32 bit vs 64 bit Comparison

[Lordbob75]

Has anyone failed to notice that MS doesn't really support 64-bit OS? Windows update site only runs on 32-bit, the only reason to have 32bit IE installed by default so you can do updates? Give me a break. If MS is not going to support it, why in the world would you ever get it?

You mean Internet Explorer...

~Lordbob

 

[Petey7]

Has anyone failed to notice that MS doesn't really support 64-bit OS? Windows update site only runs on 32-bit, the only reason to have 32bit IE installed by default so you can do updates? Give me a break. If MS is not going to support it, why in the world would you ever get it?

You mean Internet Explorer...

~Lordbob

Windows update site doesn't even do anything on Windows 7 does it? When I go to it, it just tells me hw to find windows update in control panel.

 

[Lordbob75]

Has anyone failed to notice that MS doesn't really support 64-bit OS? Windows update site only runs on 32-bit, the only reason to have 32bit IE installed by default so you can do updates? Give me a break. If MS is not going to support it, why in the world would you ever get it?

You mean Internet Explorer...

~Lordbob

Windows update site doesn't even do anything on Windows 7 does it? When I go to it, it just tells me hw to find windows update in control panel.

Exactly.

~Lordbob

 

[zzz2496]

Where does this "x32" comes from ??? Lordbob, can we stop using "x32"? There is no "x32" term. x64 term comes from a shorthand form of x86_64 (meaning x86 instructions with AMD's 64 bit extensions). There is no x86_32 ever...

And there are no 80x32 processors on Intel's catalog that I'm aware of... We should use the correct terminology at all times. It's better that way...

zzz2496

The x32 came from 32bit...?

I am more confused about where x86 came from.

However, will do.

~Lordbob

If we are to derive how x64 to be, then I've explained earlier. x64 is a shorthand of x86_64. It's not x64 = 64 bit and thus we all can conclude that 32 bit = x32.

I'll fill you in on a tiny history lesson. Intel has a line of processors back then in the '80s. It was all started with 8086. It's a programmable micro processor. You can read the specs @ wikipedia. Long story short, Intel improves it's 8086 processor to 80186, then to 80286, then to 80386 (386 series have several variants), then 80486, then 80586 (The infamous Intel Pentium) and many many processors up to today's Core series. Now if you see the processor codes, all have "86" on it. Back then everyone refers to Intel's processor architecture to "x86" meaning long line of "many-86" series processors that are compatible with one and another, thus the x86. All that then came AMD with Athlon64, x86 compatible processor with 64 bit instruction extensions. Right at that time, everyone called it x86_64, and short it to x64. Intel waited quite sometime before finally licenses it off AMD and calling it's own implementation as EMT64 (don't forget, Intel have 2 IAs [Intel Architecture], IA-32[back then, Pentium series] and IA-64 [Itanium], both completely different architecture with IA-64 having some silicon space for a "hardware emulator" for x86). Itanium failed miserably under the pressure of x86_64 (along with many RISC based microprocessors from other companies, like SUN's Niagara, HP Compaq's Alpha, and many close to dead similar processors like IBM's POWER)

The 32bit (and 16bit) x86 architecture is still called x86 siding with a shorthanded version of x86_64. If you read about Linux's packages, you can read many of filenames that contains i586 (x86 32bit) or plain x86 or i686 (same x86 32bit) and the 64bit version using x86_64 most of the time.

As for Microsoft's support for 64 bit computing... This is quite hard since MS tend to be diligent on keeping old baggage for a very long long long long long~~~~ time... Windows 64bit edition always have WoW (Windows on Windows) subsystem, it's the subsystem that will "emulate" 32bit environment, guaranteeing close to 100% compatibility between Windows editions... And that WoW subsystem is working close to perfect thus there's no hurry on MS's side to "completely" support x86_64 with pure 64 bit applications... If the 32bit part works perfectly, why the rush?

zzz2496

 

[PhreePhly]

Has anyone failed to notice that MS doesn't really support 64-bit OS? Windows update site only runs on 32-bit, the only reason to have 32bit IE installed by default so you can do updates? Give me a break. If MS is not going to support it, why in the world would you ever get it?

Not sure if this is a troll or not, but just in case you really believe what you wrote, let me try and dispel that mis-conception.

First of all, Windows Update does NOT use the browser. It is a stand-alone program (32-bit in x86 and 64-bit in x64 Windows 7). You don't need to have IE installed to use the Update program.

The reason 32-bit IE is default, is that almost all of the popular add-ins, both MS and non-MS, are 32-bit plugins. Flash, up until just a few months ago, did not have a 64-bit plugin.

Also, just to put the "MS doesn't support 64-bit" argument to rest, Office 2010, the most sold Windows Application, is available in 64-bit. That required a tremendous amount of man-power. Much of the Excel source-code was written in assembly upto Office 2003. Converting the 32-bit version to 64-bit required a large amount of fresh code. And it had to equal or beat the performance of the previous version.

Large software houses, like MS, can't just throw software out on the market and hope it sticks. If you talk to the Silverlight guys about 64-bit Silverlight, they would love to get a 64-bit version out there, but the VAST majority of IE installs are 32-bit. The minute a 64-bit version goes out, it has to be supported with the same amount of vigor as any other software package, and frankly, the team isn't big enough to handle that load, and the cost-benefit analysis points to sticking to 32-bit for at least one more version.

 

[Keiichi25]

Has anyone failed to notice that MS doesn't really support 64-bit OS? Windows update site only runs on 32-bit, the only reason to have 32bit IE installed by default so you can do updates? Give me a break. If MS is not going to support it, why in the world would you ever get it?

Not sure if this is a troll or not, but just in case you really believe what you wrote, let me try and dispel that mis-conception.

First of all, Windows Update does NOT use the browser. It is a stand-alone program (32-bit in x86 and 64-bit in x64 Windows 7). You don't need to have IE installed to use the Update program.

The reason 32-bit IE is default, is that almost all of the popular add-ins, both MS and non-MS, are 32-bit plugins. Flash, up until just a few months ago, did not have a 64-bit plugin.

Also, just to put the "MS doesn't support 64-bit" argument to rest, Office 2010, the most sold Windows Application, is available in 64-bit. That required a tremendous amount of man-power. Much of the Excel source-code was written in assembly upto Office 2003. Converting the 32-bit version to 64-bit required a large amount of fresh code. And it had to equal or beat the performance of the previous version.

Large software houses, like MS, can't just throw software out on the market and hope it sticks. If you talk to the Silverlight guys about 64-bit Silverlight, they would love to get a 64-bit version out there, but the VAST majority of IE installs are 32-bit. The minute a 64-bit version goes out, it has to be supported with the same amount of vigor as any other software package, and frankly, the team isn't big enough to handle that load, and the cost-benefit analysis points to sticking to 32-bit for at least one more version.

Actually, the misconception is brought upon by how Windows Update, when you want to do it manually, required Internet Explorer on Windows XP and in some cases on Windows 2003. Hence people are under the belief of that.

As for 64 bit, you are right, they won't make an effort to really support it until there is a high demand.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

Well it seemed ok to me but being a Limey in Oz the only thing wrong was the grammar of Non's alternative - Should it would be have named ooooh bit double dutch as we used to ay in the UK when I lived there. Liked -
"Comparison Test - Advantage from x64 To x32 OS - EXPLANATION" myself but that's eing a bit pedantic eh?
Damn good read especially for me as I have just switched over to 64 on my Toshy laptop (was an option in factory default). One thing that stood out was the amount of RAM that can be accessed - I suppose I read it correctly - 8Tb can be adressed? Would I be right in thinking that would be a very large external device hooked up something like Readyboost? The same goes for the 192Gb?
A bit off topic but does readyboost work with 64bit stuff as I tried 2Gb extra and no appreciable difference.
Anyway must stop - given to rambling - still top read.
Joh

 

[Lordbob75]

Well it seemed ok to me but being a Limey in Oz the only thing wrong was the grammar of Non's alternative - Should it would be have named ooooh bit double dutch as we used to ay in the UK when I lived there. Liked -
"Comparison Test - Advantage from x64 To x32 OS - EXPLANATION" myself but that's eing a bit pedantic eh?
Damn good read especially for me as I have just switched over to 64 on my Toshy laptop (was an option in factory default). One thing that stood out was the amount of RAM that can be accessed - I suppose I read it correctly - 8Tb can be adressed? Would I be right in thinking that would be a very large external device hooked up something like Readyboost? The same goes for the 192Gb?
A bit off topic but does readyboost work with 64bit stuff as I tried 2Gb extra and no appreciable difference.
Anyway must stop - given to rambling - still top read.
Joh

Thanks.
Ready boost should still work, but I have not had much experience with it.

~Lordbob

 

[firelance69]

Thanks for posting this. I never knew the difference between them.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

That readyboost

Thanks Bob if worse comes to worse the I'll just add some more internal RAM (got 4Gb now) although I will probably do my warranty in because I asked the maker how about changing the noisy PSU and got that response.

Anyway I'm just your average user and am known in local circles as the "Terminator" as I can bugga things up in a trice lol!!

Gouing to do a build soon then I shall be able to fit what I want eh? - my son will probably keep me in line though!!

 

[PhreePhly]

Has anyone failed to notice that MS doesn't really support 64-bit OS? Windows update site only runs on 32-bit, the only reason to have 32bit IE installed by default so you can do updates? Give me a break. If MS is not going to support it, why in the world would you ever get it?

Not sure if this is a troll or not, but just in case you really believe what you wrote, let me try and dispel that mis-conception.

First of all, Windows Update does NOT use the browser. It is a stand-alone program (32-bit in x86 and 64-bit in x64 Windows 7). You don't need to have IE installed to use the Update program.

The reason 32-bit IE is default, is that almost all of the popular add-ins, both MS and non-MS, are 32-bit plugins. Flash, up until just a few months ago, did not have a 64-bit plugin.

Also, just to put the "MS doesn't support 64-bit" argument to rest, Office 2010, the most sold Windows Application, is available in 64-bit. That required a tremendous amount of man-power. Much of the Excel source-code was written in assembly upto Office 2003. Converting the 32-bit version to 64-bit required a large amount of fresh code. And it had to equal or beat the performance of the previous version.

Large software houses, like MS, can't just throw software out on the market and hope it sticks. If you talk to the Silverlight guys about 64-bit Silverlight, they would love to get a 64-bit version out there, but the VAST majority of IE installs are 32-bit. The minute a 64-bit version goes out, it has to be supported with the same amount of vigor as any other software package, and frankly, the team isn't big enough to handle that load, and the cost-benefit analysis points to sticking to 32-bit for at least one more version.

Actually, the misconception is brought upon by how Windows Update, when you want to do it manually, required Internet Explorer on Windows XP and in some cases on Windows 2003. Hence people are under the belief of that.

As for 64 bit, you are right, they won't make an effort to really support it until there is a high demand.

And that is why I make an effort to dispel these myths. If someone wants to argue a point, then they should, at least, know a bit about the point they are arguing. These were the same lame arguments used by the trade rags to rip Vista.

 

[Dilbert8056]

Well it seemed ok to me but being a Limey in Oz the only thing wrong was the grammar of Non's alternative - Should it would be have named ooooh bit double dutch as we used to ay in the UK when I lived there. Liked -
"Comparison Test - Advantage from x64 To x32 OS - EXPLANATION" myself but that's eing a bit pedantic eh?
Damn good read especially for me as I have just switched over to 64 on my Toshy laptop (was an option in factory default). One thing that stood out was the amount of RAM that can be accessed - I suppose I read it correctly - 8Tb can be adressed? Would I be right in thinking that would be a very large external device hooked up something like Readyboost? The same goes for the 192Gb?
A bit off topic but does readyboost work with 64bit stuff as I tried 2Gb extra and no appreciable difference.
Anyway must stop - given to rambling - still top read.
Joh

You will be limited by your chipset/memory controller. For example, the P55 chipset can only address 16*GB* RAM.

Dil

 

[ICIT2LOL]

Chipset / memory controller

Now Dil you have me at an disadvantage here being a (I think so) fairly good health professional but not so hot on computer workings. I have gathered over the last week that memory is not confined to the RAM sticks, but also the ?cache inbult mobo memory etc etc and their controllers ( I thought only HDD's had these ). As for the chipset if I knew what I was looking for I could tell you what I have got.

My desktop machine is a very basic prebuilt from a company here in Australia and my laptop a Toshiba Sat L550 so might have to have scratch around the system details to find out eh?

 

[Lordbob75]

Now Dil you have me at an disadvantage here being a (I think so) fairly good health professional but not so hot on computer workings. I have gathered over the last week that memory is not confined to the RAM sticks, but also the ?cache inbult mobo memory etc etc and their controllers ( I thought only HDD's had these ). As for the chipset if I knew what I was looking for I could tell you what I have got.

My desktop machine is a very basic prebuilt from a company here in Australia and my laptop a Toshiba Sat L550 so might have to have scratch around the system details to find out eh?

Basically, a 64bit OS can theoretically use terabytes of RAM, but the hardware also has to support that.
In this case, he means that the maximum the motherboard can see is 16Gigs.

~Lordbob

 

[Lordbob75]

I think 32 bit is more suitable for common users.

I disagree. There is literally no reason to NOT use x64 with a new computer anymore. Most come with more than 3 gigs of RAM now, and x64 drivers exist and function just fine.

~Lordbob

 

[Petey7]

I think 32 bit is more suitable for common users.

I disagree. There is literally no reason to NOT use x64 with a new computer anymore. Most come with more than 3 gigs of RAM now, and x64 drivers exist and function just fine.

~Lordbob

I agree with Lordbob. Drivers used to be a major issue, but not so much anymore, especially on newer computers. Also, the number of 64-bit programs is increasing constantly. Recently I decided to try to switch to all 64-bit software and there were only two programs I couldn't find a sutable alternative to. IZarc and FormatFactory. There are 64-bit alternatives, but familarity with those two kept me from switching. Besides, 32-bit programs work on 64-bit systems just fine. There is no reason not to use a 64-bit OS these days.

 

[Dilbert8056]

Basically, a 64bit OS can theoretically use terabytes of RAM, but the hardware also has to support that.
In this case, he means that the maximum the motherboard can see is 16Gigs.
~Lordbob

Very well put. For example, the nForce 4 chipset has a limit of 4GB, so although it can run a 64 bit OS, there is no memory advantage...when one fits the max memory to hardware, one cannot see/use the full amount. If I fit the full 16GB in my current motherboard, I will only be able to use about 15.25-15.50.

Dil

 

[zzz2496]

Basically, a 64bit OS can theoretically use terabytes of RAM, but the hardware also has to support that.
In this case, he means that the maximum the motherboard can see is 16Gigs.
~Lordbob

Very well put. For example, the nForce 4 chipset has a limit of 4GB, so although it can run a 64 bit OS, there is no memory advantage...when one fits the max memory to hardware, one cannot see/use the full amount. If I fit the full 16GB in my current motherboard, I will only be able to use about 15.25-15.50.

Dil

No, we will still have the advantage of 64bit. One of them is the capability of a process to have "User-mode virtual address space" to whatever your RAM size (we'll need some time before we can put 7/8TB of RAM in our home desktop machines). We still inherit all of 64bit security features... And many other features. The primary reason to use 64bit OS is indeed "Max RAM size", but there are many important features besides "Max RAM size".

zzz2496

 

[ufie89]

greeaaaaattt,,,,

my friends ever ask me what the differences are??

some of them force their PC to use 64 bit whereas their PC cant competible using that,,

 

[Lordbob75]

I like this comparison. My home OS is 32bit, and office OS is 64bit.

Thanks.

~Lordbob