64 VS. 32

I have a choice of 32 or 64 version of windows

I understand that the 32 is better supported for drivers etc but will the 64
be actually faster?

Thank you,
Samuel

32-bit and 64-bit Windows: frequently asked questions
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Win...c8a701033.mspx

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----


"Samuel" <> wrote in message news:...
I have a choice of 32 or 64 version of windows

I understand that the 32 is better supported for drivers etc but will the 64
be actually faster?

Thank you,
Samuel

On Jul 22, 7:01 am, "Samuel" <samuel.shul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I have a choice of 32 or 64 version of windows
>
> I understand that the 32 is better supported for drivers etc but will the 64
> be actually faster?
>
> Thank you,
> Samuel

Well, 64-bit would be faster running 64-bit applications. You could
run a 64-bit application on a 32-bit os but you'd be running it in an
emulation which is never 100% speed. Every emulation always has some
performance loss. Keep in mind, all your 32-bit applications will run
slower as you'd be running in emulation mode. In theory, every program/
driver will eventually move towards 64-bit as we reach hardware
limitations of the 32-bit aritechture like a maximum of 4GB of ram
become burdens. Once all our applications are 64-bit, a 64-bit os will
have better performance.

IE, A Playstation 1 emulator usually takes a 450mhz machine to run
smoothly though a Playstation 1 is clocked at 90mhz.

Do not get the 64 bit version.
There are less drivers for peripherals for 64 bit Vista than 32 bit and even
more software incompatibilities, especially if graphics and multimedia are
important to you.
Very few users actually will ever have need to access more than 2 gbs of RAM
despite their fantasies and the misinformation that is out there.
My advice to anyone contemplating installing Vista is to do so as a dual
boot setup so you do not regret losing access to a fully working computer
running XP.

Hi Samuel,
I'm guessing that most if not all of your applications are 32 bit. If
that's so, load 32 bit Vista. Generally speaking,If you load the 64 bit
version you'll suffer a degradation in speed when you run your 32 bit
applications. Take Carey's advice and check out the link. Many users are
loading 64 bit Vista because they believe 64 is better/ faster than 32 - be
careful. :-)
"Samuel" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I have a choice of 32 or 64 version of windows
>
> I understand that the 32 is better supported for drivers etc but will the
> 64 be actually faster?
>
> Thank you,
> Samuel
>

In article <. com>,
wrote:

> On Jul 22, 7:01 am, "Samuel" <samuel.shul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > I have a choice of 32 or 64 version of windows
> >
> > I understand that the 32 is better supported for drivers etc but will the 64
> > be actually faster?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Samuel
>
> Well, 64-bit would be faster running 64-bit applications. You could
> run a 64-bit application on a 32-bit os but you'd be running it in an
> emulation which is never 100% speed. Every emulation always has some
> performance loss. Keep in mind, all your 32-bit applications will run
> slower as you'd be running in emulation mode. In theory, every program/

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in
practice, there is.

Mike

Thank you all for your advice



"Ed Forsythe" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Hi Samuel,
> I'm guessing that most if not all of your applications are 32 bit. If
> that's so, load 32 bit Vista. Generally speaking,If you load the 64 bit
> version you'll suffer a degradation in speed when you run your 32 bit
> applications. Take Carey's advice and check out the link. Many users are
> loading 64 bit Vista because they believe 64 is better/ faster than 32 -
> be careful. :-)
> "Samuel" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>I have a choice of 32 or 64 version of windows
>>
>> I understand that the 32 is better supported for drivers etc but will the
>> 64 be actually faster?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Samuel
>>
>
>

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:01:20 +0100, "Samuel"
<> wrote:

> I have a choice of 32 or 64 version of windows
>
> I understand that the 32 is better supported for drivers etc


Yes.


> but will the 64
> be actually faster?


In theory, yes. In practice, almost certainly not, unless you run some
of the few 64-bit applications that are available.

Once 64-bit applications become more prevalent, a 64-bit operating
system will be the way to go. For now, the difference in performance
is tiny to non-existent.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

> Well, 64-bit would be faster running 64-bit applications. You could
> run a 64-bit application on a 32-bit os but you'd be running it in an
> emulation which is never 100% speed.

Most 64-bit applications (such as the Vista-64 installation program)
won't run under a 32-bit OS. A 64-bit OS can run 32-bit
programs with emulation, though.

Tom Lake

the 64-bit version of Windows can use 4 gigs of ram or more.

the 32-bit version cant.

that is the difference.

they run the same speed, and support drivers the same.


"Samuel" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I have a choice of 32 or 64 version of windows
>
> I understand that the 32 is better supported for drivers etc but will the
> 64 be actually faster?
>
> Thank you,
> Samuel
>