1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

64 bits capable

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by Sam, Jun 29, 2010.

  1. Sam

    Sam Flightless Bird

    Hi

    I am about to buy a system with Win 7 32bit but I want to make sure that
    when I upgrade to 64bit the computer will be just as good as those that come
    with the 64bit version of the operating system.

    I know that the processor has 64 mode but does that mean that the entire
    hardware is geared for 64 to give the real benefit.

    Thank you,
    Samuel
     
  2. Chuck

    Chuck Flightless Bird

    On 6/29/2010 11:43 AM, Sam wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > I am about to buy a system with Win 7 32bit but I want to make sure that
    > when I upgrade to 64bit the computer will be just as good as those that come
    > with the 64bit version of the operating system.
    >
    > I know that the processor has 64 mode but does that mean that the entire
    > hardware is geared for 64 to give the real benefit.
    >
    > Thank you,
    > Samuel
    >
    >


    Unless you have a specific application or peripheral that will not run
    in 64 bit, you are better off for the long run getting 64 instead of 32.
    That said, Win 7 pro is preferable to the home versions, due to the
    ability to run a "virtual machine" and such things as Win XP inside the
    virtual machine.

    We were able to get things from the dark ages, such as "Qbasic" and QB
    applications to run under 64 bit win 7.
     
  3. Ken Blake

    Ken Blake Flightless Bird

    On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:43:54 +0100, "Sam" <shulman.samuel@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    > I am about to buy a system with Win 7 32bit but I want to make sure that
    > when I upgrade to 64bit



    A clarification here: you can *not* upgrade to 64-bit Windows. The
    only way to get there is via a clean installation.


    > the computer will be just as good as those that come
    > with the 64bit version of the operating system.



    Then why not start out with 64-bit Windows 7 now?


    > I know that the processor has 64 mode but does that mean that the entire
    > hardware is geared for 64 to give the real benefit.



    The *real* benefit has to do with running 64-bit applications, not
    with "hardware is geared for 64." Here's my standard message on the
    subject:

    The advantage of running a 64-bit version of Windows mostly exists
    only if you also run 64-bit applications under it. Bear in mind that
    there are very few such applications available yet. If you are
    presently running 32-bit Windows, you don't have any 64-bit
    applications, so to achieve any significant advantage, you not only
    have to replace Windows, but also your applications, *if* (and that's
    a big "if") 64-bit versions exist.

    Also note that you will need 64-bit drivers for all your hardware.
    Those drivers may not all be available, especially if some of your
    hardware is a few years old. So it's possible that you might also have
    to replace things like your printer, scanner, etc.

    So the answer to your question is that it may not be a great idea
    right now. That will undoubtedly change in the near future, as 64-bit
    applications become more available, but for now, 64-bit Windows often
    means some extra trouble and expense for little or no benefit.

    On the other hand, installing 64-bit Windows instead of 32-bit Windows
    makes you able to buy 64-bit software as it becomes available, instead
    of the older 32-bit versions. That means that installing 64-bit
    Windows--even though it may do very little for you at present--puts
    you into a better position for the future.

    One additional point: the 64-bit version lets you use more than the
    approximately 3.1GB of RAM that the 32-bit version can use. Very few
    people need or can make effective use of more than 3.1GB, but if you
    are one of those who can, that's something else to consider.
     
  4. Sam

    Sam Flightless Bird

    Thank you for your detailed reply,

    The question is really whether there is such a thing as Hardware compatible
    to 64 as opposed to hardware Capable where the 64 is supported consistently
    throughout the process of the computation




    "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
    news:0ufk26pn6kum72pviah8r26q56g4egf1ol@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:43:54 +0100, "Sam" <shulman.samuel@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I am about to buy a system with Win 7 32bit but I want to make sure that
    >> when I upgrade to 64bit

    >
    >
    > A clarification here: you can *not* upgrade to 64-bit Windows. The
    > only way to get there is via a clean installation.
    >
    >
    >> the computer will be just as good as those that come
    >> with the 64bit version of the operating system.

    >
    >
    > Then why not start out with 64-bit Windows 7 now?
    >
    >
    >> I know that the processor has 64 mode but does that mean that the entire
    >> hardware is geared for 64 to give the real benefit.

    >
    >
    > The *real* benefit has to do with running 64-bit applications, not
    > with "hardware is geared for 64." Here's my standard message on the
    > subject:
    >
    > The advantage of running a 64-bit version of Windows mostly exists
    > only if you also run 64-bit applications under it. Bear in mind that
    > there are very few such applications available yet. If you are
    > presently running 32-bit Windows, you don't have any 64-bit
    > applications, so to achieve any significant advantage, you not only
    > have to replace Windows, but also your applications, *if* (and that's
    > a big "if") 64-bit versions exist.
    >
    > Also note that you will need 64-bit drivers for all your hardware.
    > Those drivers may not all be available, especially if some of your
    > hardware is a few years old. So it's possible that you might also have
    > to replace things like your printer, scanner, etc.
    >
    > So the answer to your question is that it may not be a great idea
    > right now. That will undoubtedly change in the near future, as 64-bit
    > applications become more available, but for now, 64-bit Windows often
    > means some extra trouble and expense for little or no benefit.
    >
    > On the other hand, installing 64-bit Windows instead of 32-bit Windows
    > makes you able to buy 64-bit software as it becomes available, instead
    > of the older 32-bit versions. That means that installing 64-bit
    > Windows--even though it may do very little for you at present--puts
    > you into a better position for the future.
    >
    > One additional point: the 64-bit version lets you use more than the
    > approximately 3.1GB of RAM that the 32-bit version can use. Very few
    > people need or can make effective use of more than 3.1GB, but if you
    > are one of those who can, that's something else to consider.
    >
    >
     
  5. Al Dykes

    Al Dykes Flightless Bird

    In article <iWuWn.82055$Yb4.25059@hurricane>,
    Sam <shulman.samuel@gmail.com> wrote:
    >Thank you for your detailed reply,
    >
    >The question is really whether there is such a thing as Hardware compatible
    >to 64 as opposed to hardware Capable where the 64 is supported consistently
    >throughout the process of the computation
    >


    if th
    --
    Al Dykes
    News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
    - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
     
  6. Gene E. Bloch

    Gene E. Bloch Flightless Bird

    On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:19 +0100, Sam wrote:

    > Thank you for your detailed reply,
    >
    > The question is really whether there is such a thing as Hardware compatible
    > to 64 as opposed to hardware Capable where the 64 is supported consistently
    > throughout the process of the computation


    No.

    > "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
    > news:0ufk26pn6kum72pviah8r26q56g4egf1ol@4ax.com...
    >> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:43:54 +0100, "Sam" <shulman.samuel@gmail.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I am about to buy a system with Win 7 32bit but I want to make sure that
    >>> when I upgrade to 64bit

    >>
    >>
    >> A clarification here: you can *not* upgrade to 64-bit Windows. The
    >> only way to get there is via a clean installation.
    >>
    >>
    >>> the computer will be just as good as those that come
    >>> with the 64bit version of the operating system.

    >>
    >>
    >> Then why not start out with 64-bit Windows 7 now?
    >>
    >>
    >>> I know that the processor has 64 mode but does that mean that the entire
    >>> hardware is geared for 64 to give the real benefit.

    >>
    >>
    >> The *real* benefit has to do with running 64-bit applications, not
    >> with "hardware is geared for 64." Here's my standard message on the
    >> subject:
    >>
    >> The advantage of running a 64-bit version of Windows mostly exists
    >> only if you also run 64-bit applications under it. Bear in mind that
    >> there are very few such applications available yet. If you are
    >> presently running 32-bit Windows, you don't have any 64-bit
    >> applications, so to achieve any significant advantage, you not only
    >> have to replace Windows, but also your applications, *if* (and that's
    >> a big "if") 64-bit versions exist.
    >>
    >> Also note that you will need 64-bit drivers for all your hardware.
    >> Those drivers may not all be available, especially if some of your
    >> hardware is a few years old. So it's possible that you might also have
    >> to replace things like your printer, scanner, etc.
    >>
    >> So the answer to your question is that it may not be a great idea
    >> right now. That will undoubtedly change in the near future, as 64-bit
    >> applications become more available, but for now, 64-bit Windows often
    >> means some extra trouble and expense for little or no benefit.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, installing 64-bit Windows instead of 32-bit Windows
    >> makes you able to buy 64-bit software as it becomes available, instead
    >> of the older 32-bit versions. That means that installing 64-bit
    >> Windows--even though it may do very little for you at present--puts
    >> you into a better position for the future.
    >>
    >> One additional point: the 64-bit version lets you use more than the
    >> approximately 3.1GB of RAM that the 32-bit version can use. Very few
    >> people need or can make effective use of more than 3.1GB, but if you
    >> are one of those who can, that's something else to consider.
    >>
    >>



    --
    Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
     
  7. Paul

    Paul Flightless Bird

    Sam wrote:
    > Thank you for your detailed reply,
    >
    > The question is really whether there is such a thing as Hardware compatible
    > to 64 as opposed to hardware Capable where the 64 is supported consistently
    > throughout the process of the computation


    What matters to hardware, is speed. (The "64 bit" part, is
    important mainly inside the processor, and is an issue for
    OS design and compatibility for executables. 64 bit is what
    helps break the "4GB" barrier, for total installed memory.)

    And only the parts that affect execution speed, are the
    ones that have to be optimal. The "legacy" parts of the
    computer, can be just as slow as they used to be.

    Take the Real Time Clock on your PC. The interface on that
    is as slow as molasses. But they don't actually use that
    while the OS is running. The OS maintains a software clock
    instead, to keep time. That is stored in RAM, and the CPU updates
    the clock using clock tick interrupts. So someone made the decision
    years ago, that the RTC was no good for high performance usage.
    The design spec for the RTC hasn't changed in 15 years. And
    that is fine, because it's not a "performance issue".

    The SMBUS, which reads the timing table from the SPD
    chip on a memory DIMM, is slow as well. But it doesn't
    matter, because it is used very infrequently now.
    On new systems, it is used during the BIOS time, but
    is less likely to be consulted while the PC is running.

    The parts that are important, *have* changed. For example,
    a lot of the new processors, have the memory connected
    directly to the processor. That is removing one device
    from the path.

    Old way New way
    ------- --------

    Processor Processor --- Memory
    |
    Northbridge --- Memory

    The path to memory, should be very fast and efficient. It
    can't get much better, than a direct connection.

    So don't worry, people are looking after this stuff.

    The price you pay for this stuff, still makes a difference.
    The low end computers, have the most compromises. You can read
    hardware reviews, to find out what those compromises would be.
    But, unless you're running synthetic benchmarks, if we blindfolded
    you and had you test two systems (one with the compromise, the
    other without), you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

    Where the money makes the most difference, is on tasks that
    "grind" for hours. If you edit video, shrink DVDs so you can
    burn them on single layer media or the like, some of those
    things take hours to complete. The "less compromised" system
    may cut the time to complete such a task in half. But in terms
    of interactive performance (how fast your web page
    comes up), it wouldn't make any difference to that.
    Even a cheesy system, can have perfectly acceptable
    web browsing speed.

    In fact, the single biggest change on systems now, is
    the added speed that a SATA SSD can give you. If
    I wanted to feel that technology was progressing,
    I'd put a SATA SSD as my boot drive. Even if you
    can't buy a Dell with things set up that way, you
    can always add that yourself.

    (There are better ones coming out, every day...
    It takes a lot of study and research, to buy the
    right one. Getting a good one, is not a trivial
    exercise.)

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148349

    Paul
     
  8. Ken Blake

    Ken Blake Flightless Bird

    On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:19 +0100, "Sam" <shulman.samuel@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    > Thank you for your detailed reply,
    >
    > The question is really whether there is such a thing as Hardware compatible
    > to 64 as opposed to hardware Capable where the 64 is supported consistently
    > throughout the process of the computation



    You're welcome. Glad to help. And no there isn't.


    > "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote in message
    > news:0ufk26pn6kum72pviah8r26q56g4egf1ol@4ax.com...
    > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:43:54 +0100, "Sam" <shulman.samuel@gmail.com>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >> I am about to buy a system with Win 7 32bit but I want to make sure that
    > >> when I upgrade to 64bit

    > >
    > >
    > > A clarification here: you can *not* upgrade to 64-bit Windows. The
    > > only way to get there is via a clean installation.
    > >
    > >
    > >> the computer will be just as good as those that come
    > >> with the 64bit version of the operating system.

    > >
    > >
    > > Then why not start out with 64-bit Windows 7 now?
    > >
    > >
    > >> I know that the processor has 64 mode but does that mean that the entire
    > >> hardware is geared for 64 to give the real benefit.

    > >
    > >
    > > The *real* benefit has to do with running 64-bit applications, not
    > > with "hardware is geared for 64." Here's my standard message on the
    > > subject:
    > >
    > > The advantage of running a 64-bit version of Windows mostly exists
    > > only if you also run 64-bit applications under it. Bear in mind that
    > > there are very few such applications available yet. If you are
    > > presently running 32-bit Windows, you don't have any 64-bit
    > > applications, so to achieve any significant advantage, you not only
    > > have to replace Windows, but also your applications, *if* (and that's
    > > a big "if") 64-bit versions exist.
    > >
    > > Also note that you will need 64-bit drivers for all your hardware.
    > > Those drivers may not all be available, especially if some of your
    > > hardware is a few years old. So it's possible that you might also have
    > > to replace things like your printer, scanner, etc.
    > >
    > > So the answer to your question is that it may not be a great idea
    > > right now. That will undoubtedly change in the near future, as 64-bit
    > > applications become more available, but for now, 64-bit Windows often
    > > means some extra trouble and expense for little or no benefit.
    > >
    > > On the other hand, installing 64-bit Windows instead of 32-bit Windows
    > > makes you able to buy 64-bit software as it becomes available, instead
    > > of the older 32-bit versions. That means that installing 64-bit
    > > Windows--even though it may do very little for you at present--puts
    > > you into a better position for the future.
    > >
    > > One additional point: the 64-bit version lets you use more than the
    > > approximately 3.1GB of RAM that the 32-bit version can use. Very few
    > > people need or can make effective use of more than 3.1GB, but if you
    > > are one of those who can, that's something else to consider.
    > >
    > >

    >
     

Share This Page