Dual booting - 32 & 64 bit versions

Char Jackson <> wrote:

>>With less than 4 GB RAM, most people would be better off with 32-bit.
>
>I disagree. The statement is too broad.


I didn't say it was true in all cases. But 64-bit Windows 7 does use
more RAM than 32-bit, and thus the amount of RAM in the system is
relevant to the choice (in particular, with 4 GB it becomes really
worthwhile and even necessary, although I would grant that with 3 GB
it might still be a toss-up - not with 2 GB, though).

--
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:
> Yousuf Khan <> wrote:
>
>> Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
>> ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
>> past time to go to 64-bit.
>
>
> With less than 4 GB RAM, most people would be better off with 32-bit.


It doesn't matter, there is negligible performance impact with the
64-bit kernel, and you won't have to reinstall an OS from scratch again,
once you do upgrade to 4GB+. It's extremely cost-effective to go to 4GB
these days.

Yousuf Khan

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:08:55 -0500, Yousuf Khan
> <> wrote:
>
>
>> Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
>> ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
>> past time to go to 64-bit.
>
>
> I strongly disagree.

Why would you strongly disagree, all of your statements below make it
sound like you only slightly disagree. :-)

> There's very little benefit of running a 64-bit version of Windows
> now, because the benefit is essentially gotten only if you run 64-bit
> applications. And there are very few 64-bit applications yet.
>
> And there is often a serious disadvantage of 64-bit Windows for many
> people. If they have hardware for which they need but can't get a
> 64-bit driver, they may have to spend the money to replace the
> hardware.
>
> *However*, for those without driver issues. I think most people should
> use 64-bit Windows--not because it's better today, but because it's a
> step forward that will let them buy 64-bit applications as they become
> available.


Most newer systems these days are coming with at least 4GB of RAM. If
somebody has a device driver that won't work in 64-bit, then likely
it'll have a tough time working 32-bit Windows 7 as well, as the driver
models have all been changed from the XP days.

Yousuf Khan

GreyCloud wrote:
> There is a reason why David Cutler pushed for the 64-bit version of
> windows. And the same reasons that Apple pushed to get their os into
> the 64-bit intel arena... 32-bit intel code lacks the necessary general
> purpose registers that their 64-bit has. What you get is wasted time
> fetching something from slow memory. By temporarily storing a value in
> a local register, this is your fastest means possible. Then the next
> fastest is your local L2 then L3 cache.
> With the IBM G5 (970FX) processor, the 32-bit code was a lot faster than
> the 64-bit code if you stayed within the 4Gb memory bounds. The G5 had
> plenty of gp registers (32) that were both 32-bit and 64-bit capable.
> Intel chips that run 32-bit compiled code do not get to use the 64-bit
> gp regs.

Weren't the very first versions of the Intel OS X, 32-bit only? I think
that was OS X 10.4 "Tiger", 64-bit didn't come till 10.5 "Leopard".

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote:
>> There is a reason why David Cutler pushed for the 64-bit version of
>> windows. And the same reasons that Apple pushed to get their os into
>> the 64-bit intel arena... 32-bit intel code lacks the necessary
>> general purpose registers that their 64-bit has. What you get is
>> wasted time fetching something from slow memory. By temporarily
>> storing a value in a local register, this is your fastest means
>> possible. Then the next fastest is your local L2 then L3 cache.
>> With the IBM G5 (970FX) processor, the 32-bit code was a lot faster
>> than the 64-bit code if you stayed within the 4Gb memory bounds. The
>> G5 had plenty of gp registers (32) that were both 32-bit and 64-bit
>> capable.
>> Intel chips that run 32-bit compiled code do not get to use the 64-bit
>> gp regs.
>
> Weren't the very first versions of the Intel OS X, 32-bit only? I think
> that was OS X 10.4 "Tiger", 64-bit didn't come till 10.5 "Leopard".
>
The os was 32-bit, but you could compile 64-bit programs. They had
something quirky configured that allowed 64-bit intel programs to run.

The G4/G5 started off as 32-bit ppc. Actually, the 32-bit programs ran
faster than
the 64-bit programs. And it is the other way around with Intel
processors that are 64-bit.



--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).

Yousuf Khan <> wrote:

>>> Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
>>> ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
>>> past time to go to 64-bit.
>>
>> With less than 4 GB RAM, most people would be better off with 32-bit.
>
>It doesn't matter, there is negligible performance impact with the
>64-bit kernel, and you won't have to reinstall an OS from scratch again,
>once you do upgrade to 4GB+. It's extremely cost-effective to go to 4GB
>these days.


It's definitely worth considering that option, yes.

--
Joel Crump

"Yousuf Khan" <> wrote in message
news:4b8b6455$...
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:08:55 -0500, Yousuf Khan
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Regarding 64-bit, there's nothing to worry about here anymore. Just go
>>> ahead and do it, and don't diddle around with 32-bit anymore. It's well
>>> past time to go to 64-bit.
>>
>>
>> I strongly disagree.
>
> Why would you strongly disagree, all of your statements below make it
> sound like you only slightly disagree. :-)
>
>> There's very little benefit of running a 64-bit version of Windows
>> now, because the benefit is essentially gotten only if you run 64-bit
>> applications. And there are very few 64-bit applications yet.
>>
>> And there is often a serious disadvantage of 64-bit Windows for many
>> people. If they have hardware for which they need but can't get a
>> 64-bit driver, they may have to spend the money to replace the
>> hardware.
>>
>> *However*, for those without driver issues. I think most people should
>> use 64-bit Windows--not because it's better today, but because it's a
>> step forward that will let them buy 64-bit applications as they become
>> available.
>
>
> Most newer systems these days are coming with at least 4GB of RAM. If
> somebody has a device driver that won't work in 64-bit, then likely it'll
> have a tough time working 32-bit Windows 7 as well, as the driver models
> have all been changed from the XP days.
>
> Yousuf Khan

A major consideration in buying a new PC and operating system
is fear that your old stuff will be no longer available. I have hundreds of
documents and spreadsheets created with Lotus software. Word and Excel
won't read them, and Lotus will not install under Windows 7. It was a pain
in the butt converting them, and I even had to install a font which was not
included with Windows 7 (Lydian if you are curious). I was a bit worried
that the 64 bit version would be more of a problem which is why I chose
32 bit. Certainly I have not had as many problems with software
incompatibility as I expected from reading web pages about Windows 7.

Basically therefore, if buying a new PC and operating system, the sooner
you expect to be replacing it, the more likely it is that 32 bit is the best
choice.

johnbee wrote:
> A major consideration in buying a new PC and operating system
> is fear that your old stuff will be no longer available. I have
> hundreds of
> documents and spreadsheets created with Lotus software. Word and Excel
> won't read them, and Lotus will not install under Windows 7. It was a pain
> in the butt converting them, and I even had to install a font which was not
> included with Windows 7 (Lydian if you are curious). I was a bit worried
> that the 64 bit version would be more of a problem which is why I chose
> 32 bit. Certainly I have not had as many problems with software
> incompatibility as I expected from reading web pages about Windows 7.
>
> Basically therefore, if buying a new PC and operating system, the sooner
> you expect to be replacing it, the more likely it is that 32 bit is the
> best
> choice.

I have not had any problems yet with installing software from Windows XP
days to Seven. And that's with 64-bit Seven. Those issues you had with
Lotus occurred until 32-bit Seven, so it would've likely also happened
under 64-bit Seven. It wasn't a 32-bit vs. 64-bit thing, it was just an
XP vs. Seven thing.

I'm recommending that if anybody has at least 2GB of RAM installed that
they have a system more than capable of running 64-bit Seven, and if
they ever want to upgrade their RAM in the future, they are better off
already having 64-bit installed as they won't have to reinstall Seven again.

Yousuf Khan