64 or 32 Whats the diff?

I was going to buy a Sony z (32bit OS), but the 64 bit is coming out in 2 weeks..Should I wait? Whats the advantage or disadvantage of going with a 64 bit? Thnaks Dan

 

get 64bit. it's the future. some old programs aren't compatible, but nowadays, there's basically only upsides to using 64bit.

 

If you were to upgrade I'd say don't bother.
If you can buy it as 64Bit I have to agree with whizzo.

However:
I have heard 64Bit uses more RAM - to fully take advantage of 64Bit you'd need a laptop that will support more than 4GB of RAM - say, 5GB, 6GB maybe even 8GB.

Up to 4GB its pretty much no difference from what I see here on NBR.

 

In my experience using a 64bit OS is slightly faster even when using 32bit applications, although the difference should be greater if you can use 64bit apps. The other upside is that a 64bit OS allows you to see more than 4gb of ram. I say go for it... 64bit vista has great driver and program support. The only problems are that some (older) 16bit apps may not work.

 

woah woah woah, wait a second

You Are VERY mixed up in your ideas. It's not that you NEED 4GB's of ram. A 64bit OS is needed for your computer to fully use 4GB's of RAM. Other wise you will only be able to use 3GB (more likely 2.75GB)

Go 64bit. Windows 64 is a bit new (windows AND software dev's took forever to jump to 64bit) but it's very usable. 64bit is the future.

 

No, you don't need it, but otherwise it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Also, a 32Bit OS with 4GB of RAM uses 3GB actively for the OS and 1GB for hardware, example the graphics card.

Also, a 64Bit OS uses a bit more RAM - so unless you have a lot of RAM and need 64Bit it makes little sense on a laptop with less than 4GB, especially if it supports a maximum of 4GB

 

32?

.......​

 

? Meaning? ??

 

If you have 3GB or less RAM, then use 32-bit. If you have more than 3GB of RAM, use 64-bit.

 

I have 2 gb of RAM and I've run both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista on the machine... and I prefer 64-bit. It's slightly but noticeably faster even with 2 gb and all 32-bit programs. Why? The OS is a 64-bit program, including Explorer, every device driver, and underlying system functionality. And when 32-bit programs make system calls, they get translated into calls to the 64-bit OS functions.

In theory, 64-bit does use a little bit more RAM, but in practice, I haven't been able to notice... it seems about the same to me. In fact, I haven't seen my RAM usage go over about 1.5 gb in either 32-bit or 64-bit Vista.

Also, 64-bit Vista has some security advantages.

The only reason I'd use 32-bit is if I needed the compatibility. But if you're ok with using 64-bit compatible hardware (which is most modern stuff) then I'd go for 64-bit.

 

Well, at least as an absolute value, the difference between 64 and 32 is 32, right? I suppose I should have written +/-32 to be more comprehensive, though!

 

Ah, OK...
I don't think that helps out OP though

 

You gotta work on your sense of humor.

swarmer, I agree with most of what you said. The only thing I must say is 32-bit applications running in 64-bit Windows will never be faster than 32-bit applications running in 32-bit Windows. Like you said, it needs to be translated, which makes a lot of overheads in both CPU and memory usage. In other words, if you choose to use a 64-bit OS, always try to use native 64-bit applications.

 

All the stores are selling 64 bit right now. It is working well for me on a few of my rigs. 8GB or ram is sweet.

 

I heard that to run a 64-bit windows you need a processor that supports 64 bits. Is that correct?

 

Yepp - but from what I can figure out all new processors support that.

Edited:
Reason, jisaac corrected me on an error I made.

 

wrong.... core duos dont support 64bit... core 2 duos do

 

My lappy is using the T7250. So it should support it, right? And my vista home premium key should work on a 64-bit version?

 

OK. - Interesting.
But 64Bit has been around for longer... ah well

 

yes, and yes if its a retail key version; if its oem you may have to contact microsoft (although i doubt you'd have problems).

 

The 32-bit system calls are translated into 64-bit calls, and that does create extra overhead. (Not a lot, but a little bit.) BUT... once that translation occurs, the system call executes in 64-bit land, which is faster. SO... it could end up being either slower or faster overall, but anecdotally from my experience it usually seems like a net win (vs. running the same code on a 32-bit OS).

None of this at all detracts from the point that 64-bit apps are better than 32-bit apps if you have a 64-bit OS.

 

From what I understand of the "translating" process, it can create quite a lot of overheads by using twice as much of memory for doing the exact same thing in 32-bit Windows. And according MS, 32-bit applications may not be able to create as many threads under WOW64 as they can on x86. It's just never as good to run applications of another architecture.

 

This logic really doesn't make sense. Being able to see more ram is not the only benefits of 64bit...

Also, windows is just behind the times on 64bit.

 

64 bit...it sucks less. Is that technical enough for you?

 

hopefully manufacturers will begin phasing out 32bit software in favour of 64bit apps... since as software develops it generally increases hardware requirements, and ram requirements... as ram requirements increase... the need for a 64bit os to support this ram increases....
so i guess its just a matter of time.
what microsoft needs to do is release their next operating system in only 64bit versions to persuade software companies to produce 64bit apps

 

Consider what apps you run, there may or may not be an advantage to 64 bit. For most apps, 1GB of ram with XP or 2GB of ram with Vista is plenty. There are apps that benefit from more ram, such as CAD or Photoshop. I'm not sure how it works with games.

If you don't run apps that would benefit from more than 3GB of ram, then why bother.

 

There are more benefits then just that. More speed, stability, security, better color.

 

64bit OSes address memory more efficiently, greatly reducing load times depending on the process. Apple did a really cool demonstration of 64bit architecture at one of the keynotes I attended. If the programs you run can run in 64bit mode (not translated) you will see improvements. If you are a person just looking to buy a computer thats for every day use, get 32bit and save your self some drive hassles.

 

I am really surprised that MS is still developing Windows 7 32bit, it would have been a great time to make the push to 64bit O/S but just dropping 32bit support but that's another point.

Vista 64 does have a lot of nice features over Vista / XP 32. Extra memory allocation (64bit addressing), randomized memory allocation (drivers and programs are never loaded in the same place which reduces the effectiveness of buffer overflow attacks) and only allowing signed drivers to be used (bane of a developers / beta testers life)

The only real one that will affect home users is the amount of memory that is available to them so that is the one point most often used as the swapping point from 32bit to 64bit.

The conversion of system calls from 32bit to 64bit can sometimes have the opposite effect from slowing the system down. I have one game that actually gets a speed boost running under Vista 64 because all its system calls are bundled into smaller calls under Vista 64 than under Vista 32 meaning the CPU / Game is spending less time processing calls and more time running the game. This however is rare and most of the time there is no difference.

 

crysis uses 2gb on its own :/