• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

64-bit Internet Explorer

L

Lone Star

Flightless Bird
My new Windows 7 laptop came with two versions of IE: the standard and the
64-bit. Question: is there any advantage of using the 64-bit version? Any
new capabilities, is the speed better, look better, or what. No I haven't
tried it yet -- don't want the system to default to it, or something weird
beyond my ability to revert. Thanks.

EW
 
M

mikeyhsd

Flightless Bird
64 bit is better and faster in my opinion.

however things like flash are not 64 bit so not all sites will work.
and the switch is not auto.
you have to exit 64 and then run 32.

mikeyhsd@hotmail.com



"Lone Star" <ewyatt__del@excite.com> wrote in message news:hiob86$fp9$1@news.datemas.de...
My new Windows 7 laptop came with two versions of IE: the standard and the
64-bit. Question: is there any advantage of using the 64-bit version? Any
new capabilities, is the speed better, look better, or what. No I haven't
tried it yet -- don't want the system to default to it, or something weird
beyond my ability to revert. Thanks.

EW
 
R

rob^_^

Flightless Bird
Hi,

It is more secure than the x86 version even... because it does not support
all the x86 IE Addons and plugins.

You cannot view flash images and the like, nor can you use Addon Toolbars
like Google or Yahoo.

Regards.

"Lone Star" <ewyatt__del@excite.com> wrote in message
news:hiob86$fp9$1@news.datemas.de...
> My new Windows 7 laptop came with two versions of IE: the standard and the
> 64-bit. Question: is there any advantage of using the 64-bit version?
> Any new capabilities, is the speed better, look better, or what. No I
> haven't tried it yet -- don't want the system to default to it, or
> something weird beyond my ability to revert. Thanks.
>
> EW
>
>
>
 
P

PA Bear [MS MVP]

Flightless Bird
See this discussion:
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vistawu/thread/babaa5f8-ff06-4ea2-aef6-a9416d65f981
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002
www.banthecheck.com


Lone Star wrote:
> My new Windows 7 laptop came with two versions of IE: the standard and the
> 64-bit. Question: is there any advantage of using the 64-bit version?
> Any
> new capabilities, is the speed better, look better, or what. No I haven't
> tried it yet -- don't want the system to default to it, or something weird
> beyond my ability to revert. Thanks.
>
> EW
 
B

Bruce Hagen

Flightless Bird
As "mikeyhsd" said, some programs do not run on the 64 Bit, yet. I have a
shortcut to both 32 and 64 bit on my QL Taskbar. You can use both at the
same time.
--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP [Mail]
Imperial Beach, CA


"Lone Star" <ewyatt__del@excite.com> wrote in message
news:hiob86$fp9$1@news.datemas.de...
> My new Windows 7 laptop came with two versions of IE: the standard and
> the 64-bit. Question: is there any advantage of using the 64-bit
> version? Any new capabilities, is the speed better, look better, or
> what. No I haven't tried it yet -- don't want the system to default to
> it, or something weird beyond my ability to revert. Thanks.
>
> EW
>
>
 
J

Jeff Strickland

Flightless Bird
"Lone Star" <ewyatt__del@excite.com> wrote in message
news:hiob86$fp9$1@news.datemas.de...
> My new Windows 7 laptop came with two versions of IE: the standard and the
> 64-bit. Question: is there any advantage of using the 64-bit version?
> Any new capabilities, is the speed better, look better, or what. No I
> haven't tried it yet -- don't want the system to default to it, or
> something weird beyond my ability to revert. Thanks.
>
> EW
>
>


In theory, the 64-bit should be remarkably faster, in practice there are
some web-applications (Adobe Flash) that don't work with 64-bit Explorer, so
the speed might not be there.

You have two options, use 32-bit because you know it will always work, or
use 64-bit until it doesn't work and then start the 32-bit version for that
Website.
 
L

Leonard Grey

Flightless Bird
Why should the 64-bit version of IE 8 be "remarkably faster" in theory
or in practice?
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "Lone Star" <ewyatt__del@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:hiob86$fp9$1@news.datemas.de...
>> My new Windows 7 laptop came with two versions of IE: the standard and the
>> 64-bit. Question: is there any advantage of using the 64-bit version?
>> Any new capabilities, is the speed better, look better, or what. No I
>> haven't tried it yet -- don't want the system to default to it, or
>> something weird beyond my ability to revert. Thanks.
>>
>> EW
>>
>>

>
> In theory, the 64-bit should be remarkably faster, in practice there are
> some web-applications (Adobe Flash) that don't work with 64-bit Explorer, so
> the speed might not be there.
>
> You have two options, use 32-bit because you know it will always work, or
> use 64-bit until it doesn't work and then start the 32-bit version for that
> Website.
>
>
>
>
>
 
R

rob^_^

Flightless Bird
A bigger Bus. More bits can travel on each clock tick.

"Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:-OLjQRmglKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Why should the 64-bit version of IE 8 be "remarkably faster" in theory or
> in practice?
> ---
> Leonard Grey
> Errare humanum est
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "Lone Star" <ewyatt__del@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:hiob86$fp9$1@news.datemas.de...
>>> My new Windows 7 laptop came with two versions of IE: the standard and
>>> the 64-bit. Question: is there any advantage of using the 64-bit
>>> version? Any new capabilities, is the speed better, look better, or
>>> what. No I haven't tried it yet -- don't want the system to default to
>>> it, or something weird beyond my ability to revert. Thanks.
>>>
>>> EW
>>>
>>>

>>
>> In theory, the 64-bit should be remarkably faster, in practice there are
>> some web-applications (Adobe Flash) that don't work with 64-bit Explorer,
>> so the speed might not be there.
>>
>> You have two options, use 32-bit because you know it will always work, or
>> use 64-bit until it doesn't work and then start the 32-bit version for
>> that Website.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
 
P

PA Bear [MS MVP]

Flightless Bird
IE64-bit is a "level 2" browser; Flash and ActiveX Controls are only
supported in "level 1" browsers (e.g., IE 32-bit) so they (and consequently
most Add-ons) don't load in IE 64-bit. See "Levels of browser support" on
this somewhat related page:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc263526.aspx#section2

Leonard Grey wrote:
> Why should the 64-bit version of IE 8 be "remarkably faster" in theory
> or in practice?
> ---
> Leonard Grey
> Errare humanum est
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "Lone Star" <ewyatt__del@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:hiob86$fp9$1@news.datemas.de...
>>> My new Windows 7 laptop came with two versions of IE: the standard and
>>> the
>>> 64-bit. Question: is there any advantage of using the 64-bit version?
>>> Any new capabilities, is the speed better, look better, or what. No I
>>> haven't tried it yet -- don't want the system to default to it, or
>>> something weird beyond my ability to revert. Thanks.
>>>
>>> EW
>>>
>>>

>>
>> In theory, the 64-bit should be remarkably faster, in practice there are
>> some web-applications (Adobe Flash) that don't work with 64-bit Explorer,
>> so the speed might not be there.
>>
>> You have two options, use 32-bit because you know it will always work, or
>> use 64-bit until it doesn't work and then start the 32-bit version for
>> that
>> Website.
 
L

Leonard Grey

Flightless Bird
Those are hardware characteristics unrelated to Internet Explorer or
even to 64-bit Windows.

The purpose of 64-bit computing is to address substantially more memory.
This will make any application run faster /if/ it can take advantage of
the extra memory. I doubt that's true of many web pages on the public
internet at present

In addition, Microsoft has taken the opportunity to harden its 64-bit
OSes by requiring that drivers be digitally signed, to combat rootkits.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

rob^_^ wrote:
> A bigger Bus. More bits can travel on each clock tick.
>
> "Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:-OLjQRmglKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Why should the 64-bit version of IE 8 be "remarkably faster" in theory
>> or in practice?
>> ---
>> Leonard Grey
>> Errare humanum est
>>
>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>> "Lone Star" <ewyatt__del@excite.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hiob86$fp9$1@news.datemas.de...
>>>> My new Windows 7 laptop came with two versions of IE: the standard
>>>> and the 64-bit. Question: is there any advantage of using the
>>>> 64-bit version? Any new capabilities, is the speed better, look
>>>> better, or what. No I haven't tried it yet -- don't want the system
>>>> to default to it, or something weird beyond my ability to revert.
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> EW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> In theory, the 64-bit should be remarkably faster, in practice there
>>> are some web-applications (Adobe Flash) that don't work with 64-bit
>>> Explorer, so the speed might not be there.
>>>
>>> You have two options, use 32-bit because you know it will always
>>> work, or use 64-bit until it doesn't work and then start the 32-bit
>>> version for that Website.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 
J

Jeff Strickland

Flightless Bird
"Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:-OLjQRmglKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Why should the 64-bit version of IE 8 be "remarkably faster" in theory or
> in practice?


Because 64-bits process twice as much data in the same time slice.
 
R

rob^_^

Flightless Bird
Ta!

"Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:-OiMuDihlKHA.2592@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Those are hardware characteristics unrelated to Internet Explorer or even
> to 64-bit Windows.
>
> The purpose of 64-bit computing is to address substantially more memory.
> This will make any application run faster /if/ it can take advantage of
> the extra memory. I doubt that's true of many web pages on the public
> internet at present
>
> In addition, Microsoft has taken the opportunity to harden its 64-bit OSes
> by requiring that drivers be digitally signed, to combat rootkits.
> ---
> Leonard Grey
> Errare humanum est
>
> rob^_^ wrote:
>> A bigger Bus. More bits can travel on each clock tick.
>>
>> "Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:-OLjQRmglKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Why should the 64-bit version of IE 8 be "remarkably faster" in theory
>>> or in practice?
>>> ---
>>> Leonard Grey
>>> Errare humanum est
>>>
>>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>> "Lone Star" <ewyatt__del@excite.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hiob86$fp9$1@news.datemas.de...
>>>>> My new Windows 7 laptop came with two versions of IE: the standard and
>>>>> the 64-bit. Question: is there any advantage of using the 64-bit
>>>>> version? Any new capabilities, is the speed better, look better, or
>>>>> what. No I haven't tried it yet -- don't want the system to default
>>>>> to it, or something weird beyond my ability to revert. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> EW
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In theory, the 64-bit should be remarkably faster, in practice there
>>>> are some web-applications (Adobe Flash) that don't work with 64-bit
>>>> Explorer, so the speed might not be there.
>>>>
>>>> You have two options, use 32-bit because you know it will always work,
>>>> or use 64-bit until it doesn't work and then start the 32-bit version
>>>> for that Website.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>
 
J

justHenson

Flightless Bird
From what I've read, 64-bit browsers can run 64-bit ActiveX controls. Do
many of these exist? If so, why not? Are 64-bit controls just wildly
unpopular?

- Henson

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote:

> IE64-bit is a "level 2" browser; Flash and ActiveX Controls are only
> supported in "level 1" browsers (e.g., IE 32-bit) so they (and consequently
> most Add-ons) don't load in IE 64-bit. See "Levels of browser support" on
> this somewhat related page:
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc263526.aspx#section2
 
L

Leonard Grey

Flightless Bird
No, my friend. You misunderstand 64-bit computing.

The "64" refers to the number 2 raised to the 64th power, which is an
absurdly high number that indicates the largest memory address that the
computer can access. No consumer version of Windows can use that much
memory; I believe 64-bit Windows 7 [Professional and Ultimate] can
access as much as 192GB of memory.

By contrast, the highest memory address available to a 32-bit computer
is 2 raised to the 32nd power, or 4,294,967,296, which is 4GB. That
explains why 32-bit Windows can use a maximum of 4GB, although some of
that is used by the system.

64-bit computing is a boon to memory-intensive applications, since it
allows you to equip your computer with more RAM. And to the extent that
more RAM is available, all applications will run faster. But that's
because of the added memory; there's nothing inherently faster about a
64-bit computer.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:-OLjQRmglKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Why should the 64-bit version of IE 8 be "remarkably faster" in theory or
>> in practice?

>
> Because 64-bits process twice as much data in the same time slice.
>
>
>
>
>
 
T

Tom Lake

Flightless Bird
"Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:exiTYWolKHA.2780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> No, my friend. You misunderstand 64-bit computing.


> 64-bit computing is a boon to memory-intensive applications, since it
> allows you to equip your computer with more RAM. And to the extent that
> more RAM is available, all applications will run faster. But that's
> because of the added memory; there's nothing inherently faster about a
> 64-bit computer.
> ---
> Leonard Grey
> Errare humanum est


It's not just memory. A 64-bit CPU will perform 64-bit integer arithmetic
faster than a 32-bit CPU unless both use the coprocessor instructions.
Even then, when moving large numbers around, a 64-bit CPU does it faster
than 32-bit.

Tom Lake
 
J

Jeff Strickland

Flightless Bird
Let's assume for the moment that there are 4G of RAM in the system -- the
max RAM of a 32-bit environment.

Wouldn't the same volume of data pass through the RAM faster on a 64-bit
system as opposed to the 32-bit system? If the same data through the same
memory space happens faster at 64 bits than 32, then wouldn't the system be
faster as a result of doubling the bit rate of the bus?

I get that the Internet is not quite ready for 64-bit systems, but that's
not the fault of the systems, it's the fault of web developement. No worries
though, I'm sure the development is not far behind.

I happen to have 4G of RAM running under XP Pro, and I'm pleased with the
speed of my system -- but I'm not a particularly heavy graphics user, which
is RAM-intensive.








"Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:exiTYWolKHA.2780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> No, my friend. You misunderstand 64-bit computing.
>
> The "64" refers to the number 2 raised to the 64th power, which is an
> absurdly high number that indicates the largest memory address that the
> computer can access. No consumer version of Windows can use that much
> memory; I believe 64-bit Windows 7 [Professional and Ultimate] can access
> as much as 192GB of memory.
>
> By contrast, the highest memory address available to a 32-bit computer is
> 2 raised to the 32nd power, or 4,294,967,296, which is 4GB. That explains
> why 32-bit Windows can use a maximum of 4GB, although some of that is used
> by the system.
>
> 64-bit computing is a boon to memory-intensive applications, since it
> allows you to equip your computer with more RAM. And to the extent that
> more RAM is available, all applications will run faster. But that's
> because of the added memory; there's nothing inherently faster about a
> 64-bit computer.
> ---
> Leonard Grey
> Errare humanum est
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:-OLjQRmglKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Why should the 64-bit version of IE 8 be "remarkably faster" in theory
>>> or in practice?

>>
>> Because 64-bits process twice as much data in the same time slice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
 
P

PA Bear [MS MVP]

Flightless Bird
Tom Lake wrote:
> "Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:exiTYWolKHA.2780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> No, my friend. You misunderstand 64-bit computing.

>
>> 64-bit computing is a boon to memory-intensive applications, since it
>> allows you to equip your computer with more RAM. And to the extent that
>> more RAM is available, all applications will run faster. But that's
>> because of the added memory; there's nothing inherently faster about a
>> 64-bit computer.
>> ---
>> Leonard Grey
>> Errare humanum est

>
> It's not just memory. A 64-bit CPU will perform 64-bit integer arithmetic
> faster than a 32-bit CPU unless both use the coprocessor instructions.
> Even then, when moving large numbers around, a 64-bit CPU does it faster
> than 32-bit.


<zzzzzzzzzzzz...>
 
L

Leonard Grey

Flightless Bird
The data transfer rate depends on hardware, not software.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> Let's assume for the moment that there are 4G of RAM in the system -- the
> max RAM of a 32-bit environment.
>
> Wouldn't the same volume of data pass through the RAM faster on a 64-bit
> system as opposed to the 32-bit system? If the same data through the same
> memory space happens faster at 64 bits than 32, then wouldn't the system be
> faster as a result of doubling the bit rate of the bus?
>
> I get that the Internet is not quite ready for 64-bit systems, but that's
> not the fault of the systems, it's the fault of web developement. No worries
> though, I'm sure the development is not far behind.
>
> I happen to have 4G of RAM running under XP Pro, and I'm pleased with the
> speed of my system -- but I'm not a particularly heavy graphics user, which
> is RAM-intensive.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:exiTYWolKHA.2780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> No, my friend. You misunderstand 64-bit computing.
>>
>> The "64" refers to the number 2 raised to the 64th power, which is an
>> absurdly high number that indicates the largest memory address that the
>> computer can access. No consumer version of Windows can use that much
>> memory; I believe 64-bit Windows 7 [Professional and Ultimate] can access
>> as much as 192GB of memory.
>>
>> By contrast, the highest memory address available to a 32-bit computer is
>> 2 raised to the 32nd power, or 4,294,967,296, which is 4GB. That explains
>> why 32-bit Windows can use a maximum of 4GB, although some of that is used
>> by the system.
>>
>> 64-bit computing is a boon to memory-intensive applications, since it
>> allows you to equip your computer with more RAM. And to the extent that
>> more RAM is available, all applications will run faster. But that's
>> because of the added memory; there's nothing inherently faster about a
>> 64-bit computer.
>> ---
>> Leonard Grey
>> Errare humanum est
>>
>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>> "Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:-OLjQRmglKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> Why should the 64-bit version of IE 8 be "remarkably faster" in theory
>>>> or in practice?
>>> Because 64-bits process twice as much data in the same time slice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>
 
R

rob^_^

Flightless Bird
ditto. How many seats are on the bus.

"Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:#b6hn9tlKHA.1648@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> The data transfer rate depends on hardware, not software.
> ---
> Leonard Grey
> Errare humanum est
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> Let's assume for the moment that there are 4G of RAM in the system -- the
>> max RAM of a 32-bit environment.
>>
>> Wouldn't the same volume of data pass through the RAM faster on a 64-bit
>> system as opposed to the 32-bit system? If the same data through the same
>> memory space happens faster at 64 bits than 32, then wouldn't the system
>> be faster as a result of doubling the bit rate of the bus?
>>
>> I get that the Internet is not quite ready for 64-bit systems, but that's
>> not the fault of the systems, it's the fault of web developement. No
>> worries though, I'm sure the development is not far behind.
>>
>> I happen to have 4G of RAM running under XP Pro, and I'm pleased with the
>> speed of my system -- but I'm not a particularly heavy graphics user,
>> which is RAM-intensive.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:exiTYWolKHA.2780@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> No, my friend. You misunderstand 64-bit computing.
>>>
>>> The "64" refers to the number 2 raised to the 64th power, which is an
>>> absurdly high number that indicates the largest memory address that the
>>> computer can access. No consumer version of Windows can use that much
>>> memory; I believe 64-bit Windows 7 [Professional and Ultimate] can
>>> access as much as 192GB of memory.
>>>
>>> By contrast, the highest memory address available to a 32-bit computer
>>> is 2 raised to the 32nd power, or 4,294,967,296, which is 4GB. That
>>> explains why 32-bit Windows can use a maximum of 4GB, although some of
>>> that is used by the system.
>>>
>>> 64-bit computing is a boon to memory-intensive applications, since it
>>> allows you to equip your computer with more RAM. And to the extent that
>>> more RAM is available, all applications will run faster. But that's
>>> because of the added memory; there's nothing inherently faster about a
>>> 64-bit computer.
>>> ---
>>> Leonard Grey
>>> Errare humanum est
>>>
>>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>> "Leonard Grey" <l.grey@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:-OLjQRmglKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Why should the 64-bit version of IE 8 be "remarkably faster" in theory
>>>>> or in practice?
>>>> Because 64-bits process twice as much data in the same time slice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>
 
Top