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.

Stick with 32 bit Vista, mainly for compatibility reasons, such as device
drivers and the majority of most software you are likely to run will do just
fine with Vista 32 bit and 4 GBs of RAM. Vista 64-bit true power lies in its
ability to address large amounts of memory beyond 4 GBs, since the buck
really stops at 4 GBs for 32 Bit Vista. There have been performance test
that yes prove that Vista 64-bit performs good with 4 GBs or more RAM but
then again, there are trade offs such as compatibility which I previously
mentioned.

Some other nice features of Vista include all device drivers must be signed
before they can be installed on the system, Patch Guard which prevents the
OS kernel from be patched or altered by third party software. So, there are
some try security benefits there too.
--
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]

"tcukran" <tcukran.331fa3@no-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:tcukran.331fa3@no-mx.forums.net...[color=blue]
>
> Hi ,
>
> About 7 months ago I bought a Toshiba notebook (A100-599) and there is
> 32bit vista home premium comes with it. But after a while I got bored
> and installed xp maybe it's because everyone was saying things like
> vista is not ready yet...
> The thing I wonder is should I stick with the 32bit home premium or go
> buy a 64 bit ? I actually don't know if my laptop can run 64bit but it
> says that core2duo processors can do it.
> If someone can help me out of this I'll be really glad :).
>
> PS : I'm a normal home user, I don't really use programs that can push
> the processor too hard but still I use photoshop and play games
> sometimes. Is there an important performance difference between 32bit
> and 64bit ?
>
>
> --
> tcukran[/color]

In article <esfpT8JVIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin] <andred25********.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>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.[/color]

IMHO the real question is what could a home user do that would
require a terabyte address space? Even if you do work that requires 64 bit
it's still a chore to get an environment set up. Too much stuff needs to
be rebuilt for 64 bits.

Unless you run Solaris (ObUnix lol)
[color=blue]
>
>Some other nice features of Vista include all device drivers must be signed[/color]

*THAT* is a ****BUG**** and NOT a feature!

"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fm8qjv$jg$1@reader2.panix.com...
[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>>Some other nice features of Vista include all device drivers must be
>>signed[/color]
>
> *THAT* is a ****BUG**** and NOT a feature!
>[/color]
Not really.

In article <87B27DC4-5B5D-47A7-90C9-52446881ED3F@microsoft.com>,
Bobby McNulty <snyder100@bellsouth.net> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>[/color]
>Not really.
>[/color]

Yes, really.

A properly designed system might go so far as to warn you and
ask for an acceptance. REFUSING to run software unless the vendor has
bribed MS to sign it is a stupid misdesign promulgated by a company
convinced that because they wield monopoly power they can continue to
gouge their own vendors as much as they do their customers.

It's a STUPID DESIGN BUG MEANT TO LOCK IN ANOTHER REVENUE STREAM
AND SET CONTENT PROVIDER CONTROL OVER DRM IN DIGITAL STONE. A BUG, do
you hear me??? Bug! Bug! BUUUGGGGGGG!!!!!!

"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fm8t13$cke$1@reader2.panix.com...[color=blue]
> In article <87B27DC4-5B5D-47A7-90C9-52446881ED3F@microsoft.com>,
> Bobby McNulty <snyder100@bellsouth.net> wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>[/color]
>>Not really.
>>[/color]
>
> Yes, really.
>
> A properly designed system might go so far as to warn you and
> ask for an acceptance. REFUSING to run software unless the vendor has
> bribed MS to sign it is a stupid misdesign promulgated by a company
> convinced that because they wield monopoly power they can continue to
> gouge their own vendors as much as they do their customers.
>
> It's a STUPID DESIGN BUG MEANT TO LOCK IN ANOTHER REVENUE STREAM
> AND SET CONTENT PROVIDER CONTROL OVER DRM IN DIGITAL STONE. A BUG, do
> you hear me??? Bug! Bug! BUUUGGGGGGG!!!!!![/color]

Because you do not like it, does NOT make it a bug. A bug is defined where
it relates to this area as...

a defect or imperfection, as in a mechanical device, computer program, or
plan; glitch

Since it is done knowingly and by design, it cannot therefore be a bug. I
would rather have the drivers signed as it forces the mfr to step up and get
it right. A PRIME example is nVidia's lack of S.M.A.R.T. capability in their
Vista SATA drivers. If they can make it work in XP there is no reason it
shouldn't under Vista. I would say if Microsoft pisses you off THAT badly,
perhaps you should go to an Apple system. Or perhaps a flavor of Linux.

--
Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.
[url]http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel[/url]
Undo the munge to reply by email