32 Bit (86x) Vs. 64 Bit processor

[Rishwin]

32x.

if i wanted to be a mean bastard i would infract (and rightly so) everyone who says that x64 is better simply cos its newer, cos it uses 4 cores, and that it is compatible with almost anything. Especially the idiot who said that quad cores run hotter and are not compatible with 90% of things.

1. this guy barely knows what he is doing, 64x will just further complicate things for no reason
2. roughly 30% of applications do not support 64x ; that is alot
3. 32x and 64x has nothing to do with how many cores you are using, 32x can use 4 cores just fine
4. newer never means better - i have tried and tested vista and still prefer XP
5. quad cores do not run hotter than dual cores, a 5 degree increase can be expected but nothing more - and why would having 4 cores make it incompatible with anything?
6. x64 has MANY bugs to this day, as well as other underlying problems which even further its incompatibility with software

 

[Netrogor]

Nobody sane would buy a new MP3 player, a new digital camera and a new damn flash-drive purely to have something that'd work on 64bit. You might be able to waste mummy's money on new gear whenever something doesn't work correctly, but the majority of people don't have that luxury. Until 64bit becomes mainstream, it'll be as poopie as it ever was.

I can understand the expense issues to get a quality MP3 players or digital camera, but you can get 8GB flashdrives for $30 that work just fine on Vista x64, right this instant. So don't start attacking me personally because of a suggestion - that is rather immature.

Of course, we are all going off topic by discussing 32-bit and 64-bit operating systems, when this is about the processors.

Looping back to the discussion of 64-bit operating systems - there are third party drivers out there to fix any compatibility issues you may still be running into.
Also, if you had to choose, you may want Vista 64-bit over XP 64-bit, and are a user of wireless networking - strangely enough, most wireless networking devices have released official drivers for Vista64, but not XP64.

 

[penihop]

32x.

if i wanted to be a mean bastard i would infract (and rightly so) everyone who says that x64 is better simply cos its newer, cos it uses 4 cores, and that it is compatible with almost anything. Especially the idiot who said that quad cores run hotter and are not compatible with 90% of things.

1. this guy barely knows what he is doing, 64x will just further complicate things for no reason
2. roughly 30% of applications do not support 64x ; that is alot
3. 32x and 64x has nothing to do with how many cores you are using, 32x can use 4 cores just fine
4. newer never means better - i have tried and tested vista and still prefer XP
5. quad cores do not run hotter than dual cores, a 5 degree increase can be expected but nothing more - and why would having 4 cores make it incompatible with anything?
6. x64 has MANY bugs to this day, as well as other underlying problems which even further its incompatibility with software

/agree

6/3 - but there is a way to mod the 64 bit Win so 32bit apps are more compatible

 

[theRAGE]

... strangely enough, most wireless networking devices have released official drivers for Vista64, but not XP64.

Probably because XP64 is built on the Windows Server 2003 NT (5.2.xxxx) build, and is thus much harder to get driver signing from Microsoft for.

 

[kstor1234]

x64 always have probs with my drivers and with some programs =/ specially windows xp and before...

but somehow vista doesnt have those problems O_O" anyways since vista sucks ill keep x32 meanwhile...

 

[TheAJ]

Somebody can close this thread now


NoPeace told me whats best im going to stcik with x32 vista. thanks for your help though

 

[Netrogor]

In addition to TheAJ's request - change the thread title to "32 Bit (86x) Vs. 64 Bit Operating System".
Mkay, close it. ^^

 

[Enter Name]

64 bit CPU will beat a 32 bit, isnt that just simple?
also this thread isnt well done as its talking about software. CPUs are hardware.
I wud choose 64 bit OS's as well, drivers have same compatible. Multi boot FTW i got xp and 2 versions of vista 32 bit and 64 bit.
one question why did who every made 32 bit stuff call it "X86"??

 

[Netrogor]

The result of habit ->

You must be registered to see links

Take note - 32bit software is also labeled x86 software ->

You must be registered to see links

 

[MasterBubba]

x64's are usually for servers. Which means they arent compatible for normal windows (x86) software.
x86 ftw then -D

 

[alexdesire]

Mac OsX For me tbh..

/Fate

 

[Netrogor]

I'm surprised that MasterBubba didn't read my post before this one...

As the x86 term became common after the introduction of the 80386, it usually implies a binary compatibility with the 32-bit instruction set of the 80386. This may sometimes be emphasized as x86-32 to distinguish it either from the original 16-bit x86-16 or from the newer 64-bit x86-64 (also called x64).[3]

Wiki shines only when it concerns otherwise useless information - if it covers controversial information, it is likely BS if it comes from Wiki, as everyone has had a hand in modifying the information offered. ^^
Even CNN publishes articles that discuss how the CIA has agents who sift through Wiki and edit things more to their liking.
*making sure nobody views Wiki as a reliable source of information for something that matters*

 

[Enter Name]

I notice on my 64 bit vista it has geated another program files with (x86) next to it. I presume that is the 32 bit programs go in there under the 64 bit os.

 

[MasterBubba]

I'm surprised that MasterBubba didn't read my post before this one...

Wiki shines only when it concerns otherwise useless information - if it covers controversial information, it is likely BS if it comes from Wiki, as everyone has had a hand in modifying the information offered. ^^
Even CNN publishes articles that discuss how the CIA has agents who sift through Wiki and edit things more to their liking.
*making sure nobody views Wiki as a reliable source of information for something that matters*

I srsly. didnt read your post.
I dont pay attention to posts in intresting topics. Lol.

 

[Enter Name]

Did MS every had a 16 bit OS?

 

[bitblaster]

Did MS every had a 16 bit OS?

Yes, I believe so.

 

[theRAGE]

Did MS every had a 16 bit OS?

Windows 3.1 and below were 16bit

 

[MAXTRAXv3]

DOS 6.2 = 8bit LOL

whats the difference from 32bit and 64bit other then it can use more then 4gig for ram(witch my show up on a 32bit as 3gig of ram)?