| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
The Lifehacker Guide to 64-bit vs. 32-bit Operating Systems | |
|
||
| Time: 08:53 EST/13:53 GMT | News Source: LifeHacker | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
You're probably aware that 64-bit and 32-bit versions of your operating system exist, but apart from ascribing to a bigger-is-better philosophy, you may have no idea what separates the two. The question: Should you use a 64-bit version of Windows, and why? More and more frequently, users are installing the 64-bit version of their operating system of choice over the less capable 32-bit version. But most people don't really have a full understanding of what the difference really is. Below, we're taking a look at the most important differences so you can better understand what you gain (and potentially lose) if you upgrade to the 64-bit version of your OS. (The post focuses on Windows.) We've already explained whether you really need 4 GB of RAM, a question that touches on the 64-bit issue, but now let's tackle it in more detail. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 147 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:45:45 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 12/22/2009 10:55:41 AM |
| Probably one of the best, most concise articles I've seen on the subject so far. |
| #2 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 12/22/2009 3:32:00 PM |
| I dunno, it would seem in my small testing lab (office and den) that the x32 seems to be snappier than x64 with 4gb of memory (on an older and slower machine). Or maybe it's just a fluke. |
| #3 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 12/22/2009 6:52:44 PM |
|
#2 depends upon your hardware, hardware configuration and what apps you are running and if they run as 32 bit apps under Windows on Windows (WoW). In some cases, 32 bit apps will run faster on a native 32 bit machine, vice x64.
Get into higher end Quads and any i7 based system and the reverse is true (the venerable Q6600 with G0 stepping and newer) - they just do everything faster and were designed for x64 where fitted into X38 and X58 chipsets. Similarly, the path from NIC interface to drive controller interface - the SRV Pages and Non-paged resrouce pool (I argue that this is a critical path to smooth performance), when optimized for x64, there is nothing like it. A system feels so smooth that when paired with x64 and 6 to 12 GB DDR3, it feels painful to use anything else. (let Windows govern the path - especially at the NIC, and select your MB and drives carefully (ASUS P6T and WD Blacks is a good start and then format the system and set it up with the BIOS set to support AHCI before loading the OS)). |
| #4 By 13997 (75.54.113.74) at 12/23/2009 12:12:15 AM |
|
#2 #3
32bit Applications depending on hardware are usually faster on 64bit Windows. Things to qualify this statement: 1) Hardware can make a difference, as not all 64bit CPUs/Mainboard combinations can switch modes fro 32bit native code as fast as other platforms. Depending on the application, this can be negligible or noticeable. 2) If the 32bit application is 'proper' and uses a lot of RAM it should be faster under Windows x64, as many of the RAM operations can be combined into single read/writes for chunks instead of broken up into single 32bit read/writes. (Large 64bit integer and real support in 32bit applications can also take advantage of the 64bit OS and instead of using the 32bit tricks, the OS can recognize this and let them propagate into 64bit space naturally.) 3) Applications that use high performance drivers with a lot of bandwith, like Games or things that use the GPU, should run faster on Windows x64, as the OS and drivers are running at native 64bit modes, and the VRAM transfer introduced by WDDM can operate in 64bit addressing chunks - reads/writes. (Gamers will note that standard high performance 32bit games are often 10-20% faster on the 64bit version of Vista or Win7. (DirectX games get more of a bump than OpenGL.) Video Drivers also can affect these numbers, as some NVidia releases are crap and some ATI releases are crap, but in general, this holds true. So in theory 32bit applications should be faster on Vista 64bit or Win7 64bit. However, many of the 64bit optimizations or OS 'awareness' that I mention above are NOT in XP 64bit, so these performance advantages will not be noticeable on XP 64bit. |
| #5 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 12/23/2009 7:11:48 PM |
|
Not to belabor this...but my computer running Win7 x64 is an overclocked Q6600 rig w/ G0 stepping an SSD and a P35 chip set and damned if it doesn't seem slower than my overclocked E5400 paired with a 965 chip set and an old Western Dig HD and Win7 x32.
Both have the same 4GB of memory and both are plenty fast. The older machine only runs work applications so maybe it's just my imagination. Hey maybe it's time to upgrade, I'm sure my spouse will love that! |
| #6 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at 12/24/2009 11:56:53 AM |
| Oldog: Maybe you can see to it that Santa leaves you a nicely loaded Core i7 system. How could you wife not appreciate such a generous gesture? |
| #7 By 228224 (74.59.86.16) at 12/26/2009 12:20:04 PM |
|
One thing the article didn't explain why for disk space is that with the 64-bit OS for Windows, it takes up the extra space partially because the OS includes support for 32-bit apps. So it needs to keep common files for both. Additionally you generally need to install things twice [32 bit and 64 bit versions] for common plugins and programs such as Sun's Java, K-Lite Codec package, Visual C redistributable and some time this coming decade Flash Player [ :-) ].
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 147 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:45:45 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
