / supporting their old hardware (5 or more years old) are still out there with that same hardware.

Even now, my folks have a Del that is fully 64bit hardware and yet has a 32bit Vista Home Premium install.

64-bit: More than just the RAM

My Computer

My Computers

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

47,65,65,6B

My Computer

Tech Help since 1993

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

IT Consultant

My Computer

Banned

My Computer

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

Antidisestablishmentarianist

My Computers

Banned

My Computer

Antidisestablishmentarianist

My Computers

Banned

My Computer

Vista Fan

My Computer

My Computer

Antidisestablishmentarianist

My Computers