|
| | |||||||
| Windows Vista Discuss the different versions of Windows Vista, Fuji, or Vienna |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
| 64 bit processors. I'm looking to buy a new laptop preinstalled with Vista. Most new machines I see in stores have Intel or AMD 64 bit processors, however, the OS and of course all apps are only 32 bit. These laptops also only have 1-2 GB RAM. Is there really any point in buying a 64 bit machine if all it's running is 32 bit OS and apps? Why would manufacturers even build these units with 64 bit processors? |
| |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| Re: 64 bit processors. For most users it's better to stay with 32 bit Vista at this time. Hardware drivers and some kinds of software are much less available for the 64 bit version. There's no downside to the 64 bit CPU. It allows possible future upgrading. Most current CPU designs are 64 bit. Once these get into production, there's not a lot of sense in manufacturers continuing to make and enhance a separate 32 bit version. -- <msnews.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:%23%23HoO9bOIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue] > I'm looking to buy a new laptop preinstalled with Vista. Most new > machines I see in stores have Intel or AMD 64 bit processors, however, the > OS and of course all apps are only 32 bit. These laptops also only have > 1-2 GB RAM. Is there really any point in buying a 64 bit machine if all > it's running is 32 bit OS and apps? Why would manufacturers even build > these units with 64 bit processors? >[/color] |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
| Re: 64 bit processors. 64 Bit processors is really just a state of the industry right now, the technology is there so why not make it available? Regardless the majority of applications for the desktop remain largely 32 bit, it is prepapring for inevitable when there will be a mass transition to 64 bit, whether by the Industry or end users. For instance, suppose you start doing a lot of technical work that goes beyond the limits of 32 bit computing requiring more than 4 GBs of RAM and real 64 bit OS such as the 64 bit version of Vista, then you won't have to worry about changing out all your hardware to take advantage of it. The market that understands the capabilities, advantages and disadvantages of using it, the biggest advantage of all has to be the support for a larger memory address space that allows you to do more number crunching with scientific, financial and other engineering applications that use a lot of memory. Hopefully in the future, more mainstream applications will support the platform and harness its capabilities, but with the majority of systems coming with 1 to 2 GBs of memory, and 64 bit really addressing larger amounts up to 128 GBs, you won't see a lot of apps for now. -- Andre Blog: [url]http://adacosta.spaces.live.com[/url] My Vista Quickstart Guide: [url]http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E8E5CC039D51E3DB!9709.entry[/url] <msnews.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:%23%23HoO9bOIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue] > I'm looking to buy a new laptop preinstalled with Vista. Most new > machines I see in stores have Intel or AMD 64 bit processors, however, the > OS and of course all apps are only 32 bit. These laptops also only have > 1-2 GB RAM. Is there really any point in buying a 64 bit machine if all > it's running is 32 bit OS and apps? Why would manufacturers even build > these units with 64 bit processors? >[/color] |
|
#4
| |||
| |||
| Re: 64 bit processors. On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 12:25:22 -0500, msnews.microsoft.com wrote: [color=blue] > I'm looking to buy a new laptop preinstalled with Vista. Most new machines > I see in stores have Intel or AMD 64 bit processors, however, the OS and of > course all apps are only 32 bit. These laptops also only have 1-2 GB RAM. > Is there really any point in buying a 64 bit machine if all it's running is > 32 bit OS and apps? Why would manufacturers even build these units with 64 > bit processors?[/color] 1) there is a 64bit vista. 2) other OSs have been 64 bit capable for a number of years. I started with 64 bits around 2000 on a DEC Alpha (yes, I know it's a different architecture) and 64 bit Linux has been available for several years. Manufacturers don't always build for the lowest common denominator. |
|
#5
| |||
| |||
| Re: 64 bit processors. On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:25:22 -0500, <msnews.microsoft.com> wrote: [color=blue] > I'm looking to buy a new laptop preinstalled with Vista. Most new machines > I see in stores have Intel or AMD 64 bit processors, however, the OS and of > course all apps are only 32 bit.[/color] Generally correct. [color=blue] > These laptops also only have 1-2 GB RAM.[/color] 1GB is iffy, depending on what apps you run. But 2GB is sufficient for almost everyone who doesn't run particularly memory-hungry applications. [color=blue] > Is there really any point in buying a 64 bit machine if all[/color] That's what the marketplace is like now. There isn't a whole lot of choice. [color=blue] > it's running is > 32 bit OS and apps?[/color] You won't see any advantage from the 64-bit processor now, but over the next few years there will be more and more 64-bit apps available. Having the 64-bit processor now puts you in the position of being able to upgrade to 64-bit Windows and apps when doing so makes sense. [color=blue] > Why would manufacturers even build these units with 64 > bit processors?[/color] Because that's what the chip manufacturers are selling them. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
|
#6
| |||
| |||
| Re: 64 bit processors. On 8-Dec-2007, "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" <andred25********.com> wrote: [color=blue] > 64 Bit processors is really just a state of the industry right now, the > technology is there so why not make it available?[/color] So why on Vista 64bit Ultimate, with 4GB Crucial 533 RAM, 1066FSB, 3.06GHz processor, Asus mobo, are my large Excel macros running like a dog as 32bit? Typical of MS rubbish? Not to mention many apps won't install, Azerus based USB wireless adapters seemingly no drivers, etc. |
|
#7
| |||
| |||
| Re: 64 bit processors. [email]ato_zee********.com[/email] wrote: [color=blue] > >On 8-Dec-2007, "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" <andred25********.com> wrote: >[color=green] >> 64 Bit processors is really just a state of the industry right now, the >> technology is there so why not make it available?[/color] > >So why on Vista 64bit Ultimate, with 4GB Crucial >533 RAM, 1066FSB, 3.06GHz processor, Asus mobo, >are my large Excel macros running like a dog as 32bit?[/color] AFAIK, Excel and the rest of Office exist only as 32-bit programs. 64-bit Vista will run 32-bit programs. [color=blue] >Not to mention many apps won't install, Azerus based >USB wireless adapters seemingly no drivers, etc.[/color] True. There's lots of 64-bit hardware around, but software doesn't seem to have caught up yet. -- Tim Slattery MS MVP(Shell/User) [email]Slattery_T@bls.gov[/email] [url]http://members.cox.net/slatteryt[/url] |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
| | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Help With Processors Please | jim evans | Notebooks | 3 | 11-19-2007 08:00 AM |
| Dual Processors and RAM | dpatera | Windows XP | 5 | 05-10-2007 01:40 PM |
| Why does Vista not like AMD processors? | Bryan Foster | Vista Hardware | 10 | 04-12-2007 06:38 AM |
| 64-bit processors | Dr. Timothy Witt | Desktop Computers | 0 | 02-06-2007 04:10 PM |
| Laptop Processors | jenkinsp@gmail.com | Notebooks | 1 | 02-05-2007 06:00 AM |
| New To Technology Questions? | Do You Need Help with Your Computer or Device? | Do You Need Help with this site? |