The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
32 bit OS on a 64 bit processor?
NickTheNewbie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Alright so, I'm a bit confused with my computer's set up. I purchase a prebuilt computer with a core 2 duo e6600. Now I'm pretty sure this is a 64 bit processor, but according to the vista installation that came with the computer, it's using the 32 bit kernel. The e6600 is 64 bit, right? Should I get a 64 bit version of windows? What drawbacks are there to using a 32 bit version? What should i be aware of if i get a 64 bit version?
NickTheNewbie on
0
Posts
If you have vista then shit I don't know
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
But really, don't bother with 64-bit Vista unless you really need it. If you're not encoding massive video files, or trying to find the cure for cancer 24/7, don't even think about going 64-bit. Too many problems come along with switching to 64-bit at the moment (ie few drivers compared to 32-bit Vista, incompatibilities, etc).
We'll cross that bridge when Windows "7" gets here; it'll be 64-bit top to bottom, and only 64-bit.
roger that, thanks. I guess having this 64 bit processor just makes me ready for the FUTURE?
Fixed that for you.
Once you get more than 2 gigs or so of memory does it start to matter, as 32-bit systems can only handle virtual memory addresses for 4 gigs worth of addresses.
Ditto, did the same.
Seriously, XP 64 was supposed to be Microsoft's practice run in creating a 64 bit OS, with Vista being the real deal. Driver support was a bit sketchy for XP 64 for the first few months, important programs (Virus scan, firewall, essential programs like that didn't work) and devices (printers mainly) had support issues.
It has since been all cleared up, but apparently the 64-bit stigma remains. All the supposed driver and compatibility issues with x64 are overblown.
As it stands now, 64 bit and 32 bit Vista are practically equivalent, but which do you think will see more improvements and support in the long run?
I really doubt another 7 year dev cycle will happen. I don't think Microsoft wants to throw away money that badly.
That and the RAM manufacturers will be plenty pissed if we stay in this 32-bit 4GB limit limbo for 7 years.
Right, because it's not like there's a 64-bit version of Vista or anything.
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
That's kind of a joke right now. Unless you're doing specialized data crunching that warrants it.
For the mainstream/pc gamers/OEM manufacturers, 32-bit is still the defacto version.
We need the next version of Windows to be 64-bit only. And MS have said Windows "7" is.
Actually Microsoft said that 7 will have a 32 bit version. Microsoft wants more compatibility for another cycle. Sometimes I think Microsoft should do what Apple did with OSX and just say "Screw it. We're rewriting everthing, rather than doing it piecemeal like they are now. Of course so many people use so many different apps that kind of thinking wouldn't work outside of the Mac world.
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
At the time, the general consensus was that the poor state of 64-bit drivers would actually drop you a few % on performance for gaming
So I'm sticking with 32-bit for a while
Right now, the only benfit you have running a 64 bit system is that you will won't run into the 3.2G limit imposed by XP32, As far as running the 64 bit version of Vista, you might as well kiss your multimedia support goodbye. Vista64 only allows signed drivers, which means that bleeding edge drivers, or drivers for custom/weird hardware will be unavailable for you. As it sands right now, Vista32 is having a hell of a time with shitty printer/scanner drivers by itself. Most manufacturers would rather sell you a new printer/scanner than update their drivers for old hardware.
If you game, stay with XP.
Farcry had a huge patch for 64 bit XP that I recall.
I have an Athlon 64 system and a Core 2 Duo system. I still only run 32 bit OSes.
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
In other words, the ballooning memory requirements of PC games are about to slow down as they hit the 4 (really 3) gig limit?
God, I hate upgrading. Now I'm looking at processors and my brain is screaming something about too many damn numbers.
Be that as it may, buying a video card near to launch date is almost the very definition of price gouging. The trouble in this case is that taking advantage of the price drops and buying an 8000 series may not be in your best interest. The geometry shading and stream out hardware incorporated into geforce 8000s is very primitive, unoptimized, and functional only to at least "support" DX10 in its fullest. Imho, it might be a good idea to buy an uber high-end 7000 series this year, and then buy the 9000 next year.
This is all, of course, assuming that you actually wait until christmas.
Edit: For the record, I have an 8800GTX, and I love it, but i accepted it as part of a computer that I received as a graduation present. I simply wouldn't bring myself to spend that much money on it by myself.
Really, right now, I just want something that will let me have reflective water, bloom, and depth of field in City of Heroes (ATI cards wash out the scream with bloom and dof on for some reason) but I hate the idea of having to upgrade my graphics card again in two years. So, you see...uh...I don't know what you see other than me rambling.
Since you already own the video card, your choice because a world simpler. Prices on motherboards, RAM, and cpus aren't going to dive any time soon, so just choose a processor based on your budget and go from there. I like the c2d e6600, myself.
No, it will grind to a hault until Windows turns 64-bit only.
Like hell accessory/peripheral manufacturers are going to make drivers on a platform that most people don't have and are unwilling to switch to, till forced. Same goes for game developers; they still like making money.
2GB RAM has been standard in gaming machines for quite some time and it's time to move on. I bought 4GB and Vista Ultimate x64 because I didn't want my next PC to have similar spec to one I built two years ago!
Have you tried any 32-bit games on it? How do they run?
I've heard horror stories trying to run 32-bit apps on Vista 64.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Bingo, but Microsoft made some very basic compatibility mistakes too. Things such as renaming the 32-bit Program Files directory to "Program Files (32)" or something like that which will only cause problems for programs that sloppily hard-code the directory name or don't handle parenthesis in their execution root full path. If 64 bit programs get their own directory, why now let them be the one to deal with a new name?
Of course, good program design should deal with system variables, but it's tough to find a properly designed program of any kind!
Maybe dev houses should hire fewer savants who know only 3D graphics programmer and can't apply logic to making their software communicate with Windows in a sane, coherent manner.
Not that MS hasn't made this harder than it should be a number of times over in the past, but let's face it, using the special paths to program files and my documents over a literal directory name isn't rocket science.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
System Shock 2 hardly works on anything other than windows 98, I wouldn't be so quick to point that finger of yours.
What "savant" screwed up at id Software? id is known for having particularly bright ("genius") programmers who quite literally ARE "rocket scientists" (John Carmack and Armadillo Aerospace). One of the old Quake III Arena point releases fixed a bug that was only present when installed outside of the Program Files directory.* Sure, you could argue that the "genius" ones weren't responsible or that it came from an outside team that made the installer or whatever, but couldn't that always be the case? If it could happen to the best of them, it could (and does) happen to everyone else so the "dunce programmers" idea does not excuse Microsoft. The point is, no single person makes a program so no single person could prevent a mistake like that from being made. Also, often they are temporary changes to test things that get forgotten about and included in the next code update... you know, like testing to see if the reason something didn't work was due to the handling of environment variables or something along those lines.
*I dunno how that could be the case considering that the game was also a Linux game.
"Rocket science."
Edit: Oh, and it's not hard to assume that a program that doesn't let you specify a different installation directory might hard-code to \Program Files. The installer would come from a provider like Installishield and it may use proper environment variables which will dump it to "Program Files (x32)" while the same installer on any OS that the original program is aware of would dump it to "Program Files"
To assume that all 32-bit programs are Vista-aware (Vista x64 aware!) is madness, so Microsoft is wrong to change this on another count.