64 Bit or 32 Bit

[Night Hawk]

Many run 64bit editions of Vista will only 2gb installed. It's not actually a requirement for larger amounts just that that option is available when you are running larger memory eaters like CAD, video capturing(often enough here), graphics design, and other things that really hammer ram good.

The sad part there ikilledkenny is being stuck royally with a 32bit only cpu! I now you are going to smiling big time once you finally are able to upgrade out of that situation. According to the specs there you max out with a pair of 2gb 667 so-dimms to start with.

 

[Smashy]

I have 64-bit Windows 7 running on a Pentium 4 with 1GB of ram and the low amount of ram is not causing any issues, in fact it's getting things done faster than with the XP install it used to have.

My advice :
Check if your cpu supports 64-bit, if it does then install a 64-bit Windows (just not xp )
Everyone needs to move to 64-bit OS as soon as possible so developers can focus on making everything 64-bit.

 

[Night Hawk]

I have 64-bit Windows 7 running on a Pentium 4 with 1GB of ram and the low amount of ram is not causing any issues, in fact it's getting things done faster than with the XP install it used to have.

My advice :
Check if your cpu supports 64-bit, if it does then install a 64-bit Windows (just not xp )
Everyone needs to move to 64-bit OS as soon as possible so developers can focus on making everything 64-bit.

The real problem seen too often especially for the 64bit XP was never finding device drivers! In fact some were substituting Window Server 2003 drivers to see things work then. Vista saw an improvement for 64bit there otherwise many wouldn't even be running anything 64bit for the same problem.

The brick wall still has to do with the ISPs providing outdated network adapters, gateways the manufacturers dropped active support for by never seeing 64bit support. For getting online that's still one road block. You have to buy and use your own in order to get newer models that do see that support available.

 

[swarfega]

Driver support has been much improved during the win7 beta cycle than that of vistas.

 

[SMOKKINU]

It is time to switch to 64bit OS's


I have said it numerous times on Vista forums, that we are going through another transition here... Windows 95 was a 16bit OS... Windows 98 was what Windows Vista 64bit Ultimate is to us today... Windows 98 was the first "Hybrid" 16/32bit OS...

More and More companys are releasing 64bit drivers everyday... I have not had any issues whatsoever with any hardware that I have installed on my computer, I am running Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit... and it has been PERFECT. VERY stable, smooth, literally no crashes..only BSOD was from me, overclocking my video card a bit too high trying to find the sweet spot. Thats it....


If you have a 64bit processor, upgrade your computer, to take advantage of this new transition happening... upgrade to 64bit... it's time for 32bit to go back from wence it came


More and more programs are released everyday to take advantage of 64bit as well....

Read this article, it will help you with questions to understand that 64bit OS's are MORE then just having more RAM....

bit-tech.net | 64-bit: More than just the RAM

64-bit: More than just the RAM
Author: Brett Thomas
Published: 16th Oct 2007


Introduction
If you're a member of this or any other technology-based forum, odds are that you've noticed the several versions of Microsoft's latest offering, Windows Vista. If you haven't, well... please come out from under that rock and get with the programming!

One of the biggest changes has been the clear offering and even a gentle push towards the 64-bit version of the OS. Indubitably, this extra option becomes fodder for forum discussion, usually along the line of:

Forumite 1: "Hi, I am building a new system and I wanted to know what your thoughts were on whether I should use 64-bit or 32-bit Vista? I've heard varying things around the net regarding compatibility, and was hoping someone could help."
Forumite 2: "Hi! I just read your post. You should definitely go with the 32-bit version. There's tons of compatibility problems with 64b (Just look at XP-64), and it's going to die a long, drawn-out death. Besides, the only actual difference between them is that 64-bit can make proper use of 4GB of RAM."
Forumite 1: "Oh, ok! Thanks!"

Now, what's wrong with this picture? The answer is a lot. Time and time again, self-proclaimed gurus determine that the only real difference between 32-bit computing and 64-bit computing is the memory limit. Are they right that RAM is a reason? Definitely - but that's missing about 99 percent of the true differences. By that logic, the only major difference between your old 8-bit Nintendo console and your Xbox 360 is processor speed. I think we can all agree, that's just wrong.

 

[jfar]

It is time to switch to 64bit OS's


I have said it numerous times on Vista forums, that we are going through another transition here... Windows 95 was a 16bit OS... Windows 98 was what Windows Vista 64bit Ultimate is to us today... Windows 98 was the first "Hybrid" 16/32bit OS...

More and More companys are releasing 64bit drivers everyday... I have not had any issues whatsoever with any hardware that I have installed on my computer, I am running Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit... and it has been PERFECT. VERY stable, smooth, literally no crashes..only BSOD was from me, overclocking my video card a bit too high trying to find the sweet spot. Thats it....


If you have a 64bit processor, upgrade your computer, to take advantage of this new transition happening... upgrade to 64bit... it's time for 32bit to go back from wence it came


More and more programs are released everyday to take advantage of 64bit as well....

Read this article, it will help you with questions to understand that 64bit OS's are MORE then just having more RAM....

bit-tech.net | 64-bit: More than just the RAM

64-bit: More than just the RAM
Author: Brett Thomas
Published: 16th Oct 2007


Introduction
If you're a member of this or any other technology-based forum, odds are that you've noticed the several versions of Microsoft's latest offering, Windows Vista. If you haven't, well... please come out from under that rock and get with the programming!

One of the biggest changes has been the clear offering and even a gentle push towards the 64-bit version of the OS. Indubitably, this extra option becomes fodder for forum discussion, usually along the line of:

Forumite 1: "Hi, I am building a new system and I wanted to know what your thoughts were on whether I should use 64-bit or 32-bit Vista? I've heard varying things around the net regarding compatibility, and was hoping someone could help."
Forumite 2: "Hi! I just read your post. You should definitely go with the 32-bit version. There's tons of compatibility problems with 64b (Just look at XP-64), and it's going to die a long, drawn-out death. Besides, the only actual difference between them is that 64-bit can make proper use of 4GB of RAM."
Forumite 1: "Oh, ok! Thanks!"

Now, what's wrong with this picture? The answer is a lot. Time and time again, self-proclaimed gurus determine that the only real difference between 32-bit computing and 64-bit computing is the memory limit. Are they right that RAM is a reason? Definitely - but that's missing about 99 percent of the true differences. By that logic, the only major difference between your old 8-bit Nintendo console and your Xbox 360 is processor speed. I think we can all agree, that's just wrong.

Well put.

 

[patrickt]

For me, the time to try 64-bit was when the Windows7 beta came out because I could do it for free. I downloaded both 32-bit and 64-bit. I ran 32-bit for two months or so and then did a clean install with 64-bit. It killed my motherboard. Apparently, there was something--I'm no engineer--in using 64-bit that exposed a flaw in either my processor or my motherboard. Intel replaced both and 64-bit loaded without a glitch.

I had two programs that wouldn't run. Neither were critical but I just ordered another program to replace one that wouldn't run and I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

I had less trouble finding all the drivers I needed with Windows7 beta 64-bit than I did with Vista 32-bit when it was first released as a retail product.

So, if you're curious about 64-bit, this is a great time to play with it. I would like to see Microsoft deliver Windows7 as both 32-bit and 64-bit to encourage people to try 64-bit and perhaps reduce the time it will take for software companies to start producing 64-bit programs. Right now, I have two: Lightroom and IE 8.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi all

Warning - slightly length post but hopefully should clear up some misconceptions.

To answer this question properly you need to understand CPU architecture and how a modern OS is designed.

I'm limiting the post to 64 Bit CPU's (irrespective of the amount of RAM in the system). A 32 Bit CPU running a 32 bit OS will work differently in any case.

To stop the post from being too long or complex I'll try and simplifiy it -- so what I'm saying here will be "Conceptually" correct but not necessarilliy 100% scientifically accurate. Unless you are privy to Windows Internals you won't be able to get the info anyway but these addressing schemes our common to all modern OS'es.

We have 2 flavours of OS here on a 64 Bit CPU

Now on a 64 Bit capable CPU you have a Linear address space (sequential series of numbers from 0 => a few TB).

A typical application only uses in any one time a very small amount of REAL memory irrespective of the size of the application so most of the application will be stored in the system's PAGE file which in a 64 bit system consists of a Linear address (the 0 => xTB) and the value of the data.

When an application is not being used it will be "Paged out" allowing you to do something else -- for example switching over from a Spreadsheet to an email document. The address on Disk will represent what it would do in main memory ( a 1:1 mapping I know there are some other tables such as Page fault segments etc etc but conceptually it's a 1:1 mapping).

If the data doesn't exist in memory when it's needed the OS generates what's known as a PAGE FAULT. When this happens the data your program needs is "Paged in " to real RAM and data that isn't being used is moved out to the page area.

If the memory is TOO small then you'll see the disk with the light 100% on -- this is known as "Thrashing" but even with only 1GB RAM most computers running a 64 bit OS will be OK provided you aren't trying to run too much concurrently or too large applications.

Even if you have a HUGE amount of RAM the system will still page some stuff -- and if you "Switch off" paging altogether -- not recommended BTW the system will STILL create a pager file but it will be in main RAM perveresly making your performance WORSE - what will happen here is that paging will still occur but in main RAM. What you will notice in this case since DISK I/O is not being done is that the CPU load dramatically increases without you actually being able to do anything.

A certain amount of paging is OK as DISK I/O is usually "Overlapped" with other processing -- SCSI disks for example can do a lot of processing AWAY from the main CPU allowing the computer to do other work -- same with high qualitty graphic cards.

Now in a 64 Bit CPU data and instructions are excuted also in 64 bit chunks.

Consider now a 64 Bit CPU operating a 32 Bit OS.

First problem -- we have to translate the Native Linear 64 bit address space into another adressing scheme that the 32 bit OS understands. In a 32 bit OS the max address space is around 4GB.

What the system does here is to create an address with a prefix (for example like a telephone number with a prefix say 213-, 768- etc etc.
The part AFTER the prefix can be non-unique -- in any case it needs to be as the full 32 bits aren't available for the system address -- one of the bits is used to indicate the CPU is operating in 32 bit mode.

So an extra piece of work needs to be done in converting our "Pseudo 32 bit address" into the real 64 bit address the system needs and vice versa.

"2nd problem -- Data and instructions are moved 32 bits a time rather than 64 bits -- so you do up to 8X less work per data instruction cycle (32 bit instruction, 32 bit data ) X 2 = X8.

When it come to moving large chunks of data to screen and I/O devices you should notice a significant performance in using a 64 Bit OS -- assuming decent components.

There's all sorts of Cache's, instruction pre-fetch areas etc etc but even with a relatively small amount of RAM if your CPU is 64 bit capable use it.

Unless you absolutely have to install the X-86 version regard 32 bit OS'es these days as HISTORY.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Night Hawk]

Good now find the 64bit drivers for the cable modem here so I can get a 64bit 7 online. Well what's wrong? Even after changing ISPs they still provide equipment the manufacturer hasn't even made Vista 64 drivers for! "outdated foobar hardwares!"

Granted 7 will see more 64bit drivers available for various standard hardwares since Vista readily saw video, sound, mother board, and other items seeing support there. Two separate routers here see 64bit support right off while the ISPs can't?

You can be sure that MS already knows there's a serious lack of 3rd party driver support for the 64bit editions they have out and will see with 7. They provide the OS while 3rd party sources simply sit on their duffs at times. It's called the bottom dollar still enmeshed in 32bit softwares! If all was that easy to make the complete transition 7 wouldn't still be seeing 32bit editions to start with.

 

[Crunchy Doodle]

This is the first I've heard of a cable modem as a PCI or PCIe card that needs a driver. I thought all cable modems were like the RCA branded unit Time Warner gave me - a small brick with lights that lays on the floor with a wall wart for power and the cable going in one side and the network cable coming out the other.

Bye.

Good now find the 64bit drivers for the cable modem here so I can get a 64bit 7 online. Well what's wrong? Even after changing ISPs they still provide equipment the manufacturer hasn't even made Vista 64 drivers for! "outdated foobar hardwares!"

[....]

 

[Night Hawk]

This is the first I've heard of a cable modem as a PCI or PCIe card that needs a driver. I thought all cable modems were like the RCA branded unit Time Warner gave me - a small brick with lights that lays on the floor with a wall wart for power and the cable going in one side and the network cable coming out the other.

Bye.

Like any other modem you have to set that up as a network adapter. For many Windows will already see drivers included for different makes. But the number can also be limited there as well.

 

[jimbo45]

I thought Broadband was pretty standard -- Routers don't normally have any problem.

The main problem that can appear is that the Network Card doesn't work properly in 64 bit mode even though windows says the driver is OK -- not a Router problem.

Using a USB==>LAN adapter or wireless will get round that problem -- and my wireless is the newer 108 mbs so it's perfectly fast enough if Wired LAN doesn't work.

Not sure what your set up is but our Broadband comes as a 2nd slot on the telephone socket which is then connected to a Router which has Wireless and 4 LAN slots on it. These type of routers are pretty common these days and aren't generally the cause of connection problems.

I'm sure CABLE modems must have some type of Router connectivity -- most people want to have some type of Wireless network at home and even with wired LAN connections you probably need a few slots - more than 1 computer, multi-media streaming devices for Audio / TV streaming around your house.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Crunchy Doodle]

When I first got a cable modem some years ago, I do remember there was an option to connect directly to a PC with a USB cable. This was good for some people at that time because not all PCs or laptops had the standard RJ-45 network connector and adapter that is common now, but did have a USB 1.0 port available. Is that the kind of cable modem you have? That might require a driver.

Bye.

Like any other modem you have to set that up as a network adapter. For many Windows will already see drivers included for different makes. But the number can also be limited there as well.

 

[Night Hawk]

The cable modem not router here connects to the host pc by usb while the ethernet port goes out to a router. Two of those were tried since they offer 64bit there but the modem itself was primarily 2000/XP supported seeing a 2008 32bit Vista update. Like that really helps on any 64bit edition?

 

[ikilledkenny]

I just threw that exact model out a month ago when I switched to AT&T Highspeed! Small world!

 

[Night Hawk]

Well apparently while it won't be tossed but returned to the ISP once the new replacement is in! Newegg.com - MOTOROLA SURFboard SB5101 38Mbps Downstream, 30Mbps Upstream USB and Ethernet 10/100Base-T Cable Modem - Modems

When going back over the supported modems and back to the page there plus tracking down the driver updates... Surprize! 64bit support with mention of recommendation for ethernet over usb! That's preferred here anyways!

(gee? now I have to find something new for the sig all over again! )

 

[jimbo45]

The cable modem not router here connects to the host pc by usb while the ethernet port goes out to a router. Two of those were tried since they offer 64bit there but the modem itself was primarily 2000/XP supported seeing a 2008 32bit Vista update. Like that really helps on any 64bit edition?

That stuff would even be tossed out of a "Computer" or "Science" Museum.
I can't believe this type of hardware was still being delivered to you guys.
Not even a "Wireless" transmitter in it.

I suppose the accounting system at the back office still uses these for data input.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Night Hawk]

You got that one right! You should have seen the old dsl setup! You would have been in histerics looking at the old 98 usb 1.1 adapter! :roflmao:

Once it comes in I won't have to worry about the latest update either since I already paid a visit to the support site in advance. Believe it or not they actually charge a monthly rental fee on the other one!

Think this will make a nice wallpaper on the 64bit 7?

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
That MUST be worth something on EBAY.

Even in the UK (I'm currently on a contract assignment in the UK -- ZERO work to do but it pays for the moment ) BT (known "affectionally" as Bull --IT telecomms) provides a decent Wireless setup without needing extra boxes etc.

The main problem is when setting up you get through (eventually) to some totally incomprehensible off shore call centre -- who haven't a CLUE about setting this thing to get the MAX wireless speed these days 108 MB/s.

However I do like the idea of minimising the number of "Black boxes" lying around.

enc image

 

[ikilledkenny]

Think this will make a nice wallpaper on the 64bit 7?

Zoom in to see the awesomeness