64 vs 32bit?

[JKConey]

Can someone point me to a link the explains when one is better than the
other to use when there's a prog that offers a choice? Do we have to
segregate the program locations? Thanks!

 

[Parko]

Can someone point me to a link the explains when one is better than the
other to use when there's a prog that offers a choice? Do we have to
segregate the program locations? Thanks!

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-AU/windows-vista/32-bit-and-64-bit-
Windows-frequently-asked-questions

or:

http://bit.ly/9lq3CD

32 and 64 bit applications are placed in different Program Files
directories. I use the 64 bit applications whenever they're available.

 

[JKConey]

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-AU/windows-vista/32-bit-and-64-bit-
Windows-frequently-asked-questions

or:

http://bit.ly/9lq3CD

32 and 64 bit applications are placed in different Program Files
directories. I use the 64 bit applications whenever they're available.

They don't need to be in different directories, correct?

 

[JKConey]

If you chose to use 64bit, which you should, you need to make sure your
hardware has 64bit drivers available.
Also I recommend, as most do, that you have 8 GIGs of RAM installed.

I'm guessing 6 gigs would be enough? That's what my new machine came
with.

 

[Parko]

They don't need to be in different directories, correct?

32 bit applications are installed in the directory C: Program Files (x86)
64 bit applications are installed in the directory C: Program Files by
default. You can change this if you want, I suppose.

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, JK.

Because of differences in the hardware infrastructures, 64-bit and 32-bit
OSes and apps need to use different DLLs, drivers, etc. Windows x64
versions (WinXP X64, Vista X64, Win7 X64, etc.) use the two separate program
files folders, as Parko said. This way, Windows can associate the proper
drivers with each application.

While it is not strictly necessary to have them in those folders, I don't
know of any good reason to not follow that convention MOST of the time. For
example, I've continued to install annual updates of Quicken into
E:\Quicken, rather than into C:\Program Files - or into Program Files (x86)
since it is a 32-bit app running on Win7 X64. Now, when (if?) Intuit ever
produces a 64-bit Quicken, I may need to reconsider my practice.

The transition to 64-bit computing is still in progress, as I'm sure you
know, and the progress is slow. Very few apps, even from Microsoft, come as
64-bit-only programs. Even the new Microsoft Office 2010 is available in
both 32-bit and 64-bit versions - and Microsoft recommends the 32-bit
version for most users. (I'm using the 64-bit Office 2010, but for no good
reason except to be on the "bleeding edge", and my use of Office components
is minimal now, unlike when I was in active practice several years ago.)
And Adobe has not yet updated their popular Flash Player to work with 64-bit
browsers; when I want to see a video that uses Flash, I have to run the
32-bit edition of IE8. Microsoft includes both 32-bit and 64-bit editions
of IE in every Windows X64 since WinXP X64, but they set the default to the
32-bit edition.

My plan is to adopt 64-bit versions of programs as they become available and
to suffer the growing pains of the transition for the good of humanity. ;^}

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
Windows Live Mail 2010 (15.3.2804.0607) in Win7 Ultimate x64)

"JKConey" wrote in message

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-AU/windows-vista/32-bit-and-64-bit-
Windows-frequently-asked-questions

or:

http://bit.ly/9lq3CD

32 and 64 bit applications are placed in different Program Files
directories. I use the 64 bit applications whenever they're available.

They don't need to be in different directories, correct?

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I'm guessing 6 gigs would be enough? That's what my new machine came
with.

Or even 4 GB. That's what my machine came with. It also came with Vista,
and I upgraded. No problems.

 

[Al Dykes]

Or even 4 GB. That's what my machine came with. It also came with Vista,
and I upgraded. No problems.

I have a laptop with a Intel core i3 330 cpu and 4GB and W/7/64 on it.
can load up Photoshop CS and Photoshop Elements 8 and open a bunch of
large images and it's reasonably fast and doesn't slow down.

Taskman says THe most memory I've ever used is 2.7GB. the fact that my
PS and PSE are 32 bit apps may mean I can't use more but it will only
get faster if I get 64 bit apps..

 

[JKConey]

32 bit applications are installed in the directory C: Program Files (x86)
64 bit applications are installed in the directory C: Program Files by
default. You can change this if you want, I suppose.

I just have this hatred for putting everything in that Program Files
subdirectory. All my stuff gets rerouted to it's own alphabetical root
folder.

 

[JKConey]

32 bit applications are installed in the directory C: Program Files (x86)
64 bit applications are installed in the directory C: Program Files by
default. You can change this if you want, I suppose.

Can someone explain the meaning of x86 and x64?

 

[Char Jackson]

Can someone explain the meaning of x86 and x64?

You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

 

[relic]

Can someone explain the meaning of x86 and x64?

286, 386, 486, 586... Intel.
Never heard of x64 for the Itanium family.

 

[JKConey]

Not a very good idea. You will have a lot less problems (self created)
if you allow default location to be your first choice.

Why do you feel this way? Win remembers where everything is put.

 

[Parko]

Something I've learned over the years...

<............................>
Nothing

 

[Jim]

286, 386, 486, 586... Intel.
Never heard of x64 for the Itanium family.

Itanic goes by IA64 and always been 64bit.
x64 is a MS creation. We've been calling it AMD64,EM64T, or x86-64 prior to
Windows x64 release. 86>64 so it sounds like 32bit is better.

 

[Doum]

Why do you feel this way? Win remembers where everything is put.

Some applications are not that well programmed and can misbehaved if
they're not installed in the default location, it must be the exception
though.

What do you mean by alphabetical root folder? Depending of Windows Explorer
settings, they show up in alphabetical order inside the Program files
folders.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I have a laptop with a Intel core i3 330 cpu and 4GB and W/7/64 on it.
can load up Photoshop CS and Photoshop Elements 8 and open a bunch of
large images and it's reasonably fast and doesn't slow down.

Taskman says THe most memory I've ever used is 2.7GB. the fact that my
PS and PSE are 32 bit apps may mean I can't use more but it will only
get faster if I get 64 bit apps..

You lead me to an interesting question.

Here's how I understand it:
Since Windows gives each app its own memory space to run in, you should
still be able to use all available memory for the set of running apps -
it's just that each 32-bit app must run in a smaller assigned space than a
64-bit app can use.

Anyone care to verify or refute that idea?

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Something I've learned over the years...that is the developers of the OS
setup "default" to be the most reliable file location for security,
reliability and performance.
I think the ones who wrote the OS know what is best, for getting the
best, out of the OS.
You can chose differently and generally get by with your choice, but
sometimes, not choosing the default file location, can cause problems.
That is especially true when you run into a 3rd party app that
absolutely will not work correctly unless it is installed to the default
location.

In the past, I was one of those who partitioned my HDD's to put the OS
on one partition, files & doc's on another, pics on another, etc.,
thinking I was playing it safe and maximizing performance.
Today, I consider that a complete waste of time. I go default all the
way and have never looked back.
YMMV.

I have also had bad experiences putting programs in non-default
directories. I blame it on the people who wrote that software, rather than
on Windows. That's why I'm another one who puts programs in their default
locations unless given good reason not too.

One good reason is legacy software that doesn't do well in Program Files
(x86).

 

[Yousuf Khan]

You lead me to an interesting question.

Here's how I understand it:
Since Windows gives each app its own memory space to run in, you should
still be able to use all available memory for the set of running apps -
it's just that each 32-bit app must run in a smaller assigned space than a
64-bit app can use.

Anyone care to verify or refute that idea?

I don't see anything wrong with that statement.

Yousuf Khan

 

[G. Morgan]

Can someone point me to a link the explains when one is better than the
other to use when there's a prog that offers a choice? Do we have to
segregate the program locations? Thanks!

Since most newer PC's have a 64bit chip, it makes sense to take advantage of
that. Of course, software developer's must write code for native 64 bit to get
the full benefit. It's going to take some time before all developers jump on
the bandwagon.

Also, with a 64 bit O/S you get to overcome the 3GB RAM limitation (32 Bit
O/S's) can only access the first 3.xx GB of RAM. This becomes very useful when
multitasking, and machine vitalization. A Quad-core CPU running a 64bit OS
with say 8GB of RAM for example can be made to "virtually" run 4 separate
machines with ease. That's why companies are jumping into virtual machines for
their servers, for the cost savings of hardware and electricity usage. It's
cutting expenses by 1000% in some cases. Think about it, one computer doing
the tasks that used to require 4 machines is going to save on hardware,
electricity, and LABOR to maintain and patch those beasts.

No, I don't have a chart -- sorry.