32 versa 64

Will someone more knowledgeable than I provide me with a link, which will
explain the pros and cons of 64 bit Vista as against a 32 bit one. Thank
you.

Hi Zygy,

I don't know of any specific, really good links. But in a nutshell:

- 64-bit uses a wider data path than 32-bit. What this means is that
information inside the machine can move and be processed more quickly. Sort
of a "duh", but that's all it really boils down to.
- Unless an application is specifically written to take advantage of the
wider data paths, it will run in 32-bit mode, regardless of which operating
system is used. There are not many of these available on the consumer market
at this time.
- 64-bit Vista requires the use of signed drivers, so you cannot force an
unsigned one to be used like you can in 32-bit Vista. Because of this, some
hardware is not supported fully, and some may never be as device makers
don't see a big need to pay for signed drivers for what is currently a niche
crowd.
- Memory capacity. 32-bit operating systems, by their very nature, only have
4GB of address space available. So, that's the upper theoretical limit for
use in 32-bit Vista. The practical limit is closer to 3.2GB as some of those
addresses are reserved by the system for the hardware. In x64 this limit can
be much higher (depends on the version you choose).
- Use of memory however is still dependent on the application, regardless of
how much you can use. Many still run from the lower 4GB range unless
specifically written to take advantage of the upper. Meaning that even with
the extra memory you still may not see any advantages.

64-bit has the cool factor, but for the average consumer there is no real
advantage (yet!), and may even be some disadvantages. Computing will
continue to migrate in this direction, just as we moved from 16-bit to 32
during the Win95-98 era, and x64 will eventually become the norm. By then
though, the hardware you have now will probably be out of date.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"Zygy" <> wrote in message
news:uzf7$p$...
> Will someone more knowledgeable than I provide me with a link, which will
> explain the pros and cons of 64 bit Vista as against a 32 bit one. Thank
> you.

Hi Rick,

Many thanks for the very comprehensive reply. I noticed only to day that HP
are now producing drivers for Scanjet 5530 I purchase in 2003 compatible
with Vista in 64 bits. So maybe there is also a driver for my HP Printer, in
which case I will be OK. Kind Regards Zygy.
"Rick Rogers" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Hi Zygy,
>
> I don't know of any specific, really good links. But in a nutshell:
>
> - 64-bit uses a wider data path than 32-bit. What this means is that
> information inside the machine can move and be processed more quickly.
> Sort of a "duh", but that's all it really boils down to.
> - Unless an application is specifically written to take advantage of the
> wider data paths, it will run in 32-bit mode, regardless of which
> operating system is used. There are not many of these available on the
> consumer market at this time.
> - 64-bit Vista requires the use of signed drivers, so you cannot force an
> unsigned one to be used like you can in 32-bit Vista. Because of this,
> some hardware is not supported fully, and some may never be as device
> makers don't see a big need to pay for signed drivers for what is
> currently a niche crowd.
> - Memory capacity. 32-bit operating systems, by their very nature, only
> have 4GB of address space available. So, that's the upper theoretical
> limit for use in 32-bit Vista. The practical limit is closer to 3.2GB as
> some of those addresses are reserved by the system for the hardware. In
> x64 this limit can be much higher (depends on the version you choose).
> - Use of memory however is still dependent on the application, regardless
> of how much you can use. Many still run from the lower 4GB range unless
> specifically written to take advantage of the upper. Meaning that even
> with the extra memory you still may not see any advantages.
>
> 64-bit has the cool factor, but for the average consumer there is no real
> advantage (yet!), and may even be some disadvantages. Computing will
> continue to migrate in this direction, just as we moved from 16-bit to 32
> during the Win95-98 era, and x64 will eventually become the norm. By then
> though, the hardware you have now will probably be out of date.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
> My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
>
> "Zygy" <> wrote in message
> news:uzf7$p$...
>> Will someone more knowledgeable than I provide me with a link, which will
>> explain the pros and cons of 64 bit Vista as against a 32 bit one. Thank
>> you.
>

>just as we moved from 16-bit to 32
during the Win95-98 era

the move from 16 to 32 was abrupt and it came with a multitude of positive
results.

64 bit vista is mostly for fanboys at the moment because everyone is
ignoring it in the industry.

in short, get hardware that supports 64 bit, but install 32 bit vista
and ignore fanboys who like to get people in trouble, by calling it a "cool
factor"


"Rick Rogers" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Hi Zygy,
>
> I don't know of any specific, really good links. But in a nutshell:
>
> - 64-bit uses a wider data path than 32-bit. What this means is that
> information inside the machine can move and be processed more quickly.
> Sort of a "duh", but that's all it really boils down to.
> - Unless an application is specifically written to take advantage of the
> wider data paths, it will run in 32-bit mode, regardless of which
> operating system is used. There are not many of these available on the
> consumer market at this time.
> - 64-bit Vista requires the use of signed drivers, so you cannot force an
> unsigned one to be used like you can in 32-bit Vista. Because of this,
> some hardware is not supported fully, and some may never be as device
> makers don't see a big need to pay for signed drivers for what is
> currently a niche crowd.
> - Memory capacity. 32-bit operating systems, by their very nature, only
> have 4GB of address space available. So, that's the upper theoretical
> limit for use in 32-bit Vista. The practical limit is closer to 3.2GB as
> some of those addresses are reserved by the system for the hardware. In
> x64 this limit can be much higher (depends on the version you choose).
> - Use of memory however is still dependent on the application, regardless
> of how much you can use. Many still run from the lower 4GB range unless
> specifically written to take advantage of the upper. Meaning that even
> with the extra memory you still may not see any advantages.
>
> 64-bit has the cool factor, but for the average consumer there is no real
> advantage (yet!), and may even be some disadvantages. Computing will
> continue to migrate in this direction, just as we moved from 16-bit to 32
> during the Win95-98 era, and x64 will eventually become the norm. By then
> though, the hardware you have now will probably be out of date.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
> My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
>
> "Zygy" <> wrote in message
> news:uzf7$p$...
>> Will someone more knowledgeable than I provide me with a link, which will
>> explain the pros and cons of 64 bit Vista as against a 32 bit one. Thank
>> you.
>

In article <47e4fe84$>,
"on the Bridge" <On@the,bridge> wrote:

> >just as we moved from 16-bit to 32
> during the Win95-98 era
>
> the move from 16 to 32 was abrupt and it came with a multitude of positive
> results.
>
> 64 bit vista is mostly for fanboys at the moment because everyone is
> ignoring it in the industry.
>
> in short, get hardware that supports 64 bit, but install 32 bit vista
> and ignore fanboys who like to get people in trouble, by calling it a "cool
> factor"

If you get hardware that supports 64 bit, there is no reason to run 32
bit Vista on it - unless you have some old printer or scanner or
something that has no 64 bit driver.

on the Bridge;657078 Wrote:
> >just as we moved from 16-bit to 32
> during the Win95-98 era
>
> the move from 16 to 32 was abrupt and it came with a multitude of
> positive
> results.
>
> 64 bit vista is mostly for fanboys at the moment because everyone is
> ignoring it in the industry.
>
> in short, get hardware that supports 64 bit, but install 32 bit vista
> and ignore fanboys who like to get people in trouble, by calling it a
> "cool
> factor"

Actually, the move from 16-Bit to 32-Bit was not as "abrupt" as you may
think. The venerable 80386 processors was around in the mid-80's, but
the 32-Bit operating system support only arrive in 1995, when 386 was
already way old, and the first Pentium processors had mostly replaced
the 80486 family.

Even so, the Win 9x family of operating systems where primarily
targeted at consumers, they could not be classified as "true" 32-Bit,
because a lot of the underlying code base still contained 16-Bit code
for compatibility purposes. The first "true" 32-Bit operating system,
targeted at both consumers and corporations, only came much later in the
form of Windows XP.

The "cool factor" had nothing to do with my decision to go with Vista
x64. Performance, Stability and Compatibility were my primary
motivators.

One of the most common misconceptions about Vista x64 that has slowed
it's initial global adoption, is that some people believe that if you
use Vista x64, then you must replace your entire software library with
x64 versions. x86 programs work just as well on Vista x64 as they do on
Vista x86. In some cases, they function even better on x64 because of
the better memory management.

I've never really under stood why people spend small fortunes on mid to
high end computer systems that support 64 bit technology, but then they
cripple it by installing a 32-Bit operating system!


--
Dzomlija

Peter Alexander Dzomlija
-Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as
you die, so shall I be Reborn...-

_*Prometheus*_
MOBO: ASUS MB-M3A32-MVP Deluxe/WiFi-AP
CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Quad
RAM: 2 x A-Data 2GB DDR2-800
GPU: ASUS ATI Radeon HD 2400PRO, 256MB
BOX: Thermaltake Tai-Chi Water Cooled
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate x64

it was very abrupt.. it was a boom when win95 came out, then people
installed it on
their 386, 486 and later on their pentiums

32 bit use went from amlost zero to almost 80 in a year or 2, by the time
win98 came out it was 99.9 %

But a good stable ver of 64 bit has been along since xp 64 bit...

but how many use 64 bit? less than 1%



"Dzomlija" <> wrote in message
news...
>
> on the Bridge;657078 Wrote:
>> >just as we moved from 16-bit to 32
>> during the Win95-98 era
>>
>> the move from 16 to 32 was abrupt and it came with a multitude of
>> positive
>> results.
>>
>> 64 bit vista is mostly for fanboys at the moment because everyone is
>> ignoring it in the industry.
>>
>> in short, get hardware that supports 64 bit, but install 32 bit vista
>> and ignore fanboys who like to get people in trouble, by calling it a
>> "cool
>> factor"
>
> Actually, the move from 16-Bit to 32-Bit was not as "abrupt" as you may
> think. The venerable 80386 processors was around in the mid-80's, but
> the 32-Bit operating system support only arrive in 1995, when 386 was
> already way old, and the first Pentium processors had mostly replaced
> the 80486 family.
>
> Even so, the Win 9x family of operating systems where primarily
> targeted at consumers, they could not be classified as "true" 32-Bit,
> because a lot of the underlying code base still contained 16-Bit code
> for compatibility purposes. The first "true" 32-Bit operating system,
> targeted at both consumers and corporations, only came much later in the
> form of Windows XP.
>
> The "cool factor" had nothing to do with my decision to go with Vista
> x64. Performance, Stability and Compatibility were my primary
> motivators.
>
> One of the most common misconceptions about Vista x64 that has slowed
> it's initial global adoption, is that some people believe that if you
> use Vista x64, then you must replace your entire software library with
> x64 versions. x86 programs work just as well on Vista x64 as they do on
> Vista x86. In some cases, they function even better on x64 because of
> the better memory management.
>
> I've never really under stood why people spend small fortunes on mid to
> high end computer systems that support 64 bit technology, but then they
> cripple it by installing a 32-Bit operating system!
>
>
> --
> Dzomlija
>
> Peter Alexander Dzomlija
> -Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as
> you die, so shall I be Reborn...-
>
> _*Prometheus*_
> MOBO: ASUS MB-M3A32-MVP Deluxe/WiFi-AP
> CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Quad
> RAM: 2 x A-Data 2GB DDR2-800
> GPU: ASUS ATI Radeon HD 2400PRO, 256MB
> BOX: Thermaltake Tai-Chi Water Cooled
> OS: Windows Vista Ultimate x64

on the Bridge;657266 Wrote:
> it was very abrupt.. it was a boom when win95 came out, then people
> installed it on their 386, 486 and later on their pentiums
>
> 32 bit use went from amlost zero to almost 80 in a year or 2, by the
> time win98 came out it was 99.9 %
>
> But a good stable ver of 64 bit has been along since xp 64 bit...
>
> but how many use 64 bit? less than 1%

The point, really, that I was trying to make was that the 80386 were 32
Bit, but we only saw a -commercially available- 32 bit operating system
nearly 10 years after the 386 debut. How long ago did the first x64 CPU
debut? And how long after that did we get Windows XP 64? Windows XP 64
was good and stable, but how much commercial use did it enjoy compared
to it's x86 sibling? Vista x64 has a far greater adoption than 1%, I'm
sure. I can't verify this, because my ADSL is giving problems (don't ask
- I'm in South Africa and at the mercy Telkom!)


--
Dzomlija

Peter Alexander Dzomlija
-Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as
you die, so shall I be Reborn...-

_*Prometheus*_
MOBO: ASUS MB-M3A32-MVP Deluxe/WiFi-AP
CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Quad
RAM: 2 x A-Data 2GB DDR2-800
GPU: ASUS ATI Radeon HD 2400PRO, 256MB
BOX: Thermaltake Tai-Chi Water Cooled
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate x64

>
> The point, really, that I was trying to make was that the 80386 were 32
> Bit, but we only saw a -commercially available- 32 bit operating system
> nearly 10 years after the 386 debut. How long ago did the first x64 CPU
> debut? And how long after that did we get Windows XP 64? Windows XP 64
> was good and stable, but how much commercial use did it enjoy compared
> to it's x86 sibling? Vista x64 has a far greater adoption than 1%, I'm
> sure. I can't verify this, because my ADSL is giving problems (don't ask
> - I'm in South Africa and at the mercy Telkom!)
>
>
> --
> Dzomlija
>
It's only within the last couple of years or so that PCs with 64 bit
capability have become the norm. Also, every retail package of
Vista Ultimate includes the x64 version, and x64 disks are available
for the other retail versions for a small shipping fee, whereas
XP 64 has only been available in the OEM version, and not as widely
distributed. I'm sure that if retail XP Pro packages included the x64
version after its release, the XP 64 installation base would be greater.

ID