why do we have 32 bit

Mattus · 25 Sep 2008 at 23:42

C64 said:
erm it's actually the other way round ? I ask why do we have 64 bit ? and support for more than 2gb of yet hardly anything uses more than 2gb of ram ?
having tried vista ultimate 64bit just the other day and I swapped straight back to xp pro because I found issues straight away with many things.
Vista needs another service pack before I'll go back to it.Oh and btw doesn't vista emulate 32bit anyway ? what is the x86 folder where all programs go ?
64 bit vista is about as useful as quad core at the mo hardly anything benefits from it.

You've managed to turn a fairly useful discussion thread into yet another circular XP-versus-Vista whingefest: congratulations! Your views are typical of someone who's tried Vista for about five seconds and run away without giving it a chance because things don't work exactly like they do in XP.

64-bit is the future. With today's graphics cards, 32-bit will only give you access to about 3GB of RAM. 4GB is pretty much standard for a half-decent system now, and it won't be long before it's 8GB. Having that much RAM is useful for lots of things - heavy multitasking, video/photo editing, running virtual machines... 64-bit also has stability benefits. PCs are about a lot more than playing games...

mr.sly · 25 Sep 2008 at 23:53

Mattus said:
You've managed to turn a fairly useful discussion thread into yet another circular XP-versus-Vista whingefest: congratulations! Your views are typical of someone who's tried Vista for about five seconds and run away without giving it a chance because things don't work exactly like they do in XP.

64-bit is the future. With today's graphics cards, 32-bit will only give you access to about 3GB of RAM. 4GB is pretty much standard for a half-decent system now, and it won't be long before it's 8GB. Having that much RAM is useful for lots of things - heavy multitasking, video/photo editing, running virtual machines... 64-bit also has stability benefits. PCs are about a lot more than playing games...

Don't come around here with your sense and logic!!!

C64 · 26 Sep 2008 at 00:02

Garlic bread is the future doesn't mean I like it.

I have a copy of vista ultimate sitting here and will no doubt switch to it when it suits me but as of now I prefer xp as It suits my needs better that is all I am saying.

I did use it for more than 5 seconds btw and at a guess I'd image half the "vista fan boys" that spring to it's defense whenever anyone says something negative about it, have never even used xp.

modo77 · 26 Sep 2008 at 00:05

Mattus said:
Your views are typical of someone who's tried Vista for about five seconds and run away without giving it a chance because things don't work exactly like they do in XP.

Indeed. Its much better once you get used to it. And to say that its just xp with dx10 and a new frontend is so wrong its funny. Also the program files x86 is just the name of the folder it doesn't mean anything (it doesn't need to have 2 program files folders, xp64 is the same too)

As for the OP, as mentioned its purely for supporting older hardware. Most offices wont be on 64bit chips and as such ms wont be dropping 32bit for a while. I was hoping it would be by windows seven, but more likely going to be the version after that. By then most PC's will have 64bit hardware.

C64 · 26 Sep 2008 at 00:09

I was at home with vista straight away as it's so similar to xp, my problems were that some of my favourite most used apps and games had issues or plain didn't work with everything up to date sp1 and drivers etc.
Overall I like vista But will wait a while longer before I make the switch permanently.
But lets not pretend that 90% of apps and games benefit from running on a 64bit operating system as they clearly do not.

Burningmace · 26 Sep 2008 at 01:12

The next Windows Server release completely phases out 32-bit.

Regarding the XP/Vista switch, I migrated to it pretty well. It took a couple of hours to get used to but after that I had most stuff figured. Only thing I don't like is that you don't get the Group Policy Editor MMC plugin in the Home Premium edition that my laptop runs.

C64 · 26 Sep 2008 at 01:20

You sure ? is it gpedit.msc in run ?

Mattus · 26 Sep 2008 at 01:38

C64 said:
at a guess I'd image half the "vista fan boys" that spring to it's defense whenever anyone says something negative about it, have never even used xp.

Are you being serious?

You think that there are plenty of Windows fanboys on an overclocking forum who have never used Windows XP?

What do you think we were running between 2001 and 2007? Windows ME? 3.1, perhaps? Did we avoid computers at virtually every workplace, library and educational establishment in the world unless they agreed to switch to Linux?

You won't find a single person on this forum who's never used XP.

C64 · 26 Sep 2008 at 01:49

You will as a lot of people are quite young and their first pc owning experience is probably with vista, I am not talking about the vast majority but there is an element that immediatly gets angry and or impatient when you criticize vista.
So give me one good reason why i should put my vista cd in and install it then ? btw I cant get vsync to work on my 4850 any cat versions under vista 64.
Only d3doverrider will do it and using it causes other issues with sound.

Final8y · 26 Sep 2008 at 01:50

Mattus said:
Are you being serious?

You think that there are plenty of Windows fanboys on an overclocking forum who have never used Windows XP?

What do you think we were running between 2001 and 2007? Windows ME? 3.1, perhaps? Did we avoid computers at virtually every workplace, library and educational establishment in the world unless they agreed to switch to Linux?

You won't find a single person on this forum who's never used XP.

lol...

Final8y · 26 Sep 2008 at 01:51

C64 said:
You will as a lot of people are quite young and their first pc owning experience is probably with vista.

I would quit while you still can because your looking rather silly now.

C64 · 26 Sep 2008 at 01:56

I don't think so because anyone with xp and vista experience knows xp 32 bit is better, or they just switched and forgot how much better xp is.
Or don't really game much and just bench and browse and photoshop etc.
Every point I have made is spot on and the only benefit people can come with is photoshop.
Quite a weak argument in all honesty.I have a vista ultimate 64 bit cd sitting here, and I am not using it and that speaks volumes.
Will stick to 32 bit it's just better because software is still meant for 32bit.

Dogoid · 26 Sep 2008 at 02:02

A lot of people who use computers wouldn't know what 32bit means or wouldn't have an understanding of most computer terminology . The industry does have to hand hold those people into any paradigm change relating to this area.

even now as we speak, it isn't the right time for something like a 64 bit O.S to become mainstream, and why would it? that kind of environment would only benefit people who consciously seek that change and therefore have a comfortable knowledge on the use of such a thing.

so the question the OP asked " why do we have 32 bit? " The majority of computer users do not have a need for a 64 bit environment , or in other words , have need for 3+GB of memory. I'm talking about users who surf internet and read email, there are a lot of them and they don't play games, and its games for some of use which will eventually be the thing which moves us to that environment.

non gamers and non geeks or techs will not have a need for a 64 bit O.S.

its a good thing there is a choice, so if you want it you can have it.

Mattus · 26 Sep 2008 at 02:04

C64 said:
I don't think so because anyone with xp and vista experience knows xp 32 bit is better.Your just siding with the sheep mentality.

You really think you're the only one here with experience of XP?

Well, I'll start with myself... I've used every version of Windows since version 3.0. I used Windows XP at home for about five years. I like it - it's a good OS. But now I use Vista, because XP feels very dated. Vista has a new interface - you'll probably mock it, but it looks a lot better on a decent monitor. Vista has Superfetch, which is so useful. Vista has greatly improved security. There's a few reasons to start with.

Will stick to 32 bit it's just better because software is still meant for 32bit.

32-bit software runs exactly the same on 64-bit Windows as it does on 32 :confused:

Quite a weak argument in all honesty.I have a vista ultimate cd sitting here, and I am not using it and that speaks volumes.

Oh, the irony

C64 · 26 Sep 2008 at 02:06

Dogoid said:
The majority of computer users do not have a need for a 64 bit enviroment , or in other words , have need for 3+GB of memory. .

The games and apps you run on it do not use the ram oh apart from photoshop as suggested.

C64 · 26 Sep 2008 at 02:08

Mattus said:
32-bit software runs exactly the same on 64-bit Windows as it does on 32

yes exactly my point thank you

and no I don't think I am the only person using xp You forgot to add the part where I say I am not talking about the majority but just an element
gotta love how people quote to suit their argument.

Dogoid · 26 Sep 2008 at 02:10

C64 said:
The games and apps you run on it do not use the ram oh apart from photoshop as suggested.

So then if that is true, what real world benefit is a 64 bit O.S if it ISN'T a memory benefit ?

and we are talking the average person here, not some scientist who needs to crunch thick wads of data.

C64 · 26 Sep 2008 at 02:11

No benefit apart from the rare apps that can utilize the ram that's why games are neck and neck on xp and vista.
It's the same thing with quad cores apart form a few apps there's really no benefit over dual core because the software isn't there that can take advantage.

Mattus · 26 Sep 2008 at 02:13

Dogoid said:
non gamers and non geeks or techs will not have a need for a 64 bit O.S.

Whilst I agree with you on that point, I also think that there's no reason, if the processor they're being sold supports it, why they shouldn't have a 64-bit OS (apart from possibly driver availability, which is getting better all the time). Best to start changing things over before the time comes when Joe Public does benefit from 64-bit.

I don't think so because anyone with xp and vista experience knows xp 32 bit is better, or they just switched and forgot how much better xp is.

I'm really struggling to understand you here. Your main argument seems to be that everyone who likes Vista falls into two categories:

a) people who managed to avoid XP for seven years and only know Vista;
b) people who spent years using XP and hated Vista's guts, but were hypnotised by one experience with Vista into forgetting how much they preferred XP.

Do you realise how silly you're sounding :confused:

C64 · 26 Sep 2008 at 02:15

Not really as you can compare it to crt and lcd screens, we all know how much better crt is but we all swap to lcd and just get used to it and forget how much better crt is.
I tried about 10 of my most used apps and games and every single one had an issue I couldn't live with or didn't work.
Which is why my original point of flipping it around and asking why 64 bit ? it's misinformation like "Oh vista boots so much faster than xp" well no actually it doesn't in fact it boots slower than my 32 bit I timed it.

There's a third category of users who just love the idea that they think they are utilizing 4gb + of ram when in fact they really are not.