64 vs 32bit?

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 2 Aug 2010 204:22 -0400, Al Dykes wrote:

> In article <ronpgf8iqi4i$.184wof1l0po2o$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Gene E. Bloch <not-me@other.invalid> wrote:
>>On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 02:42:12 -0400, JKConey wrote:
>>
>>> "Frank" <fab@sd.crm> wrote in message news:4c565f87@news.x-privat.org...
>>>> On 8/1/2010 10:57 PM, Parko wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 01:27:00 -0400, JKConey scrawled:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can someone point me to a link the explains when one is better than the
>>>>>> other to use when there's a prog that offers a choice? Do we have to
>>>>>> segregate the program locations? Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://windows.microsoft.com/en-AU/windows-vista/32-bit-and-64-bit-
>>>>> Windows-frequently-asked-questions
>>>>>
>>>>> or:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://bit.ly/9lq3CD
>>>>>
>>>>> 32 and 64 bit applications are placed in different Program Files
>>>>> directories. I use the 64 bit applications whenever they're available.
>>>>>
>>>> If you chose to use 64bit, which you should, you need to make sure your
>>>> hardware has 64bit drivers available.
>>>> Also I recommend, as most do, that you have 8 GIGs of RAM installed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm guessing 6 gigs would be enough? That's what my new machine came
>>> with.
>>
>>Or even 4 GB. That's what my machine came with. It also came with Vista,
>>and I upgraded. No problems.
>
>
>
> I have a laptop with a Intel core i3 330 cpu and 4GB and W/7/64 on it.
> can load up Photoshop CS and Photoshop Elements 8 and open a bunch of
> large images and it's reasonably fast and doesn't slow down.
>
> Taskman says THe most memory I've ever used is 2.7GB. the fact that my
> PS and PSE are 32 bit apps may mean I can't use more but it will only
> get faster if I get 64 bit apps..

You lead me to an interesting question.

Here's how I understand it:
Since Windows gives each app its own memory space to run in, you should
still be able to use all available memory for the set of running apps -
it's just that each 32-bit app must run in a smaller assigned space than a
64-bit app can use.

Anyone care to verify or refute that idea?

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:23:01 -0700, Frank wrote:

> On 8/2/2010 11:07 PM, JKConey wrote:
>>
>> "Frank" <fb@tbb.moz> wrote in message news:4c577511$1@news.x-privat.org...
>>> On 8/2/2010 5:43 PM, JKConey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Parko" <nothere@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:i35q8d$fka$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> I just have this hatred for putting everything in that Program Files
>>>> subdirectory. All my stuff gets rerouted to it's own alphabetical root
>>>> folder.
>>>>
>>> Not a very good idea. You will have a lot less problems (self created)
>>> if you allow default location to be your first choice.
>>
>>
>> Why do you feel this way? Win remembers where everything is put.
>>
> Something I've learned over the years...that is the developers of the OS
> setup "default" to be the most reliable file location for security,
> reliability and performance.
> I think the ones who wrote the OS know what is best, for getting the
> best, out of the OS.
> You can chose differently and generally get by with your choice, but
> sometimes, not choosing the default file location, can cause problems.
> That is especially true when you run into a 3rd party app that
> absolutely will not work correctly unless it is installed to the default
> location.
>
> In the past, I was one of those who partitioned my HDD's to put the OS
> on one partition, files & doc's on another, pics on another, etc.,
> thinking I was playing it safe and maximizing performance.
> Today, I consider that a complete waste of time. I go default all the
> way and have never looked back.
> YMMV.

I have also had bad experiences putting programs in non-default
directories. I blame it on the people who wrote that software, rather than
on Windows. That's why I'm another one who puts programs in their default
locations unless given good reason not too.

One good reason is legacy software that doesn't do well in Program Files
(x86).

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

 

[Yousuf Khan]

On 05/08/2010 12 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2010 204:22 -0400, Al Dykes wrote:
>> Taskman says THe most memory I've ever used is 2.7GB. the fact that my
>> PS and PSE are 32 bit apps may mean I can't use more but it will only
>> get faster if I get 64 bit apps..
>
> You lead me to an interesting question.
>
> Here's how I understand it:
> Since Windows gives each app its own memory space to run in, you should
> still be able to use all available memory for the set of running apps -
> it's just that each 32-bit app must run in a smaller assigned space than a
> 64-bit app can use.
>
> Anyone care to verify or refute that idea?
>

I don't see anything wrong with that statement.

Yousuf Khan

 

[G. Morgan]

"JKConey" <jkconey@verizon.net> wrote:

>
> Can someone point me to a link the explains when one is better than the
>other to use when there's a prog that offers a choice? Do we have to
>segregate the program locations? Thanks!

Since most newer PC's have a 64bit chip, it makes sense to take advantage of
that. Of course, software developer's must write code for native 64 bit to get
the full benefit. It's going to take some time before all developers jump on
the bandwagon.

Also, with a 64 bit O/S you get to overcome the 3GB RAM limitation (32 Bit
O/S's) can only access the first 3.xx GB of RAM. This becomes very useful when
multitasking, and machine vitalization. A Quad-core CPU running a 64bit OS
with say 8GB of RAM for example can be made to "virtually" run 4 separate
machines with ease. That's why companies are jumping into virtual machines for
their servers, for the cost savings of hardware and electricity usage. It's
cutting expenses by 1000% in some cases. Think about it, one computer doing
the tasks that used to require 4 machines is going to save on hardware,
electricity, and LABOR to maintain and patch those beasts.

No, I don't have a chart -- sorry.

 

[Tim Slattery]

G. Morgan <usenet_abuse@gawab.com> wrote:

>"JKConey" <jkconey@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Can someone point me to a link the explains when one is better than the
>>other to use when there's a prog that offers a choice? Do we have to
>>segregate the program locations? Thanks!
>
>Since most newer PC's have a 64bit chip, it makes sense to take advantage of
>that. Of course, software developer's must write code for native 64 bit to get
>the full benefit.

Yes, but even so...

Running a 64-bit OS on 64-bit hardware will allow you to use much more
RAM. Even if you're using 32-bit programs, you can keep more of them
in RAM at a time, even if they're memory-hungry monsters like image
and video editors. That will make them as well as and your less
demanding programs run faster.

If those resource grabbers were rewritten for 64-bit mode, they would
be able to use more memory and do more fancy things with bigger files
in less time, but 64-bit computing an benefit 32-bit programs also.


It's going to take some time before all developers jump on


--
Tim Slattery
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

 

[Turtle]

Hi There,

The question is:

Were can one get 64 bit programs.

I only know of

http://www.x64bitdownload.com/new-software.html


CU
John

 

[Dave \Crash\ Dummy]

Turtle wrote:
> Hi There,
>
> The question is:
>
> Were can one get 64 bit programs.
>
> I only know of
>
> http://www.x64bitdownload.com/new-software.html

I guess it depends on what you are looking for. Most of the programs I
have installed recently come in either 32 bit or 64 bit versions.
--
Crash

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall, that wants it down."
~ Robert Frost ~

 

[Ken Blake]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:547 +0200, Turtle <mhauserj@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> Hi There,
>
> The question is:
>
> Were can one get 64 bit programs.
>
> I only know of
>
> http://www.x64bitdownload.com/new-software.html


You can get them in all the same places you can get 32-bit
programs--web sites, brick-and-mortar stores, etc.

Some programs come in your choice of 32-bit or 64-bit (Microsoft
Office 2010, for example), some come only in 32-bit (WordPerfect, for
example), and some only in 64-bit (at least in theory, although I
can't think of any examples).

Most programs still have only 32-bit versions, but that will be
changing more and more in the near future.

 

[Joe Morris]

"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
> Turtle <mhauserj@googlemail.com> wrote:

>> The question is:
>>
>> Were can one get 64 bit programs.

> You can get them in all the same places you can get 32-bit
> programs--web sites, brick-and-mortar stores, etc.
>
> Some programs come in your choice of 32-bit or 64-bit (Microsoft
> Office 2010, for example), some come only in 32-bit (WordPerfect, for
> example), and some only in 64-bit (at least in theory, although I
> can't think of any examples).

One interesting datum: although as you say Office 2010 is available in both
32-bit and 64-bit versions, Microsoft very strongly recommends *against*
using the 64-bit version unless you have a need to use huge data files
(typically Excel or Access).

For my shop that makes our job a bit easier: we don't have to simultaneously
support 32-bit Office 2010 for 32-bit XP *and* 64-bit Office 2010 for 64-bit
Windows 7.

I don't know where the warning might be on the public MS pages; I ran across
it on the download site used by volume licensees where it showed up on the
page where you choose whether to download the 32-bit or 64-bit kit.

Joe Morris

 

[Ken Blake]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 19:588 -0400, "Joe Morris"
<j.c.morris@verizon.net> wrote:

> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
> > Turtle <mhauserj@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The question is:
> >>
> >> Were can one get 64 bit programs.
>
> > You can get them in all the same places you can get 32-bit
> > programs--web sites, brick-and-mortar stores, etc.
> >
> > Some programs come in your choice of 32-bit or 64-bit (Microsoft
> > Office 2010, for example), some come only in 32-bit (WordPerfect, for
> > example), and some only in 64-bit (at least in theory, although I
> > can't think of any examples).
>
> One interesting datum: although as you say Office 2010 is available in both
> 32-bit and 64-bit versions, Microsoft very strongly recommends *against*
> using the 64-bit version unless you have a need to use huge data files
> (typically Excel or Access).
>


Yes, thanks. I personally run Office 2010 in its 32-bit version under
my 64-bit Windows 7 installation.

 

[Seth]

"Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:i3i7bu021a0@news4.newsguy.com...
> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Turtle <mhauserj@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The question is:
>>>
>>> Were can one get 64 bit programs.
>
>> You can get them in all the same places you can get 32-bit
>> programs--web sites, brick-and-mortar stores, etc.
>>
>> Some programs come in your choice of 32-bit or 64-bit (Microsoft
>> Office 2010, for example), some come only in 32-bit (WordPerfect, for
>> example), and some only in 64-bit (at least in theory, although I
>> can't think of any examples).
>
> One interesting datum: although as you say Office 2010 is available in
> both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, Microsoft very strongly recommends
> *against* using the 64-bit version unless you have a need to use huge data
> files (typically Excel or Access).
>
> For my shop that makes our job a bit easier: we don't have to
> simultaneously support 32-bit Office 2010 for 32-bit XP *and* 64-bit
> Office 2010 for 64-bit Windows 7.
>
> I don't know where the warning might be on the public MS pages; I ran
> across it on the download site used by volume licensees where it showed up
> on the page where you choose whether to download the 32-bit or 64-bit kit.

Yeah, they're saying that strictly for backwards compatibility with activeX
and other 3rd party add-ins.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee681792.aspx