Go Back   Hardware Canucks > SOFTWARE > O/S's, Drivers & General Software

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old July 20, 2010, 07:52 PM
grinder's Avatar
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 821

My System Specs

Default

STOP PREACHING!!!!

you dinks are scaring off all the wildlife. I'll bet everyone here a dollar if the OP ever comes back to post in _his own thread_.
__________________
Phenom II 945 :: ASUS M4A78-E (780G) :: BFG 285GTX :: 4GB Mushkin DDR2 (5-4-4-12) :: Creative Xi-Fi :: Seagate 500 gig 7200.12 (better than WD BLACK!!!!!) :: Samsung 2493HM
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old July 20, 2010, 07:59 PM
Banned
F@H
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 5,415

My System Specs

Default

m1dget, I love how you assume all these things about me including that I don't know what I'm talking about. There is not a single thing in your post that I was not already aware of, but maybe you can lose the superiority complex before the next time you make a post and then we can have a real conversation. And I'm still waiting for somebody to list an actual downside of going with 64-bit Windows. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old July 21, 2010, 02:36 AM
m1dget's Avatar
Allstar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Terrebonne, Qc
Posts: 707

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by technix View Post
the 32-bit OS is not going to utilize it all so it's rather pointless to buy 4GB at the price RAM is if it's not going to be usable.
Any 32 bits OS will see 4GB of addressable memory and will use it if you install it on your system. The only difference is that it might/will use other components memory instead of only your 'main' ram.

Quote:
Originally Posted by technix View Post
I'd say 4GB is min. and you might as well go with 64-bit.
Non-sense and no point doing so if you don't need it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by technix View Post
The other thing, I suspect, is that a lot of 32-bit software will have mechanisms in place that is compatible with 64-bit Windows OS. Right?
Yes...

Quote:
Originally Posted by technix View Post
The 32-bit OS option seems rather limiting, too.
In what twisted ways are you limited on a 32 bits system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero82z View Post
m1dget, I love how you assume all these things about blablablazzzZZZ There is not a single thing in your post that I was not already aware of, but maybe you can lose the superiority complex before the next time you make a post and then we can have a real conversation.
1) Pointless post

2) No superiority complex here

3) Why the -hell- would you post such useless replies to enaberif's messages if you knew better? You are just going over marketing features listed on some websites or back of a windows OS box that everybody repeats non-stop without even knowing what they are talking about and you don't have one technical post or even a well thought message the thread's subject. "Yay no downside and some random piece of software may run better off it if half the monkeys behind it did a average job at coding it!". No ****. Thank you for that enlightening piece of information.

4) And for you disadvantages of 64 bits here's my answer to that: Purely on a theoretical level and depending on what you do and the hardware you have, there is none on a well coded platform.
__________________
"NIX is a classic example of security through obscurity because there is no real monetary reward for crackers and hackers to break Linix" -AkG

Last edited by m1dget; July 21, 2010 at 02:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old July 21, 2010, 10:54 AM
Banned
F@H
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 5,415

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by m1dget View Post
4) And for you disadvantages of 64 bits here's my answer to that: Purely on a theoretical level and depending on what you do and the hardware you have, there is none on a well coded platform.
So there is no disadvantage to running 64-bit Windows, and therefore it's better to run it over 32-bit Windows, since despite how minor its advantages are, it still has some advantages and no disadvantages. So to return to my previous scenario, if you were installing a brand new copy of Windows 7 and had to decide between the 32-bit and 64-bit discs, you would choose the 64-bit one because there is no reason not to. And leave your anti-Windows fanboy comments out of the discussion, because they are not wanted here.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old July 21, 2010, 11:43 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 735
Default

Well, I read that Windows 'sees' 4GB as 3.25 or 3.5 GB but even if it can detect and use 4GB, that is your limit, right? I'd rather not be restrained by something like that. One issue that I can justify 32-bit is Flash on 64-bit Operating Systems but apparently, that issue is being worked on.

I am not going to enter the argument of pro-Windows/anti-Windows but I think that the 4GB threshold on 32-bit Operating Systems is a valid reason to try 64-bit Windows or any other OS first. If it's a problem for gaming or any other reason, there's always the option to install 32-bit later on. It's about priorities? Also, I think this is a good time to stress saving/storing your data on another drive other than the OS drive. I would rather re-install than try to fiddle around with data or partitions with data on them if you decide to switch from 64-bit to 32-bit or vice versa. You might need to call Microsoft then??? :)

If it's between which should you buy (say, you don't have both discs), I would look at your priorities and choose according to those. I think 64-bit allows enough usage without issues and I like the option to increase RAM over 4GB if need be.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old July 21, 2010, 02:31 PM
m1dget's Avatar
Allstar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Terrebonne, Qc
Posts: 707

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero82z View Post
So there is no disadvantage to running 64-bit Windows, and therefore it's better to run it over 32-bit Windows, since despite how minor its advantages are, it still has some advantages and no disadvantages. So to return to my previous scenario, if you were installing a brand new copy of Windows 7 and had to decide between the 32-bit and 64-bit discs, you would choose the 64-bit one because there is no reason not to. And leave your anti-Windows fanboy comments out of the discussion, because they are not wanted here.
I would still install 32 bits windows as it's been proven more stable and has no trouble over the years and most people first don't need over 2GB of ram and second -all- application that are normally used by all the "normal/internet" computer users are 32 bits applications.

That's why I said that if you wanted to start a discussion on badly ported kernel and driver code, this 64 bits thread might get a bit more interesting and will be settled in a few posts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by technix View Post
Well, I read that Windows 'sees' 4GB as 3.25 or 3.5 GB but even if it can detect and use 4GB, that is your limit, right? I'd rather not be restrained by something like that. One issue that I can justify 32-bit is Flash on 64-bit Operating Systems but apparently, that issue is being worked on.

I am not going to enter the argument of pro-Windows/anti-Windows but I think that the 4GB threshold on 32-bit Operating Systems is a valid reason to try 64-bit Windows or any other OS first. If it's a problem for gaming or any other reason, there's always the option to install 32-bit later on. It's about priorities?

To answer your 32 bits and memory question, there's a few thing you should read on wiki to understand better because I don't want to explain everything...

-how much ram can be addressed by a 32 bits OS
-what is an aperture (related to computing of course) and read a bit about an OS 'static' memory allocation for the kernel, drivers, etc
-motherboards being bitchy about having more ram (on older boards)

I have no clue of what you are trying to say about flash and 32 bits OS though. Might explaining more your question/comment?

Now if you really need more than 4GB of ram on a 32 bits OS it's possible and try to search for those two to understand...

-memory bank switching
-physical address extension

...and if it's about priority, well something tells me that someone in the same room as I will come explain you why gaming and 64 bits does not go very well together for now

Quote:
Originally Posted by technix View Post
]Also, I think this is a good time to stress saving/storing your data on another drive other than the OS drive. I would rather re-install than try to fiddle around with data or partitions with data on them if you decide to switch from 64-bit to 32-bit or vice versa. You might need to call Microsoft then??? :)
wat? o_O
__________________
"NIX is a classic example of security through obscurity because there is no real monetary reward for crackers and hackers to break Linix" -AkG
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old July 21, 2010, 02:32 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 10

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero82z View Post
So there is no disadvantage to running 64-bit Windows, and therefore it's better to run it over 32-bit Windows, since despite how minor its advantages are, it still has some advantages and no disadvantages. So to return to my previous scenario, if you were installing a brand new copy of Windows 7 and had to decide between the 32-bit and 64-bit discs, you would choose the 64-bit one because there is no reason not to.
There is a disadvantage. WoW64 has a significant performance reduction in terms of FS and Network access.

The only advantage happens when you don't use WoW64 at all, ie. when all your running apps are 64-bit. That way the OS doesn't need to emulate any 32-bit drivers, reducing kernel-mode overhead. Otherwise you are really running two software stacks, which isn't a good thing.

In the case of 64-bit Windows, and a 32-bit app running on WoW64, you have one problem : Your application is limited to 4GB of addressing anyway. So even though you have 8GB of RAM, your 64-bit OS will only run your 32-bit app with 4GBs.

Ie. For most games (most aren't 64-bit) there is no advantage to being in 64-bit, given that the game can't access more than 4GB anyway.

Quote:
And leave your anti-Windows fanboy comments out of the discussion, because they are not wanted here.
No offense, but let me answer one thing here : Leave your irrational comments out of the discussion.

It's kinda sad that we have diverging viewpoints and you resort to ad hominem attacks. I really don't think you are worth my time and intellect.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old July 22, 2010, 01:47 PM
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enaberif View Post
You don't need 64bit for 3TB hdds
I'm pretty sure Seagate said that at the moment no 32-bit OS will work with their pending 3TB drive. You've got a 32 bit version of Windows that currently works with Seagate's 3TB drive?
__________________
iK
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old July 22, 2010, 04:36 PM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCCV44.2223 View Post
I'm pretty sure Seagate said that at the moment no 32-bit OS will work with their pending 3TB drive. You've got a 32 bit version of Windows that currently works with Seagate's 3TB drive?
You need to do more reading and not listen to manufacturers.

The issues not in the OS but in how the OS handles the MFT or GPT tables.

Current OS limitations is in fact 2TB for a OS but that doesn't matter if its 32bit or 64bit, its what the OS can use.

Server OSs and Windows 7 and I think Vista are capable of doing this.

How to Break the 2TB (2 TeraByte) File System Limit | CarltonBale.com
Quote:
Breaking 2TB Option 1 Use Windows with NTFS and GUID Partition Tables (GPT) partitions. It is possible for Windows to use NTFS partitions larger than 2TB as long as they are configured properly. Windows requires that the GUID Partition Tables be used in place of the standard Master Boot Record (MBR) partition tables. You will need Windows XP x64 Edition or Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1, Windows Vista, Windows 7, or later for GPT support. (It is possible to mount and read existing GPT partitions under Windows XP and 2000 using GPT Mounter from Mediafour.; however, their MacDrive product does not support GPT partitions.) There are a couple of stipulations for GPT disks. First, the system drive on which Windows is installed can't be a GPT disk because it is not possible to boot to a GPT partition. Secondly, an existing MBR partition can't be converted to GPT unless it is completely empty; you must either delete everything and convert or create the partition as GPT. Read this Microsoft TechNet article for more details on GPT. To create GPT partitions, use the diskpart.exe command line utility or right click in Disk Management Console (click here for more details.)
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old July 22, 2010, 05:46 PM
MVP
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Peterborough/Barrie Ontario
Posts: 292
Default

I remember there was an issue with The Witcher back when it was new that made it crash/act oddly after a set amount of time. This issue was 32bit exclusive though, being on 64bit windows prevented it.

No clue if thats still the case, but its one example of a pro-64bit arguement for gaming.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
32bit vs 64bit chang2 O/S's, Drivers & General Software 73 September 30, 2009 04:52 PM
XP? Vista? 32bit? 64bit? 7? RainMaker O/S's, Drivers & General Software 30 January 13, 2009 06:08 PM
Vista 32bit or 64bit for gaming cndian O/S's, Drivers & General Software 54 December 10, 2008 05:47 PM
32bit Vs 64bit XP enzeo O/S's, Drivers & General Software 6 September 28, 2007 01:53 PM
Vista 64bit vs. XP 32bit 4GB RAM bench comparo Eldonko O/S's, Drivers & General Software 13 May 14, 2007 01:09 PM