will you use x86 or x64 this time around???

*Sign*
This has been discussed to dead many times on this board. x32 will never give you more than 4GB of ram, period.
Perhaps you should spend some time searching the forum instead.

Back to topic, x64 is the future. Nowadays most computers are equipped with 4Gb ram or more. There are more and more x64 applications and last I heard, the future version of windows will all be x64.

 

x64 for me. I'm currently running the x64 version of the W7 RC and have no problems with it. There are few reasons to stick with x86 nowadays IMO.

 

I don't like to sound rude! but for the godsake did you read that simple wiki page?!

to answer your simple "dxdiag" read this:

Code:

[root@arch-laptop ~]$ dxdiag
bash: dxdiag: command not found
[root@arch-laptop ~]$

an OS is not anther word for Windows!

I was only pointing that 32-bit os isn't limited to the 4GB, It really starts to bother me that everywhere you go someone says an 32-bit os is only limited to 3.5GB because it can't use 4 GB. Just though of start giving some correction.
btw I am using x64 for long time ,so I was just trying to clear things up


Edit (Just noticed this post):
@Han Bao Quan:
I am more than enought trying to approve my point.

Talking about anther subject, yes I also heared about what it might be called Windows 8 which might be 64-bit only but I doubt that M$ wont support 32-bit. I mean see and count how many 32-bit computers are available and how many 64-bits are here? M$ can't just turn around into these potential customers and cut out their profit? From the way I see it, M$ isn't targetting a country or a state but the are targetting the whole world and many goverments I see they still using 32-bit CPU's/ XP ,but that is something else to talk about.

 

Yea, but no OS, not even Linux can address the hole 4GB of RAM if you use a 32-bit OS. Another thing, is that the wiki link is at technical level, and doesn't target the x86 CPU per say, it's more at a general level of a 32-bit CPU with serious hacking. For example, NORMALLY a 32-bit processor can handle 4GB of RAM, but the x86 32-bit architecture can't work with it at 100% of it's capacity.

Another view on this, is that we say that a 64-bit CPU can THEORETICALLY handle 16 Exabyte of RAM, we don't know for sure as no one has so much RAM to test this. And, in reality our 64-bit CPU's that we use everyday TODAY are not true 64-bit CPU's. But rather x86 + an addition system to it to make it 64-bit (that is why the real name of the 64-bit CPU we use are AMD64 (yes, AMD as they created that architecture). Therefor, the max RAM capacity can be different from the theoretical value. Personally, I don't think anyone will notice this, because the time we come into having 1 Terabyte of RAM as "standard" in computers, the switch to true 64-bit CPU's would have been made (which will mean that only 64-bit application will run). Or, we might justchange to 128-bit processor, and not wait until we reach the RAM limit.

So, yea you are 100% correct! But, in the real world it's not like that, sadly.

Here is another example of your kind: In reality a 64-bit software CAN run on a 32-bit CPU. It can just split the instruction in 2 or 3 with some added operation code in it, to group the instruction together. Yes, it will be slower, but hey it works. But in reality it's not done, because it cost way too much money, and simply not worth it. I mean, would you really buy such CPU when you get just get a Core2Duo and run real 64-bit application and not have any performance decrease?

 

Before start replying (I am kinda sorry for forgetting your post in my previous post *didn't notice it* and as I opens many tabs to read all what i missed so I am kinda sorry)

Anyway I am with the revolution not against it (I even jumped into 64-bit since its early stages) Lets leave EMT64/AMD64 alone and how they are getting into support more RAM and being able to access more RAM also we all know about it being theoretical and we still not seeing someone with 128GB RAM on his laptop or PC this year not to mention that adding few limiting factors (BIOS , Type of CPU/64-bit , etc ..) which affecting the process of making 1TB as standard RAM (as process of revolution wont happen from one side)

I don't want to looks like someone that still fighting for P1 against C2D ,but companies are preparing the road for x64 which you can see at this time that not everyone is ready for the shift and waiting more time to grantee of smooth transition into x64 world is the key this to happen

 

Goodbytes, you're awesome! You're pointing out something practical and logic to the REAL world.

Frx, you're awesome too. It is a good theory. It can be practical but only for certain people.
By the way, I know OS is Operating System. Not stand for Windows.
I just want to make thing simple and easy to understand. I guess you have read Goodbytes reply, so, you should understand what I mean(I am noob at computer stuffs can't explain nicely).
Dxdiag is for Windows to check certain stuffs such as RAM, Page Files, Graphic card, Sound cards and so on. I don't know why you can't access dxdiag, maybe you're using other OS?

And the wiki link you provided(already read it long time ago), it is too hard to understand. It is for hardware computing or engineering. How could I understand 100% of it?

CHEER~

 

The problem with x64 adoption has always been driver support. Applications compatibility was the easy issue. x86 support can be "virtualized." Drivers sit inbetween the OS and the hardware and cannot be "virtualized." Since Vista, Microsoft has required all hardware vendors to release both x86 and x64 drivers in order to receive WHQL certification.

Now the biggest barrier to x64 support is gone, there is no reason not to go x64.

 

Oh well, First I am kinda sorry (I am more logical now than yesterday)
I know dxdiag is directx tool to show you those stuff you mentioned. I used a little bit stupid sarcasm. I was referring that you assumed that I was using Windows which supports different types of RAMS (According to the wiki-page I linked you too, It says that Win2008 Enterprise support 64GB RAM while Win7-ultimate-x32 only having a support for 4GB and even mentioning that WinXP-starter edition have a support for only 512 MB ram) , also I was more referring about linux kernel where PAE support is complied (more of recompiling) into it rather then speaking about windows x32.

Anyway I should have been aware that I was in a windows forum and I had to be more clear than I was as I mixed it with linux (about dxdiag I could run it through wine ,but there was no point of installing directx for that reason).

About the wiki link, don't bother yourself as you wont need it

Have a nice day or good night
I am off to sleep

 

I would love to use the 64 bit version, but unfortunately, the software I use for work won't run as it has a weird driver that refuses to work with 64 bit. No matter what I try.

 

I'm currently on Vista x86 and dual booting with 7 RC1 x64. As soon as my upgrade disc comes on October 22nd, it's 7 x64 all the way. I ordered my 4GB of RAM and installed it, but I have 3 months before I can see my RAM usage bar completely full

 

I'll be using 64bit, my computers for the most part, all have 4gb of RAM. Just makes sense to go to it anyway, stuff is advancing pretty quick.

 

i am currently running 32(86) bit on my laptop as i couldnt be screwed re installing vista if ive gotta re intall it again when 7 arives (i know i can upgrade but i want clean...) so ill have to deal with only 3gb ram for now

but my desktop is 64 bit and im lovin it. im kinda peeved that my laptop is so slow considering the hardware its got but just then(as i was writting this) it clicked! its cos its 32 bit... they were about the same before i made the switch on my desktop. but defs going 64bit be heaps good after i put another 4 gb in my desktop... woooo hoooo.

all ill need after that is a new laptop... damn i cant afford one i just spent all my money on this silly disc called windows 7....

------

nah only jokin totally worth it, do wish i had more money though...

 

Windows 7 32bits wasn't even supposed to be released. 64bits for me.

 

What about apps like Firefox and the flash plugin? When is Firefox planning on releasing a 64 bit version of its browser? How about flash? I wish I could use 64 bit versions of this software as I would have to use the 32 bit versions on a 64 bit OS currently.

 

Definately x64. I've been using it on Vista for the last 2+ years, and its been very stable; with virtually no modern programmes having any issues with it. I simply can't see a reason for a home user who will be using a modern system and programmes to stick with x86. Vista 64 is stable and faster; with better support for future hardware; what's not to like unless you're a business person using old programmes which can't support 64bit OS without 16bit emulation.

 

Firefox doesn't do it due to a lack of 64-bit plug-in. However, I read that they will start working on it soon (maybe 3.7 or the version after that?).
Since Abode aquired Flash founder, Macromedia, Adobe preatty much stop development of Flash. They finished and release everything that Macromedia was doing pretty much, and that is it. Heck Adobe doesn't even want to make GPU accelerated rendering despite having Silverlight that can do it, and having Nvidia pushing them to do it.

The faster websites changes to Silverlight, I think the better, as hopefully competition will wake up Adobe or let Flash die out due to it's lack of development. UNLESS, Adobe is preparing something big that require so much time.

 

64 bit Firefox is coming with version 4.

 

What other browsers are available in 64-bit? The only one I can think of that has had support is Internet Explorer. I bet there's a bunch of open-source browsers that are 64-bit, but are not popular.

 

Well you have this for now:
http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Firefox:Download

But I would not expect add-ons to work properly, as it's not the official firefox 64-bit, but rather a side theme of people converter Firefox 32-bit into 64-bit. And of course, like IE 64-bit, it doesn't run 32-bit plug-ins.

 

Wow! I never heard that before. Is this true? Adobe is not doing much with flash? Are they crazy? It that is true, then you are right, they better watch out because Silverlight is coming up quick.

A lot of the web requires flash content currently and not having a 64 bit flash player is a series downfall/problem. I am running Vista Business 64 and the main thing I don't like is the fact I have to use a 32 bit browser with a 32 bit flash plugin. Lets face it, we all use the web browser and flash quite a bit.

 

What I said are NOT facts, but my personal impression as a Flash developer. Macromedia was significantly faster in developing Flash. It just seams that Adobe is preferring and focusing on Photoshop and Flex rather than Photoshop and Flash.

I sure hope that Adobe doesn't let Flash die out, as it's not an open platform like C/C++ for example.

Look at Silverlight... it started as something vastly inferior to Flash, then equivalent, and now at version 3 which features like hardware acceleration and have similar abilities to Flash, in a mater of months. At this rate 64-bit Silverlight should be soon.

 

I think you comments make sense. I am familiar with Silverlight and program with it(like you said version 3 just came out). Don't want to change the topic of the thread.