Benefits of 64 bit operating system

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Arthur Lipscomb, Sep 5, 2006.

  1. I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so I
    can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or intensive
    gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been trying to read
    up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little practical
    information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found focuses
    primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that they lack
    drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of you with
    practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit version of
    Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed or even
    slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista 64 such as
    IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or will these
    be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if any is there
    between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something like a printer or
    web browser?



    Thanks in advance.
     
    Arthur Lipscomb, Sep 5, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. This is a question that divides even the 'experts' - in my mind and
    experience, it is faster for most things that I have used. Or, at least it
    seems to be faster. If you have any experience from Linux, I can recommend
    you to install a 64bit distro and see for yourself.

    Ridiculously fast? Hardly. You need everything running on that machine to be
    compiled for the environment to even see any significant difference - hence
    my suggestion to go Linux for the experience. Personally, I run a dual-boot
    configuration like that and Win XPx64 is a really nice OS, very stable and
    with a 'snappy' feel to it that is extremely satisfying. This is probably in
    equal amounts thanks to both being 64bit and the fact that the complete
    system has been slimmed, polished and tuned when comparing with 32bit XP. It
    isn't even based on XP, it is based on the 2003 server code. All, but
    everyone here loves the system, and hates the way it is being treated by the
    industry.

    But quite a lot of older apps will not install here, and if they install
    they will not run. It is not the majority of apps, but you do run in to them
    occasionally, they are often system related or very specific, like games. So
    it is tough to do any research and benchmarking as you would have to have
    two sets of the same app and two different machines running in tandem to be
    able to do any measuring.

    A 64bit Linux distro more or less solves this, if you don't believe your
    eyes, you can have the exact same distro in 32bit and make direct
    comparison. And remember, with those distros, everything that executes is
    platform specific. Fonts and helpfiles and stuff like that may be the same
    in both versions. If you take a look at such a setup, you will be seing
    something that I think you might conclude is bordering on your idea of the
    'ridiculously fast', but your idea, in the process, may have settled a
    little to. Only, you'll have trouble running those favorit games.

    Tony. . .


    "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so

    I
    > can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or intensive
    > gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been trying to

    read
    > up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little practical
    > information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found focuses
    > primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that they

    lack
    > drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of you with
    > practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit version

    of
    > Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed or even
    > slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista 64 such

    as
    > IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or will these
    > be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if any is there
    > between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something like a printer

    or
    > web browser?
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks in advance.
    >
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Sep 5, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Is Vista x64 significantly "faster" than Vista 32-bit? Well, yes and no. For
    most day to day applications, probably not. But what _is_ different is the
    overall potential that the machine has. The operating system can use up to
    128 GB of RAM, for example. I seriously doubt you will have a system that
    can hold that much, of course. And Vista x64 will be able to run a whole new
    wave of applications that simply won't run on 32-bit Vista. But since most
    of them haven't been written yet, the more day to day reality is that it's
    still awkward running 64bit sometimes. However, with Vista, both hardware
    and software vendors will have to be able to run on Vista x64 in order to
    get the Vista logo. I think that will make a significant difference over
    time.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so I
    >can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or intensive
    >gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been trying to read
    >up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little practical
    >information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found focuses
    >primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that they
    >lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of you with
    >practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit version
    >of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed or even
    >slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista 64 such as
    >IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or will these
    >be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if any is there
    >between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something like a printer or
    >web browser?
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks in advance.
    >
    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Sep 5, 2006
    #3
  4. Arthur Lipscomb

    Ken Fowler Guest

    Vista 64 includes 64-bit versions of its applications (Internet Explorer,
    Windows Mail, Windows Media Player, etc).

    There isn't really much performance benefit to Vista 64. The whole "64-bit"
    thing really got overhyped by AMD in its war with Intel. All 64-bits gets
    you is 1) support for >4Gb memory per process and 2) extra eight registers
    which can -potentially- improve performance. That's it. Certain kinds of
    tasks can easily leverage those extra registers to improve performance, but
    most tasks cannot. On tasks that do not, there is no performance benefit.
    You also have to consider that code compiled for 64-bit is larger, and in
    some cases, that can offset any benefit that might exist otherwise.

    That's not to say that 64-bit is useless. Applications like 3d rendering,
    video editing, video encoding, and certain types of image processing can be
    written to take advantage of the extra registers to yield significant
    performance improvements. In those particular cases, the extra registers
    can improve performance by 15% to 30% when developers make the effort. In
    most applications though -- like word processing, web browsing, etc -- you
    can expect the improvement to be <5% for new 64-bit versions. You have to
    remember that the x86-32 was original designed with eight integer registers
    knowing full well that applications of the time wouldn't really benefit from
    more. And over time, compilers have been improved to extract every ounce of
    performance from those 8 integer registers, even in the circumstances where
    more would have been beneficial.

    I've spent a lot of time comparing 32-bit and 64-bit Vista, and in my
    experience, multitasking and system responsiveness is slightly improved on
    the 64-bit version. Code size is larger on the 64-bit version, so it does
    require more memory. When running 32-bit benchmark suites, Vista tends to
    be 0-5% slower. I haven't found any 32-bit benchmarks that show improved
    performance under Vista. Once 64-bit applications start showing up en mass,
    I think that will change, and we'll see 64-bit Windows showing 0-5%
    improvement in business tasks, and 10-15% improvement in media tasks.
    However, for now, we really live in a 32-bit world.

    "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so I
    >can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or intensive
    >gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been trying to read
    >up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little practical
    >information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found focuses
    >primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that they
    >lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of you with
    >practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit version
    >of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed or even
    >slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista 64 such as
    >IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or will these
    >be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if any is there
    >between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something like a printer or
    >web browser?
     
    Ken Fowler, Sep 5, 2006
    #4
  5. Arthur Lipscomb

    Guest

    When you actually have 64-bit programs running
    and compare them to their 32-bit sibling, the
    64-bit programs do in fact run considerably
    faster because they are processing program code
    in bigger chunks.

    I don't know if the information is still posted
    on their web site, but 'The Panorama Factory'
    http://www.panoramafactory.com/index.html had
    comparison data posted at one time when they
    first came out with their 64-bit version.

    64-bit is no more hype than comparing the step
    up to an 80286 from an 8086, to a 80386 from a
    80286, or even the step to a 80486 from a 80386.
    But you don't reap the benefits until the
    software is compiled for the newer process.
    People didn't see much benefit to Win95 while
    they were still using 16-bit drivers and .DLLs.
    And Win95 would not boot into the 32-bit mode
    while those were still being used in the
    CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT. 32-bit drivers and
    ..DLLs were needed to operate in the 32-bit mode.


    Ken Fowler wrote:
    > Vista 64 includes 64-bit versions of its applications (Internet
    > Explorer, Windows Mail, Windows Media Player, etc).
    >
    > There isn't really much performance benefit to Vista 64. The whole
    > "64-bit" thing really got overhyped by AMD in its war with Intel. All
    > 64-bits gets you is 1) support for >4Gb memory per process and 2) extra
    > eight registers which can -potentially- improve performance. That's it.
    > Certain kinds of tasks can easily leverage those extra registers to
    > improve performance, but most tasks cannot. On tasks that do not, there
    > is no performance benefit. You also have to consider that code compiled
    > for 64-bit is larger, and in some cases, that can offset any benefit
    > that might exist otherwise.
    >
    > That's not to say that 64-bit is useless. Applications like 3d
    > rendering, video editing, video encoding, and certain types of image
    > processing can be written to take advantage of the extra registers to
    > yield significant performance improvements. In those particular cases,
    > the extra registers can improve performance by 15% to 30% when
    > developers make the effort. In most applications though -- like word
    > processing, web browsing, etc -- you can expect the improvement to be
    > <5% for new 64-bit versions. You have to remember that the x86-32 was
    > original designed with eight integer registers knowing full well that
    > applications of the time wouldn't really benefit from more. And over
    > time, compilers have been improved to extract every ounce of performance
    > from those 8 integer registers, even in the circumstances where more
    > would have been beneficial.
    >
    > I've spent a lot of time comparing 32-bit and 64-bit Vista, and in my
    > experience, multitasking and system responsiveness is slightly improved
    > on the 64-bit version. Code size is larger on the 64-bit version, so it
    > does require more memory. When running 32-bit benchmark suites, Vista
    > tends to be 0-5% slower. I haven't found any 32-bit benchmarks that
    > show improved performance under Vista. Once 64-bit applications start
    > showing up en mass, I think that will change, and we'll see 64-bit
    > Windows showing 0-5% improvement in business tasks, and 10-15%
    > improvement in media tasks. However, for now, we really live in a 32-bit
    > world.
    >
    > "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64
    >> so I can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or
    >> intensive gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been
    >> trying to read up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very
    >> little practical information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I
    >> have found focuses primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating
    >> systems are in that they lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like
    >> to know from those of you with practical experience is Vista 64 at
    >> least faster, than the 32 bit version of Vista (and the 32 bit
    >> version of XP) or is it the same speed or even slower? Also, do you
    >> know if the software that comes with Vista 64 such as IE7 and Media
    >> player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or will these be
    >> specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if any is
    >> there between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something like a
    >> printer or web browser?

    >
     
    , Sep 5, 2006
    #5
  6. I am using x64 day to day and like its stability much better than XP Pro
    SP2. I dual boot with 32bit Windows becacause I do a lot of work with VPC
    that needs to specifically be VPC and not Virtual Server. If it wasn't for
    that I would junk 32bits all together.

    Having said that, understand that x64 is not a consumer OS. It also is not
    an upgrade to XP Pro x86. It is just an alternative to x86 for those who
    have processing requirements that x86 is insufficient for.

    If you are an avid gamer and use TV tuners and such, then I suggest 32bit is
    a better choice for you.

    "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so I
    >can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or intensive
    >gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been trying to read
    >up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little practical
    >information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found focuses
    >primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that they
    >lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of you with
    >practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit version
    >of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed or even
    >slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista 64 such as
    >IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or will these
    >be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if any is there
    >between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something like a printer or
    >web browser?
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks in advance.
    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Sep 5, 2006
    #6
  7. "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am using x64 day to day and like its stability much better than XP Pro
    >SP2. I dual boot with 32bit Windows becacause I do a lot of work with VPC
    >that needs to specifically be VPC and not Virtual Server. If it wasn't for
    >that I would junk 32bits all together.
    >
    > Having said that, understand that x64 is not a consumer OS. It also is
    > not an upgrade to XP Pro x86. It is just an alternative to x86 for those
    > who have processing requirements that x86 is insufficient for.
    >
    > If you are an avid gamer and use TV tuners and such, then I suggest 32bit
    > is a better choice for you.
    >


    I primarily just surf the web and play few computer games, (mostly Command
    and Conquer). Despite this I'm always looking for something faster
    especially for the occasions when I'm doing processor intensive activities.
    I was burning a DVD the other day and my system ground to a snails pace.
    That was the last straw so I'm going to be upgrading to a dual core
    processor. I'm hoping that plus a 64 bit operating system will keep me
    satisfied for the next couple of years. I do have a TV tuner (ATI All in
    wonder 9600) and it's not working in Vista 32 bit. I figured this problem
    would be resolved by the final release. Is there some problem with TV
    tuners I should be aware of?

    I do plan on keeping my XP operating system as a dual boot, so worse case
    scenarior I can keep using XP until Vista works out all the bugs.


    > "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so
    >>I can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or
    >>intensive gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been
    >>trying to read up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little
    >>practical information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found
    >>focuses primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that
    >>they lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of
    >>you with practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit
    >>version of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed
    >>or even slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista
    >>64 such as IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or
    >>will these be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if
    >>any is there between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something
    >>like a printer or web browser?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Arthur Lipscomb, Sep 5, 2006
    #7
  8. Thanks everyone this is very helpful information.
     
    Arthur Lipscomb, Sep 5, 2006
    #8
  9. Arthur Lipscomb

    Zapper Guest

    You should stick to x86 for your uses. x64 will not be faster for what you
    are doing.


    <DIV>&quot;Arthur Lipscomb&quot; &lt;&gt; wrote in
    message news:...</DIV>>
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I am using x64 day to day and like its stability much better than XP Pro
    >>SP2. I dual boot with 32bit Windows becacause I do a lot of work with VPC
    >>that needs to specifically be VPC and not Virtual Server. If it wasn't
    >>for that I would junk 32bits all together.
    >>
    >> Having said that, understand that x64 is not a consumer OS. It also is
    >> not an upgrade to XP Pro x86. It is just an alternative to x86 for those
    >> who have processing requirements that x86 is insufficient for.
    >>
    >> If you are an avid gamer and use TV tuners and such, then I suggest 32bit
    >> is a better choice for you.
    >>

    >
    > I primarily just surf the web and play few computer games, (mostly Command
    > and Conquer). Despite this I'm always looking for something faster
    > especially for the occasions when I'm doing processor intensive
    > activities. I was burning a DVD the other day and my system ground to a
    > snails pace. That was the last straw so I'm going to be upgrading to a
    > dual core processor. I'm hoping that plus a 64 bit operating system will
    > keep me satisfied for the next couple of years. I do have a TV tuner (ATI
    > All in wonder 9600) and it's not working in Vista 32 bit. I figured this
    > problem would be resolved by the final release. Is there some problem
    > with TV tuners I should be aware of?
    >
    > I do plan on keeping my XP operating system as a dual boot, so worse case
    > scenarior I can keep using XP until Vista works out all the bugs.
    >
    >
    >> "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so
    >>>I can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or
    >>>intensive gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been
    >>>trying to read up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little
    >>>practical information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have
    >>>found focuses primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are
    >>>in that they lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from
    >>>those of you with practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than
    >>>the 32 bit version of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the
    >>>same speed or even slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes
    >>>with Vista 64 such as IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit
    >>>versions or will these be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What
    >>>difference if any is there between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver
    >>>for something like a printer or web browser?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Thanks in advance.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Zapper, Sep 5, 2006
    #9
  10. Arthur Lipscomb

    Larry Hodges Guest

    To expand on what Charlie said, I have two considerations when considering a
    system upgrade.

    1) What will its usable life be?
    2) How much more productive will I be over that usable life cycle with
    option X vs. option Y?

    Addressing #1: 64-bit applications aren't main stream today, but in a year
    or two they will be. The transition will be faster than it was 16-bit to
    32-bit. And 64-bit apps run A LOT faster than their 32-bit counterparts.

    Addressing #2: I think in terms of "time is money". Let's say you will
    save just 5 minutes per day by opting for the faster system. Let's break it
    down. There are approximately 225 work days in a year. We'll say your time
    is worth $50 per hour (mine is a lot more, but let's be conservative).
    That's 83 cents per minute. So if you saved just 5 minutes per day, that's
    an annual savings of $937.50.

    $50 / 60 * 5 * 225 = 937.5 per year.

    So, if you will get three years use out of your system, that's a total time
    cost savings of $2,812.50.

    Why wouldn't you opt for the fastest system?

    -Larry


    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Is Vista x64 significantly "faster" than Vista 32-bit? Well, yes and no.
    > For most day to day applications, probably not. But what _is_ different is
    > the overall potential that the machine has. The operating system can use
    > up to 128 GB of RAM, for example. I seriously doubt you will have a system
    > that can hold that much, of course. And Vista x64 will be able to run a
    > whole new wave of applications that simply won't run on 32-bit Vista. But
    > since most of them haven't been written yet, the more day to day reality
    > is that it's still awkward running 64bit sometimes. However, with Vista,
    > both hardware and software vendors will have to be able to run on Vista
    > x64 in order to get the Vista logo. I think that will make a significant
    > difference over time.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    > "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so
    >>I can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or
    >>intensive gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been
    >>trying to read up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little
    >>practical information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found
    >>focuses primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that
    >>they lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of
    >>you with practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit
    >>version of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed
    >>or even slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista
    >>64 such as IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or
    >>will these be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if
    >>any is there between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something
    >>like a printer or web browser?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance.
    >>
    >>

    >
     
    Larry Hodges, Sep 5, 2006
    #10
  11. Arthur Lipscomb

    Zapper Guest

    "And 64-bit apps run A LOT faster than their 32-bit counterparts"
    What apps are those?
    I am running an x64 machine, but I do not know of a single app that is "A
    LOT" faster than its 32 bit counterpart. Especially since he said he is a
    web surfer(in x64 no flash, java has issues for some people). I don't
    believe the game he mentioned had a 64 bit version. The only game I have
    used that had a 64 bit version was UT 2004, and I would not call it "A LOT"
    faster than the 32 bit version...



    <DIV>&quot;Larry Hodges&quot; &lt;&gt; wrote
    in message news:...</DIV>> To
    expand on what Charlie said, I have two considerations when considering a
    > system upgrade.
    >
    > 1) What will its usable life be?
    > 2) How much more productive will I be over that usable life cycle with
    > option X vs. option Y?
    >
    > Addressing #1: 64-bit applications aren't main stream today, but in a
    > year or two they will be. The transition will be faster than it was
    > 16-bit to 32-bit. And 64-bit apps run A LOT faster than their 32-bit
    > counterparts.
    >
    > Addressing #2: I think in terms of "time is money". Let's say you will
    > save just 5 minutes per day by opting for the faster system. Let's break
    > it down. There are approximately 225 work days in a year. We'll say your
    > time is worth $50 per hour (mine is a lot more, but let's be
    > conservative). That's 83 cents per minute. So if you saved just 5 minutes
    > per day, that's an annual savings of $937.50.
    >
    > $50 / 60 * 5 * 225 = 937.5 per year.
    >
    > So, if you will get three years use out of your system, that's a total
    > time cost savings of $2,812.50.
    >
    > Why wouldn't you opt for the fastest system?
    >
    > -Larry
    >
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Is Vista x64 significantly "faster" than Vista 32-bit? Well, yes and no.
    >> For most day to day applications, probably not. But what _is_ different
    >> is the overall potential that the machine has. The operating system can
    >> use up to 128 GB of RAM, for example. I seriously doubt you will have a
    >> system that can hold that much, of course. And Vista x64 will be able to
    >> run a whole new wave of applications that simply won't run on 32-bit
    >> Vista. But since most of them haven't been written yet, the more day to
    >> day reality is that it's still awkward running 64bit sometimes. However,
    >> with Vista, both hardware and software vendors will have to be able to
    >> run on Vista x64 in order to get the Vista logo. I think that will make a
    >> significant difference over time.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    >> "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so
    >>>I can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or
    >>>intensive gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been
    >>>trying to read up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little
    >>>practical information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have
    >>>found focuses primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are
    >>>in that they lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from
    >>>those of you with practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than
    >>>the 32 bit version of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the
    >>>same speed or even slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes
    >>>with Vista 64 such as IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit
    >>>versions or will these be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What
    >>>difference if any is there between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver
    >>>for something like a printer or web browser?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Thanks in advance.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
    Zapper, Sep 5, 2006
    #11
  12. Looking at your argumentation, do you also think that buying a 64bit
    computer, in this case, would be a complete waste?

    When someone with a Home Desktop machine asks questions like these, the
    answering has to be more complicated than just trying to evaluate how much
    of the system's potential the man will be utilizing. (The machine + the OS!)
    What he really wants to know is if he will be happy with the system, or if
    he will sit back and feel cheated. Both options are possible, as we have
    seen over the period of this group's existence. A fact that arises from the
    mass of things that cannot be made to work here.

    Benchmarking these things is also not straight forward, since so much of an
    application's run-time is spent doing stuff that is not critical to
    data-width. You might even say that many programs and applications are
    presenting the system with it's own little bottleneck. But, do tell us -
    would you rather save a buck or spend a buck if you were looking at two
    systems that performed almost equal, but where one of them seemed a lot
    faster?

    Don't underestimate the power of psychology here. You just have to fire up
    Flight Simulator in XP x64 to see that it is doing something to flying, I do
    not believe it can ever be benchmarked. It will not complete your trip in a
    shorter time and frame-rates are not really interesting unless they add some
    head-room to the action. O.K. - FS is not a 64bit application, but can you
    still look him in the eye and tell him he should stay with XP Home/Pro?

    FS is a pure delight on this OS! And the good old MidtownMadness, I have
    never seen running completely without display disturbances on any other
    machine. I know, other's have - but here I can compare with the same nVidia
    driver (version) on both systems and on XP x64 the display is totally clean
    and undisturbed and the action smooth as silk. If those are among the games
    he is running, should we recommend he stick with Home or Pro?

    PovRay comes as a 64bit compiled app, and finishes a specific job just about
    40% faster on my home desktop, which isn't even anyway near high-end - is
    that a lot?

    Ghostscript comes as 64bit, it is not transparent to me what good that will
    do but it could well be speeding up on-the-fly type conversion, but we can
    bet it will not finish the printjobs a lot faster - it could very well be
    releasing the background processing on the machine, though, and thus help
    the overall processing performance of the machine, and it could help the
    machine appear more efficient, which on it's own isn't quantifyable but is
    quite important, all the same I think. It's what the rest of us are
    ultimately paying for.


    Just because some of us don't have 64 TB of memory doesn't mean the system
    won't benefit the man greatly.

    But, as many others are saying, it really is a paved road to disappointment
    for some, to.


    Tony. . .
     
    Tony Sperling, Sep 6, 2006
    #12
  13. Arthur Lipscomb

    Larry Hodges Guest

    I have no personal benchmarks for you. Valve claims HL2 has an 84%
    performance increase from 32 to 64-bit. I don't know if I believe that, but
    that's what their readme claims.

    I have the 64-bit version of Visual Studio 2005 (Same CD. It simply detects
    the 64-bit OS and installs that version.) I didn't run the 32-bit version,
    so I can't compare. My claim of "a lot" is based mostly on what I've read
    by others who have benchmarked the two OSs. The numbers I've seen were
    striking. I'm sorry, but I can't cite the benchmarks. I ran across them on
    tech sites here and there, and never concerned myself with the numbers that
    much, other than "wow, that's a big difference".

    But, even if the increased productivity was five minutes per day as I
    pointed out, why would you not opt for it? It's not that the up front
    capital cost is a lot more.

    -Larry


    "Zapper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "And 64-bit apps run A LOT faster than their 32-bit counterparts"
    > What apps are those?
    > I am running an x64 machine, but I do not know of a single app that is "A
    > LOT" faster than its 32 bit counterpart. Especially since he said he is a
    > web surfer(in x64 no flash, java has issues for some people). I don't
    > believe the game he mentioned had a 64 bit version. The only game I have
    > used that had a 64 bit version was UT 2004, and I would not call it "A
    > LOT" faster than the 32 bit version...
    >
    >
    >
    > <DIV>&quot;Larry Hodges&quot; &lt;&gt; wrote
    > in message news:...</DIV>> To
    > expand on what Charlie said, I have two considerations when considering a
    >> system upgrade.
    >>
    >> 1) What will its usable life be?
    >> 2) How much more productive will I be over that usable life cycle with
    >> option X vs. option Y?
    >>
    >> Addressing #1: 64-bit applications aren't main stream today, but in a
    >> year or two they will be. The transition will be faster than it was
    >> 16-bit to 32-bit. And 64-bit apps run A LOT faster than their 32-bit
    >> counterparts.
    >>
    >> Addressing #2: I think in terms of "time is money". Let's say you will
    >> save just 5 minutes per day by opting for the faster system. Let's break
    >> it down. There are approximately 225 work days in a year. We'll say
    >> your time is worth $50 per hour (mine is a lot more, but let's be
    >> conservative). That's 83 cents per minute. So if you saved just 5
    >> minutes per day, that's an annual savings of $937.50.
    >>
    >> $50 / 60 * 5 * 225 = 937.5 per year.
    >>
    >> So, if you will get three years use out of your system, that's a total
    >> time cost savings of $2,812.50.
    >>
    >> Why wouldn't you opt for the fastest system?
    >>
    >> -Larry
    >>
    >>
    >> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Is Vista x64 significantly "faster" than Vista 32-bit? Well, yes and no.
    >>> For most day to day applications, probably not. But what _is_ different
    >>> is the overall potential that the machine has. The operating system can
    >>> use up to 128 GB of RAM, for example. I seriously doubt you will have a
    >>> system that can hold that much, of course. And Vista x64 will be able to
    >>> run a whole new wave of applications that simply won't run on 32-bit
    >>> Vista. But since most of them haven't been written yet, the more day to
    >>> day reality is that it's still awkward running 64bit sometimes. However,
    >>> with Vista, both hardware and software vendors will have to be able to
    >>> run on Vista x64 in order to get the Vista logo. I think that will make
    >>> a significant difference over time.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Charlie.
    >>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    >>> "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64
    >>>>so I can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or
    >>>>intensive gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been
    >>>>trying to read up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little
    >>>>practical information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have
    >>>>found focuses primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are
    >>>>in that they lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from
    >>>>those of you with practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than
    >>>>the 32 bit version of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the
    >>>>same speed or even slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes
    >>>>with Vista 64 such as IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32
    >>>>bit versions or will these be specifically designed 64 bit versions?
    >>>>What difference if any is there between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit
    >>>>driver for something like a printer or web browser?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks in advance.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>
     
    Larry Hodges, Sep 6, 2006
    #13
  14. Arthur Lipscomb

    Aaron Kelley Guest

    Visual Studio 2005 is kind of a different case. If you run it, you'll
    notice that it is still a 32-bit application, while it does (somehow) have
    some 64-bit components (you can build and debug 64-bit applications). They
    decided that it wasn't really worth the trouble to port the whole thing to
    64-bit. (I saw a video on from MSDN while VS2005 was still in development.)

    - Aaron

    "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have no personal benchmarks for you. Valve claims HL2 has an 84%
    >performance increase from 32 to 64-bit. I don't know if I believe that,
    >but that's what their readme claims.
    >
    > I have the 64-bit version of Visual Studio 2005 (Same CD. It simply
    > detects the 64-bit OS and installs that version.) I didn't run the 32-bit
    > version, so I can't compare. My claim of "a lot" is based mostly on what
    > I've read by others who have benchmarked the two OSs. The numbers I've
    > seen were striking. I'm sorry, but I can't cite the benchmarks. I ran
    > across them on tech sites here and there, and never concerned myself with
    > the numbers that much, other than "wow, that's a big difference".
    >
    > But, even if the increased productivity was five minutes per day as I
    > pointed out, why would you not opt for it? It's not that the up front
    > capital cost is a lot more.
    >
    > -Larry
    >
    >
    > "Zapper" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "And 64-bit apps run A LOT faster than their 32-bit counterparts"
    >> What apps are those?
    >> I am running an x64 machine, but I do not know of a single app that is "A
    >> LOT" faster than its 32 bit counterpart. Especially since he said he is a
    >> web surfer(in x64 no flash, java has issues for some people). I don't
    >> believe the game he mentioned had a 64 bit version. The only game I have
    >> used that had a 64 bit version was UT 2004, and I would not call it "A
    >> LOT" faster than the 32 bit version...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <DIV>&quot;Larry Hodges&quot; &lt;&gt;
    >> wrote in message
    >> news:...</DIV>> To expand on
    >> what Charlie said, I have two considerations when considering a
    >>> system upgrade.
    >>>
    >>> 1) What will its usable life be?
    >>> 2) How much more productive will I be over that usable life cycle with
    >>> option X vs. option Y?
    >>>
    >>> Addressing #1: 64-bit applications aren't main stream today, but in a
    >>> year or two they will be. The transition will be faster than it was
    >>> 16-bit to 32-bit. And 64-bit apps run A LOT faster than their 32-bit
    >>> counterparts.
    >>>
    >>> Addressing #2: I think in terms of "time is money". Let's say you will
    >>> save just 5 minutes per day by opting for the faster system. Let's
    >>> break it down. There are approximately 225 work days in a year. We'll
    >>> say your time is worth $50 per hour (mine is a lot more, but let's be
    >>> conservative). That's 83 cents per minute. So if you saved just 5
    >>> minutes per day, that's an annual savings of $937.50.
    >>>
    >>> $50 / 60 * 5 * 225 = 937.5 per year.
    >>>
    >>> So, if you will get three years use out of your system, that's a total
    >>> time cost savings of $2,812.50.
    >>>
    >>> Why wouldn't you opt for the fastest system?
    >>>
    >>> -Larry
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in
    >>> message news:...
    >>>> Is Vista x64 significantly "faster" than Vista 32-bit? Well, yes and
    >>>> no. For most day to day applications, probably not. But what _is_
    >>>> different is the overall potential that the machine has. The operating
    >>>> system can use up to 128 GB of RAM, for example. I seriously doubt you
    >>>> will have a system that can hold that much, of course. And Vista x64
    >>>> will be able to run a whole new wave of applications that simply won't
    >>>> run on 32-bit Vista. But since most of them haven't been written yet,
    >>>> the more day to day reality is that it's still awkward running 64bit
    >>>> sometimes. However, with Vista, both hardware and software vendors will
    >>>> have to be able to run on Vista x64 in order to get the Vista logo. I
    >>>> think that will make a significant difference over time.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Charlie.
    >>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    >>>> "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64
    >>>>>so I can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or
    >>>>>intensive gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been
    >>>>>trying to read up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very
    >>>>>little practical information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I
    >>>>>have found focuses primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating
    >>>>>systems are in that they lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like
    >>>>>to know from those of you with practical experience is Vista 64 at
    >>>>>least faster, than the 32 bit version of Vista (and the 32 bit version
    >>>>>of XP) or is it the same speed or even slower? Also, do you know if
    >>>>>the software that comes with Vista 64 such as IE7 and Media player will
    >>>>>be the same as the 32 bit versions or will these be specifically
    >>>>>designed 64 bit versions? What difference if any is there between a 32
    >>>>>bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something like a printer or web
    >>>>>browser?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks in advance.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >
    >
     
    Aaron Kelley, Sep 6, 2006
    #14
  15. Arthur Lipscomb

    Guest

    Exactly, I am unclear as to the benifits of 64-bits as well. I mean,
    take MS Word, for example, MS will write a 64-bit version of it but no
    one is going to have a 100 gig document file.

    Another example is something simple like the dialers from at&t or
    cisco, they do not use gigs of memory, so, what advantage do you get in
    making them 64-bit?

    With Java, 64-bits will present its own problems because if a program
    becomes much larger then there is the issue of garbage collection and
    doing it in such a way that it does not take all day.

    -t
     
    , Sep 6, 2006
    #15
  16. Arthur Lipscomb

    Guest

    The benefits of software written for 64-bit apps
    are going to be significant in those
    applications that do something like the Panorama
    Factory stitching photos or video editing or any
    other apps that uses the CPU and memory to
    process data. An IBM PC with a 8088 is adequate
    for most word processing!


    wrote:
    > Exactly, I am unclear as to the benifits of 64-bits as well. I mean,
    > take MS Word, for example, MS will write a 64-bit version of it but no
    > one is going to have a 100 gig document file.
    >
    > Another example is something simple like the dialers from at&t or
    > cisco, they do not use gigs of memory, so, what advantage do you get in
    > making them 64-bit?
    >
    > With Java, 64-bits will present its own problems because if a program
    > becomes much larger then there is the issue of garbage collection and
    > doing it in such a way that it does not take all day.
    >
    > -t
    >
     
    , Sep 6, 2006
    #16
  17. Arthur Lipscomb

    Guest

    Normally I would agree except for Java apps, garbage collection on a
    64-bit memory space would take a lot of cpu cycles, so, we are back to
    a slow app again.

    -t
     
    , Sep 6, 2006
    #17
  18. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The benefits of software written for 64-bit apps
    > are going to be significant in those
    > applications that do something like the Panorama
    > Factory stitching photos or video editing or any
    > other apps that uses the CPU and memory to
    > process data. An IBM PC with a 8088 is adequate
    > for most word processing!
    >
    >

    Ah, you do not remember how 'scrolling' the simplest document worked, even
    on the 386? No, no, no - this discussion died out of boredom and lack of
    arguments in around -94, the truth is that anything will benefit from any
    enhancement you can think of. It's just that nobody cares how some things
    can benefit, at some point it becomes trivial and insignificant.

    No, you are missing the point, as you state it you are right, the odd
    application and the specific tasks they perform may not depend very much on
    the data-width. Only data heavy applications do. But when you have a system
    built for a specific data-width, it will be a waste of resources to having
    it run anything else via a translation layer or whatever.

    The point of it all is that the system will eventually be running only 64bit
    processes and until that time the system will not run optimally. AMD pulled
    a rather smart rabbit out of their hat with the 64bit processor, but in
    reality it has delayed the transformation into a fully 64bit environment as
    everybody wants to keep running their old apps indefinitely and the
    processor supports this, and nobody is writing or porting any software to
    64bit as a consequence. And we need it badly, but many are unaware of how
    bad they need it. How we all hated the fact that we had to change all our
    software the last time, but in reality this may have been much more 'humane'
    and kind, than to have to wallow through , what is slowly becoming a dank
    swamp of old junk and indetermination.

    As I said in an earlier post, if you want to know what a fully 64bit enabled
    sytem can do you have to see it for yourself. Most people here could
    accomodate for an extra OS. Install 64bit SUSE. Everything executable is
    64bit. The graphical installer doesn't always work on Beta versions, if you
    have trouble use the text-based installtion, that always work everywhere.
    Have a look and be prepared to accomodate for a few new ideas.


    Tony. . .
     
    Tony Sperling, Sep 6, 2006
    #18
  19. Arthur Lipscomb

    John Barnes Guest

    You forgot to subtract for the time spent trying to find drivers and
    replacing hardware and software that won't work. :)


    "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > To expand on what Charlie said, I have two considerations when considering
    > a system upgrade.
    >
    > 1) What will its usable life be?
    > 2) How much more productive will I be over that usable life cycle with
    > option X vs. option Y?
    >
    > Addressing #1: 64-bit applications aren't main stream today, but in a
    > year or two they will be. The transition will be faster than it was
    > 16-bit to 32-bit. And 64-bit apps run A LOT faster than their 32-bit
    > counterparts.
    >
    > Addressing #2: I think in terms of "time is money". Let's say you will
    > save just 5 minutes per day by opting for the faster system. Let's break
    > it down. There are approximately 225 work days in a year. We'll say your
    > time is worth $50 per hour (mine is a lot more, but let's be
    > conservative). That's 83 cents per minute. So if you saved just 5 minutes
    > per day, that's an annual savings of $937.50.
    >
    > $50 / 60 * 5 * 225 = 937.5 per year.
    >
    > So, if you will get three years use out of your system, that's a total
    > time cost savings of $2,812.50.
    >
    > Why wouldn't you opt for the fastest system?
    >
    > -Larry
    >
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Is Vista x64 significantly "faster" than Vista 32-bit? Well, yes and no.
    >> For most day to day applications, probably not. But what _is_ different
    >> is the overall potential that the machine has. The operating system can
    >> use up to 128 GB of RAM, for example. I seriously doubt you will have a
    >> system that can hold that much, of course. And Vista x64 will be able to
    >> run a whole new wave of applications that simply won't run on 32-bit
    >> Vista. But since most of them haven't been written yet, the more day to
    >> day reality is that it's still awkward running 64bit sometimes. However,
    >> with Vista, both hardware and software vendors will have to be able to
    >> run on Vista x64 in order to get the Vista logo. I think that will make a
    >> significant difference over time.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    >> "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so
    >>>I can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or
    >>>intensive gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been
    >>>trying to read up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little
    >>>practical information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have
    >>>found focuses primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are
    >>>in that they lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from
    >>>those of you with practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than
    >>>the 32 bit version of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the
    >>>same speed or even slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes
    >>>with Vista 64 such as IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit
    >>>versions or will these be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What
    >>>difference if any is there between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver
    >>>for something like a printer or web browser?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Thanks in advance.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
    John Barnes, Sep 7, 2006
    #19
  20. Arthur Lipscomb

    Larry Hodges Guest

    lol, good point.

    -Larry

    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You forgot to subtract for the time spent trying to find drivers and
    > replacing hardware and software that won't work. :)
    >
    >
    > "Larry Hodges" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> To expand on what Charlie said, I have two considerations when
    >> considering a system upgrade.
    >>
    >> 1) What will its usable life be?
    >> 2) How much more productive will I be over that usable life cycle with
    >> option X vs. option Y?
    >>
    >> Addressing #1: 64-bit applications aren't main stream today, but in a
    >> year or two they will be. The transition will be faster than it was
    >> 16-bit to 32-bit. And 64-bit apps run A LOT faster than their 32-bit
    >> counterparts.
    >>
    >> Addressing #2: I think in terms of "time is money". Let's say you will
    >> save just 5 minutes per day by opting for the faster system. Let's break
    >> it down. There are approximately 225 work days in a year. We'll say
    >> your time is worth $50 per hour (mine is a lot more, but let's be
    >> conservative). That's 83 cents per minute. So if you saved just 5
    >> minutes per day, that's an annual savings of $937.50.
    >>
    >> $50 / 60 * 5 * 225 = 937.5 per year.
    >>
    >> So, if you will get three years use out of your system, that's a total
    >> time cost savings of $2,812.50.
    >>
    >> Why wouldn't you opt for the fastest system?
    >>
    >> -Larry
    >>
    >>
    >> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Is Vista x64 significantly "faster" than Vista 32-bit? Well, yes and no.
    >>> For most day to day applications, probably not. But what _is_ different
    >>> is the overall potential that the machine has. The operating system can
    >>> use up to 128 GB of RAM, for example. I seriously doubt you will have a
    >>> system that can hold that much, of course. And Vista x64 will be able to
    >>> run a whole new wave of applications that simply won't run on 32-bit
    >>> Vista. But since most of them haven't been written yet, the more day to
    >>> day reality is that it's still awkward running 64bit sometimes. However,
    >>> with Vista, both hardware and software vendors will have to be able to
    >>> run on Vista x64 in order to get the Vista logo. I think that will make
    >>> a significant difference over time.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Charlie.
    >>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    >>> "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64
    >>>>so I can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or
    >>>>intensive gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been
    >>>>trying to read up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little
    >>>>practical information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have
    >>>>found focuses primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are
    >>>>in that they lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from
    >>>>those of you with practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than
    >>>>the 32 bit version of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the
    >>>>same speed or even slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes
    >>>>with Vista 64 such as IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32
    >>>>bit versions or will these be specifically designed 64 bit versions?
    >>>>What difference if any is there between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit
    >>>>driver for something like a printer or web browser?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks in advance.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Larry Hodges, Sep 7, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Consultant

    Re: 32 bit operating system

    Consultant, Jan 8, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    492
    Consultant
    Jan 8, 2004
  2. Johnny Yi

    MCSE Benefits... what benefits.

    Johnny Yi, Jan 17, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    4,631
  3. roman modic

    Benefits of 64-bit vs. 32-bit

    roman modic, Feb 7, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    471
    roman modic
    Feb 7, 2006
  4. =?Utf-8?B?YXBldGVycw==?=

    Using 32 bit license for a 64 bit operating system

    =?Utf-8?B?YXBldGVycw==?=, Oct 31, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    417
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Nov 1, 2007
  5. karthikbalaguru

    Moving from 32-bit to 64-bit windows operating system

    karthikbalaguru, Jun 16, 2009, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    596
    Rob Moir
    Jun 28, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page