Jump to content

32 or 64 bit OS?


Recommended Posts

 

I just bought a new computer and because I chose 64x i was told i had to go with Office 10 and not Office 13

 

I'm still using Office 2003 on my 64bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Cipro

    9

  • miles-high

    5

  • MattFromGA

    4

  • Denis

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When I only need 2G of addressable memory I use 32bit because 32bit is typically more compact.  Programs need a little less space than they do when they run 64bit.  However my personal desktop is alwa

Go for 64bit.   32bit can only access up to 4GB ram.

Not to mention that one can only actually use about 3.3GB of that 4GB.

I bought a dell XPS L502x a couple of years ago and a few months ago I was looking to upgrade (which I do every couple of years) but hated the latest dell replacement and couldn't find anything else I was happy with.  So I decided to spend the cash on turbo charging my current:

 

Main HD replaced with 500gb Samsung 840 pro SSD (sequential reads and writes over 500MB/s!!!)

Replaced the dvd drive with a caddy and installed a 1TB storage drive.

 

I only use the DVD drive like once a year so I don't miss it.  But it's still available to use with the esata cable adaptor.

 

Turned off defragging.  Also got rid of the swap file.  I have 8GB (64bit) and I don't think I've ever used more than 3/4 of that so no need for a swap file. Performance improvement is miniscule but every little bit helps.  Plus there's less work for the HD to do.

 

That Samsung makes a huge difference to boot times.  Now a cold boot from bios end to desktop takes less than 10 seconds.

 

64 bit is not only about increasing memory accessibility. It does improve performance in some cpu intensive programs.  e.g. Transcoding audio/video is often quicker on a 64bit machine.  Virtually all boards in the last few years have 64 bit drivers.  It won't be long until 32 bit drivers will be hard to get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone for your advice and comments.  There's no compelling reason for me to change to 64 bit so I have stayed with 32 bit.  However my trials and tribulations have just started, mostly centred around a blocked OS.  I shall start another thread for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus if your resolution adds up to something like 10,000x8,000 you will use more memory than a laptop at 1024x768.

First, when a window is obscured it's contents are not cached by the OS, for Windows. When an obscured portion of a device context (represented by an HDC, handle to device context, in the API) is made visible the owning winproc will be asked to repaint the view. This may be accomplished by a variety of application specific means but in no way is bitmap caching required or advised for most applications. It would, for instance, be silly for Word to cache a bitmap when it can easily re-render the visible portion of the document. See WM_PAINT for more info. 

 

Second, assuming we have 2 of those racy new 4K displays, our display pixel count would be around 16mp, or 16,000,000 32 bit words of memory, or 64 megabytes. If we are generous and figure the driver and OS writers are complete dolts, we could give them 3x that for caching and still be under 200mb, which is barely noticeable on anything with 2+ gb, not to mention the fact that the window bitmaps are not cached to start with (first paragraph). 

 

Finally, the contents of windows ARE sometimes cached (during dragging, for instance) by the 2D accelerator code in the GDI, but that is GPU memory,

 

Extra memory will allow things from the file system and so on to be cached though, which is nice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
miles-high

 

First, when a window is obscured it's contents are not cached by the OS, for Windows. When an obscured portion of a device context (represented by an HDC, handle to device context, in the API) is made visible the owning winproc will be asked to repaint the view. This may be accomplished by a variety of application specific means but in no way is bitmap caching required or advised for most applications. It would, for instance, be silly for Word to cache a bitmap when it can easily re-render the visible portion of the document. See WM_PAINT for more info. Second, assuming we have 2 of those racy new 4K displays, our display pixel count would be around 16mp, or 16,000,000 32 bit words of memory, or 64 megabytes. If we are generous and figure the driver and OS writers are complete dolts, we could give them 3x that for caching and still be under 200mb, which is barely noticeable on anything with 2+ gb, not to mention the fact that the window bitmaps are not cached to start with (first paragraph). Finally, the contents of windows ARE sometimes cached (during dragging, for instance) by the 2D accelerator code in the GDI, but that is GPU memory, Extra memory will allow things from the file system and so on to be cached though, which is nice.

 

It’s so difficult to understand/comprehend these subtleties of personal computing, I just buy the best money can buy (or “assemble” in my case)… thus, I have the best i7 (as of Jan 2013) with a matching Intel board, 64bit with 64Gb RAM, supposedly the best Radeon Video card (as of Jan 2013) connected to 3 24" and 1 55" displays, SSD RAID and several terra-bytes of RAID backups and I don’t think about why I need all these… haha :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Go for 64bit.  

32bit can only access up to 4GB ram.

 

What memory limitation is that?  Winows supports paging so whats the proble?  

does intel not support paging in hardware?

Link to post
Share on other sites
miles-high

 

What memory limitation is that? Winows supports paging so whats the proble? does intel not support paging in hardware?

 

It's reported that, if you have more RAM, an average 45% reduction in writes to the SSD and as much as 63% reduction in read. That would prolong the life of your SSD’s (or HD's) and may save you a few dollars in your life time… in theory... haha :D Besides, I/O is slower than using RAM… thus, saving a few minutes to do something more useful in your life time...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just bought a new computer and because I chose 64x i was told i had to go with Office 10 and not Office 13 

 

I wonder why they told you that. I have Office 2013 on my 64-bit system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What memory limitation is that?  Winows supports paging so whats the proble?  

does intel not support paging in hardware?

 

The address space for a 32 bit address space is 2^32, or 4gb. Virtual memory can make a 4gb address space with 2gb of physical memory look like 4gb of memory, but you may note a limit that we're not extending - the address space. A 64 bit address space has 2^64 addresses, or 4gb x 4gb, which in technical terms is "a lot" or more precisely, "a lot more".

 

Also, it allows an individual process access to more than 4gb of memory (real or virtual) if the process image is native 64 bit. 

 

I would always go 64 bit if the CPU supports it, but some, like the Atoms, typically don't and need 32 bit. 

Edited by Cipro
Link to post
Share on other sites

The address space for a 32 bit address space is 2^32, or 4gb. Virtual memory can make a 4gb address space with 2gb of physical memory look like 4gb of memory, but you may note a limit that we're not extending - the address space. A 64 bit address space has 2^64 addresses, or 4gb x 4gb, which in technical terms is "a lot" or more precisely, "a lot more".

 

Also, it allows an individual process access to more than 4gb of memory (real or virtual) if the process image is native 64 bit. 

 

I would always go 64 bit if the CPU supports it, but some, like the Atoms, typically don't and need 32 bit. 

 

well I checked a liitle on wikipedia.....

 

some computer architectures map all memory accesses through a page table... which meant that although (say 4GB) was only available at one particular moment, more meomory could be made available simply by modifying the page table.   and of course when swapping a new process 4gb of memory would become available by swapping the page table without using a disk at all or changing any memory.

 

also gets round problems of memory fragmentation.

 

but it seems its not a particularly well developed function on intel and windows

 

im not in the market for a new computer just now....... i think my next one might just be a raspberry pi

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

well I checked a liitle on wikipedia.....

 

some computer architectures map all memory accesses through a page table... which meant that although (say 4GB) was only available at one particular moment, more meomory could be made available simply by modifying the page table.   and of course when swapping a new process 4gb of memory would become available by swapping the page table without using a disk at all or changing any memory.

 

also gets round problems of memory fragmentation.

 

but it seems its not a particularly well developed function on intel and windows

 

im not in the market for a new computer just now....... i think my next one might just be a raspberry pi

Well sorta.

 

But not really.

 

What you are describing would be true in for instance the case of a 32 bit Windows app running in a 64 bit Windows environment (via WoW64) - each 32 bit process COULD have 4gb of physical memory mapped to it. However, think about this ....

 

If in the scenario you described you had 16gb, and the processor has 32 bit addresses ... how do you uniquely identify all those bytes of memory? Intel HAD just this issue for a while and pre-x64 "solved" it by using extended addressing where they added 4 more bits "outside" the 32 bit registers to allow more physical memory to be addressed. Those CPUs and the code that was aware of the extra 4 bits was running in 36 bit mode, whereas most applications were still, just as in WoW64 now, limited to 4gb and 32 bits. So the OS and some apps that needed more space had to be compiled to run aware of the 36 bit space. 

 

You really can't address more the 4gb with 32 bits, it's a pretty intrinsic mathematical limit. 

 

0 = first address (value is 0)

1 = second address

10 = third address

11 = fourth address

100 = fifth address (value is 4)

101 = 6th

111 = 8th

1111 = 16th (value is 15)

 

and so on

 

there are 4g possible values you can represent in 32 bits, or 2^32, it's not negotiable. If each value addresses a byte ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well sorta.

 

But not really.

 

What you are describing would be true in for instance the case of a 32 bit Windows app running in a 64 bit Windows environment (via WoW64) - each 32 bit process COULD have 4gb of physical memory mapped to it. However, think about this ....

 

If in the scenario you described you had 16gb, and the processor has 32 bit addresses ... how do you uniquely identify all those bytes of memory? Intel HAD just this issue for a while and pre-x64 "solved" it by using extended addressing where they added 4 more bits "outside" the 32 bit registers to allow more physical memory to be addressed. Those CPUs and the code that was aware of the extra 4 bits was running in 36 bit mode, whereas most applications were still, just as in WoW64 now, limited to 4gb and 32 bits. So the OS and some apps that needed more space had to be compiled to run aware of the 36 bit space. 

 

You really can't address more the 4gb with 32 bits, it's a pretty intrinsic mathematical limit. 

 

0 = first address (value is 0)

1 = second address

10 = third address

11 = fourth address

100 = fifth address (value is 4)

101 = 6th

111 = 8th

1111 = 16th (value is 15)

 

and so on

 

there are 4g possible values you can represent in 32 bits, or 2^32, it's not negotiable. If each value addresses a byte ...

 

not so sure

 

this sums it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

 

and note "The original releases of Windows XP and Windows XP SP1 used PAE mode to

allow RAM to extend beyond the 4 GB address limit. However, it led to

compatibility problems with 3rd party drivers which led Microsoft to

remove this capability in Windows XP Service Pack 2."

 

Imnot sure apps would (or more like should) need to be aware of whats going on here and thus Im not 100% conviced about your compile time statement; i would havt that an OS APi would be more the thing you need, as the app would ask the os to swap pages.

 

but anyways it over 30 years since worrying baout paging was an integral part of my day time job. i kind of assumed that memory pafing would be evrywhere but looks like i was wrong on that point.

 

but in th end, people who say that you never need more than 4gb on a 32 bit machine probably dont understand well how computers work

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin (Retired)

64.

 

It's more than 32, so that's gotta be good, right?

that's why i go for 65 just to be a little bit more better

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Imnot sure apps would (or more like should) need to be aware of whats going on here

 

Ideally apps. should be platform independent.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..