Benefits of 64 bit operating system

I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so I
can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or intensive
gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been trying to read
up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little practical
information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found focuses
primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that they lack
drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of you with
practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit version of
Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed or even
slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista 64 such as
IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or will these
be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if any is there
between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something like a printer or
web browser?



Thanks in advance.

This is a question that divides even the 'experts' - in my mind and
experience, it is faster for most things that I have used. Or, at least it
seems to be faster. If you have any experience from Linux, I can recommend
you to install a 64bit distro and see for yourself.

Ridiculously fast? Hardly. You need everything running on that machine to be
compiled for the environment to even see any significant difference - hence
my suggestion to go Linux for the experience. Personally, I run a dual-boot
configuration like that and Win XPx64 is a really nice OS, very stable and
with a 'snappy' feel to it that is extremely satisfying. This is probably in
equal amounts thanks to both being 64bit and the fact that the complete
system has been slimmed, polished and tuned when comparing with 32bit XP. It
isn't even based on XP, it is based on the 2003 server code. All, but
everyone here loves the system, and hates the way it is being treated by the
industry.

But quite a lot of older apps will not install here, and if they install
they will not run. It is not the majority of apps, but you do run in to them
occasionally, they are often system related or very specific, like games. So
it is tough to do any research and benchmarking as you would have to have
two sets of the same app and two different machines running in tandem to be
able to do any measuring.

A 64bit Linux distro more or less solves this, if you don't believe your
eyes, you can have the exact same distro in 32bit and make direct
comparison. And remember, with those distros, everything that executes is
platform specific. Fonts and helpfiles and stuff like that may be the same
in both versions. If you take a look at such a setup, you will be seing
something that I think you might conclude is bordering on your idea of the
'ridiculously fast', but your idea, in the process, may have settled a
little to. Only, you'll have trouble running those favorit games.

Tony. . .


"Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
news:Ou-...
> I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so
I
> can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or intensive
> gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been trying to
read
> up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little practical
> information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found focuses
> primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that they
lack
> drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of you with
> practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit version
of
> Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed or even
> slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista 64 such
as
> IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or will these
> be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if any is there
> between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something like a printer
or
> web browser?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>

Is Vista x64 significantly "faster" than Vista 32-bit? Well, yes and no. For
most day to day applications, probably not. But what _is_ different is the
overall potential that the machine has. The operating system can use up to
128 GB of RAM, for example. I seriously doubt you will have a system that
can hold that much, of course. And Vista x64 will be able to run a whole new
wave of applications that simply won't run on 32-bit Vista. But since most
of them haven't been written yet, the more day to day reality is that it's
still awkward running 64bit sometimes. However, with Vista, both hardware
and software vendors will have to be able to run on Vista x64 in order to
get the Vista logo. I think that will make a significant difference over
time.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
"Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
news:Ou-...
>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so I
>can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or intensive
>gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been trying to read
>up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little practical
>information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found focuses
>primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that they
>lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of you with
>practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit version
>of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed or even
>slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista 64 such as
>IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or will these
>be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if any is there
>between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something like a printer or
>web browser?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>

Vista 64 includes 64-bit versions of its applications (Internet Explorer,
Windows Mail, Windows Media Player, etc).

There isn't really much performance benefit to Vista 64. The whole "64-bit"
thing really got overhyped by AMD in its war with Intel. All 64-bits gets
you is 1) support for >4Gb memory per process and 2) extra eight registers
which can -potentially- improve performance. That's it. Certain kinds of
tasks can easily leverage those extra registers to improve performance, but
most tasks cannot. On tasks that do not, there is no performance benefit.
You also have to consider that code compiled for 64-bit is larger, and in
some cases, that can offset any benefit that might exist otherwise.

That's not to say that 64-bit is useless. Applications like 3d rendering,
video editing, video encoding, and certain types of image processing can be
written to take advantage of the extra registers to yield significant
performance improvements. In those particular cases, the extra registers
can improve performance by 15% to 30% when developers make the effort. In
most applications though -- like word processing, web browsing, etc -- you
can expect the improvement to be <5% for new 64-bit versions. You have to
remember that the x86-32 was original designed with eight integer registers
knowing full well that applications of the time wouldn't really benefit from
more. And over time, compilers have been improved to extract every ounce of
performance from those 8 integer registers, even in the circumstances where
more would have been beneficial.

I've spent a lot of time comparing 32-bit and 64-bit Vista, and in my
experience, multitasking and system responsiveness is slightly improved on
the 64-bit version. Code size is larger on the 64-bit version, so it does
require more memory. When running 32-bit benchmark suites, Vista tends to
be 0-5% slower. I haven't found any 32-bit benchmarks that show improved
performance under Vista. Once 64-bit applications start showing up en mass,
I think that will change, and we'll see 64-bit Windows showing 0-5%
improvement in business tasks, and 10-15% improvement in media tasks.
However, for now, we really live in a 32-bit world.

"Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
news:Ou-...
>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so I
>can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or intensive
>gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been trying to read
>up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little practical
>information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found focuses
>primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that they
>lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of you with
>practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit version
>of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed or even
>slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista 64 such as
>IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or will these
>be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if any is there
>between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something like a printer or
>web browser?

When you actually have 64-bit programs running
and compare them to their 32-bit sibling, the
64-bit programs do in fact run considerably
faster because they are processing program code
in bigger chunks.

I don't know if the information is still posted
on their web site, but 'The Panorama Factory'
http://www.panoramafactory.com/index.html had
comparison data posted at one time when they
first came out with their 64-bit version.

64-bit is no more hype than comparing the step
up to an 80286 from an 8086, to a 80386 from a
80286, or even the step to a 80486 from a 80386.
But you don't reap the benefits until the
software is compiled for the newer process.
People didn't see much benefit to Win95 while
they were still using 16-bit drivers and .DLLs.
And Win95 would not boot into the 32-bit mode
while those were still being used in the
CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT. 32-bit drivers and
..DLLs were needed to operate in the 32-bit mode.


Ken Fowler wrote:
> Vista 64 includes 64-bit versions of its applications (Internet
> Explorer, Windows Mail, Windows Media Player, etc).
>
> There isn't really much performance benefit to Vista 64. The whole
> "64-bit" thing really got overhyped by AMD in its war with Intel. All
> 64-bits gets you is 1) support for >4Gb memory per process and 2) extra
> eight registers which can -potentially- improve performance. That's it.
> Certain kinds of tasks can easily leverage those extra registers to
> improve performance, but most tasks cannot. On tasks that do not, there
> is no performance benefit. You also have to consider that code compiled
> for 64-bit is larger, and in some cases, that can offset any benefit
> that might exist otherwise.
>
> That's not to say that 64-bit is useless. Applications like 3d
> rendering, video editing, video encoding, and certain types of image
> processing can be written to take advantage of the extra registers to
> yield significant performance improvements. In those particular cases,
> the extra registers can improve performance by 15% to 30% when
> developers make the effort. In most applications though -- like word
> processing, web browsing, etc -- you can expect the improvement to be
> <5% for new 64-bit versions. You have to remember that the x86-32 was
> original designed with eight integer registers knowing full well that
> applications of the time wouldn't really benefit from more. And over
> time, compilers have been improved to extract every ounce of performance
> from those 8 integer registers, even in the circumstances where more
> would have been beneficial.
>
> I've spent a lot of time comparing 32-bit and 64-bit Vista, and in my
> experience, multitasking and system responsiveness is slightly improved
> on the 64-bit version. Code size is larger on the 64-bit version, so it
> does require more memory. When running 32-bit benchmark suites, Vista
> tends to be 0-5% slower. I haven't found any 32-bit benchmarks that
> show improved performance under Vista. Once 64-bit applications start
> showing up en mass, I think that will change, and we'll see 64-bit
> Windows showing 0-5% improvement in business tasks, and 10-15%
> improvement in media tasks. However, for now, we really live in a 32-bit
> world.
>
> "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
> news:Ou-...
>> I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64
>> so I can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or
>> intensive gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been
>> trying to read up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very
>> little practical information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I
>> have found focuses primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating
>> systems are in that they lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like
>> to know from those of you with practical experience is Vista 64 at
>> least faster, than the 32 bit version of Vista (and the 32 bit
>> version of XP) or is it the same speed or even slower? Also, do you
>> know if the software that comes with Vista 64 such as IE7 and Media
>> player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or will these be
>> specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if any is
>> there between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something like a
>> printer or web browser?
>

I am using x64 day to day and like its stability much better than XP Pro
SP2. I dual boot with 32bit Windows becacause I do a lot of work with VPC
that needs to specifically be VPC and not Virtual Server. If it wasn't for
that I would junk 32bits all together.

Having said that, understand that x64 is not a consumer OS. It also is not
an upgrade to XP Pro x86. It is just an alternative to x86 for those who
have processing requirements that x86 is insufficient for.

If you are an avid gamer and use TV tuners and such, then I suggest 32bit is
a better choice for you.

"Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
news:Ou-...
>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so I
>can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or intensive
>gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been trying to read
>up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little practical
>information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found focuses
>primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that they
>lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of you with
>practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit version
>of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed or even
>slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista 64 such as
>IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or will these
>be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if any is there
>between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something like a printer or
>web browser?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:...
>I am using x64 day to day and like its stability much better than XP Pro
>SP2. I dual boot with 32bit Windows becacause I do a lot of work with VPC
>that needs to specifically be VPC and not Virtual Server. If it wasn't for
>that I would junk 32bits all together.
>
> Having said that, understand that x64 is not a consumer OS. It also is
> not an upgrade to XP Pro x86. It is just an alternative to x86 for those
> who have processing requirements that x86 is insufficient for.
>
> If you are an avid gamer and use TV tuners and such, then I suggest 32bit
> is a better choice for you.
>

I primarily just surf the web and play few computer games, (mostly Command
and Conquer). Despite this I'm always looking for something faster
especially for the occasions when I'm doing processor intensive activities.
I was burning a DVD the other day and my system ground to a snails pace.
That was the last straw so I'm going to be upgrading to a dual core
processor. I'm hoping that plus a 64 bit operating system will keep me
satisfied for the next couple of years. I do have a TV tuner (ATI All in
wonder 9600) and it's not working in Vista 32 bit. I figured this problem
would be resolved by the final release. Is there some problem with TV
tuners I should be aware of?

I do plan on keeping my XP operating system as a dual boot, so worse case
scenarior I can keep using XP until Vista works out all the bugs.


> "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
> news:Ou-...
>>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so
>>I can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or
>>intensive gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been
>>trying to read up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little
>>practical information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found
>>focuses primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that
>>they lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of
>>you with practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit
>>version of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed
>>or even slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista
>>64 such as IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or
>>will these be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if
>>any is there between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something
>>like a printer or web browser?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>
>

Thanks everyone this is very helpful information.

You should stick to x86 for your uses. x64 will not be faster for what you
are doing.


<DIV>&quot;Arthur Lipscomb&quot; &lt;&gt; wrote in
message news:. ..</DIV>>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:...
>>I am using x64 day to day and like its stability much better than XP Pro
>>SP2. I dual boot with 32bit Windows becacause I do a lot of work with VPC
>>that needs to specifically be VPC and not Virtual Server. If it wasn't
>>for that I would junk 32bits all together.
>>
>> Having said that, understand that x64 is not a consumer OS. It also is
>> not an upgrade to XP Pro x86. It is just an alternative to x86 for those
>> who have processing requirements that x86 is insufficient for.
>>
>> If you are an avid gamer and use TV tuners and such, then I suggest 32bit
>> is a better choice for you.
>>
>
> I primarily just surf the web and play few computer games, (mostly Command
> and Conquer). Despite this I'm always looking for something faster
> especially for the occasions when I'm doing processor intensive
> activities. I was burning a DVD the other day and my system ground to a
> snails pace. That was the last straw so I'm going to be upgrading to a
> dual core processor. I'm hoping that plus a 64 bit operating system will
> keep me satisfied for the next couple of years. I do have a TV tuner (ATI
> All in wonder 9600) and it's not working in Vista 32 bit. I figured this
> problem would be resolved by the final release. Is there some problem
> with TV tuners I should be aware of?
>
> I do plan on keeping my XP operating system as a dual boot, so worse case
> scenarior I can keep using XP until Vista works out all the bugs.
>
>
>> "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
>> news:Ou-...
>>>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so
>>>I can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or
>>>intensive gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been
>>>trying to read up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little
>>>practical information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have
>>>found focuses primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are
>>>in that they lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from
>>>those of you with practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than
>>>the 32 bit version of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the
>>>same speed or even slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes
>>>with Vista 64 such as IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit
>>>versions or will these be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What
>>>difference if any is there between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver
>>>for something like a printer or web browser?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

To expand on what Charlie said, I have two considerations when considering a
system upgrade.

1) What will its usable life be?
2) How much more productive will I be over that usable life cycle with
option X vs. option Y?

Addressing #1: 64-bit applications aren't main stream today, but in a year
or two they will be. The transition will be faster than it was 16-bit to
32-bit. And 64-bit apps run A LOT faster than their 32-bit counterparts.

Addressing #2: I think in terms of "time is money". Let's say you will
save just 5 minutes per day by opting for the faster system. Let's break it
down. There are approximately 225 work days in a year. We'll say your time
is worth $50 per hour (mine is a lot more, but let's be conservative).
That's 83 cents per minute. So if you saved just 5 minutes per day, that's
an annual savings of $937.50.

$50 / 60 * 5 * 225 = 937.5 per year.

So, if you will get three years use out of your system, that's a total time
cost savings of $2,812.50.

Why wouldn't you opt for the fastest system?

-Larry


"Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
news:1D499EFA-A9D7-48AC-B2BD-...
> Is Vista x64 significantly "faster" than Vista 32-bit? Well, yes and no.
> For most day to day applications, probably not. But what _is_ different is
> the overall potential that the machine has. The operating system can use
> up to 128 GB of RAM, for example. I seriously doubt you will have a system
> that can hold that much, of course. And Vista x64 will be able to run a
> whole new wave of applications that simply won't run on 32-bit Vista. But
> since most of them haven't been written yet, the more day to day reality
> is that it's still awkward running 64bit sometimes. However, with Vista,
> both hardware and software vendors will have to be able to run on Vista
> x64 in order to get the Vista logo. I think that will make a significant
> difference over time.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
> "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
> news:Ou-...
>>I have an AMD Athlon 64. I've been looking forward to Windows Vista 64 so
>>I can take full advantage of my CPU. I don't do video editing or
>>intensive gaming; I just want a ridiculously fast computer. I've been
>>trying to read up on 64 bit operating systems and have found very little
>>practical information about home use of Vista or XP 64. What I have found
>>focuses primarily on how incompatible 64 bit operating systems are in that
>>they lack drivers and hardware support. I'd like to know from those of
>>you with practical experience is Vista 64 at least faster, than the 32 bit
>>version of Vista (and the 32 bit version of XP) or is it the same speed
>>or even slower? Also, do you know if the software that comes with Vista
>>64 such as IE7 and Media player will be the same as the 32 bit versions or
>>will these be specifically designed 64 bit versions? What difference if
>>any is there between a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver for something
>>like a printer or web browser?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>