Differences between IE 32-bit and 64-bit

whs · 20 Apr 2010

I recommend 64-bit only for those who do not need the plugins/addons that are only 32-bit.

That is a very theoretical recommendation. Who does NOT need the flash player. Maybe it gets fixed with IE9.

Dark Nova Gamer · 20 Apr 2010

whs said:

I recommend 64-bit only for those who do not need the plugins/addons that are only 32-bit.

That is a very theoretical recommendation. Who does NOT need the flash player.

Oh I'm sure there are some people out there that do not use it. Who they are or why I have no clue.

edrik · 20 Apr 2010

I got better results on IE 64 bit

Differences between IE 32-bit and 64-bit-64.png

IE 64bit

IE 32bit

Snowdog · 20 Apr 2010

[QUOTE=DarkNovaGamer;694845]

Snowdog said:

That is your opinion. Which is welcome. I recommend 64-bit only for those who do not need the plugins/addons that are only 32-bit. Whether you agree with that or not isn't my concern.

Regardless of your opinion, 64-bit software will inevitably phase out 32-bit just as 32-bit phased out 16-bit. May as well be use to it as soon as you can. No valid reason NOT to use 64-bit IE. If your running 64-bit on your system, you likely have the resources to spare.

You still haven't presented one single reason to use the 64 bit version today. The graphic glitches are solid reason to not use it.

It's an opinion based on there being no real benefit. On it being slower in some systems and on the rendering leaving glitches behind as I showed in my screen shots.

Again you seem to be going back to: It's 64 so it's better rhetoric,when in reality is appears worse. 64bit isn't always better. Use 64bit when it provides an advantage, not because it will be there someday.

There was massive incentive to move from 16 to 32 bit apps because all applications were impacted by the 16 bit barrier. This is not the case with 32 bit apps, where only a handful of professional applications will hit that limit. Web browsing isn't one of them.

64bit IE is providing no advantage today.

Just out of curiosity, anyone else with a Intel Core2 family chip care to give it a benchmark (32 vs 64) to clear up my odd results.

Dark Nova Gamer · 20 Apr 2010

Snowdog said:

DarkNovaGamer said:

That is your opinion. Which is welcome. I recommend 64-bit only for those who do not need the plugins/addons that are only 32-bit. Whether you agree with that or not isn't my concern.

Regardless of your opinion, 64-bit software will inevitably phase out 32-bit just as 32-bit phased out 16-bit. May as well be use to it as soon as you can. No valid reason NOT to use 64-bit IE. If your running 64-bit on your system, you likely have the resources to spare.

You still haven't presented one single reason to use the 64 bit version today. The graphic glitches are solid reason to not use it.

It's an opinion based on there being no real benefit. On it being slower in some systems and on the rendering leaving glitches behind as I showed in my screen shots.

Again you seem to be going back to: It's 64 so it's better rhetoric,when in reality is appears worse. 64bit isn't always better. Use 64bit when it provides an advantage, not because it will be there someday.

There was massive incentive to move from 16 to 32 bit apps because all applications were impacted by the 16 bit barrier. This is not the case with 32 bit apps, where only a handful of professional applications will hit that limit. Web browsing isn't one of them.

64bit IE is providing no advantage today.

Just out of curiosity, anyone else with a Intel Core2 family chip care to give it a benchmark (32 vs 64) to clear up my odd results.

These are the same ideologies that said "no more than 640KB of RAM would be all anyone ever needed"

... the fact is technology always changes... 16bit was superseded by 32bit... 64bit will do the same and one day 64bit will be superseded by another. Saying that "Web Browsing (amongst other things) will NEVER need that memory is foolhardily and a mistake many have made in the IT industry in the past.

whs · 20 Apr 2010

Snowdog has a good point. Although I am a technology freak too, I would not use products and features that are counterproductive or keep me from operating my usual way. We must recognize that 64bit is not ready for prime time in some areas - and I stress in some areas. We just have to patient until everybody had a chance to provide proper support. Same as for quad (or even more) cores.

Brink · 20 Apr 2010

Here are my PeaceKeeper results with 32-bit IE8 vs 64-bit IE8

Differences between IE 32-bit and 64-bit-32-bit.jpg

Differences between IE 32-bit and 64-bit-64-bit.jpg

Dark Nova Gamer · 20 Apr 2010

My thought now is that PeaceKeeper is a bit.. skewed. At any rate, I edited the first post of this thread to match the way certain people feel about my opinion.

whs · 20 Apr 2010

DarkNovaGamer said:

My thought now is that PeaceKeeper is a bit.. skewed. At any rate, I edited the first post of this thread to match the way certain people feel about my opinion.

There was no need to change your post. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. It just difficult to get warmed up for X64 if there are still so many drawbacks - but I am sure that will change over time.

Snowdog · 20 Apr 2010

Brink said:

Here are my PeaceKeeper results with 32-bit IE8 vs 64-bit IE8

Thanks. Kind of similar proportion to mine. So IE8 seems a bit slower in 64 bit on Intel (but neither the leading result in AMD chips, nor the trailing in Intel is significant).

Did you see the glitches on the rendering of the balls as in my photo above. I only saw them on the 64bit IE.

To DarkNova. I am not saying 64 bit isn't the future, I am just saying there is no point switching all apps today where there is no advantage whatsoever for certain apps, in doing so (and some issues).