Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / OS (32 & 64 bit) which one, I'm confused

Author
Message
SpyDaniel
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 16th Jun 2007 17:43
I'm really not sure which OS to buy, because the last time I bought one, I had problems, such as software not working. How do I tell which OS I should buy, 32 or 64?
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 16th Jun 2007 17:48
It's most likely that you want a 32 bit OS. A 32 bit OS will still function on a 64 bit or 32 bit processor, but you won't be able to "reap the benefits" of 64 bit applications.

The reverse of this, however, is that although a 64-bit processor and operating system will allow you to make use of said benefits, very few mainstream applications have 64 bit versions (although they are growing all the time in terms of quantity) and drivers tend to be a more 'shaky' too. 32 bit applications still run on 64 bit machines of course, but they tend to be separated (e.g. XP x64 installs 32 bit apps into a separate "tree" from 64 bit apps) which can lead to compatibility issues - such as what you have experienced. The drivers are likely the "big problem" though.

32 bit is likely what you're after.


09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
SpyDaniel
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 16th Jun 2007 18:34
Ah right, now I understand how it all works

I have a 64bit ADM Processor, would it matter at all if I bought a 32bit, or would it be better to buy a 64bit OS?
John Y
Synergy Editor Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posted: 16th Jun 2007 18:36
David R explains the differences. If you don't want a headache with drivers and software not working then go 32bit.

David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 16th Jun 2007 18:40
Hopefully the situation will change as more programs start to transition over to 64 bit


09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 17th Jun 2007 02:22
Windows 64-bit is fairly worthless to anyone who doesn't use applications like Visual Studio 2005/2008, Maya, Softimage, 3D Studio Max, Photoshop, etc.

And more often you will see a bigger performance increase from a multi-core 32-bit processor (like Core 2 Duo) than a native 64-bit application. It really is only worth the upgrade if you're an artist needing that extra precision without the speed loss.

In which case most of the time Apple Mac is usually the better route.

You'll find that more 32-bit Processors, like Core 2 Duo now have 64-bit extensions. These will be used even on 32-bit OS, but something interesting to know is both systems for Windows install to different directories.

Win32 - $(Windows)\System32
Win64 - $(Windows)\SystemWow64

It is entirely possible with Windows XP and Vista to have both versions installed on the same machine, in the same Windows directory (although difficult to get it to do this) so that you can multi-boot the same OS in either 32-bit (for compatibility) or 64-bit (for enhanced precision & performance with 64-bit apps)

64-bit Windows is about as good at running 32-bit applications as 32-bit Windows is at running 8/16-bit applications. Often it's quite a hit'n'miss affair; so I wouldn't recommend it for regular use.

indi
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 17th Jun 2007 03:31
and yep this info really only applies when using the windows operating system platform as the mac current OS handles it all for you regardless of what program you throw at it, provided your intel or ppc chip can run the OS. no amd support yet.

David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 17th Jun 2007 12:21
Quote: "the mac current OS handles it all for you regardless of what program you throw at it, provided your intel or ppc chip can run the OS. no amd support yet."


Except I'm pretty sure that the Mac x64 implementation dispenses of all 16 bit support in the same way as Windows does


09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
indi
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 17th Jun 2007 13:01 Edited at: 17th Jun 2007 13:16
Where do you dream up that garbage.?

No ones had a 16 bit mac program since prior to the 68k motorola series.

Emulators still allow you to run them regardless.
Apple II emulator anyone for your OSX machine?
http://apple2.intergalactic.de/
and thats a 4 bit machine with a 1 mhz CPU.

I can also still use 9.2 on this mac as well.
So no its not the same sorry.

edit : oh wait i get what your saying, with an intel mac yes, not a PPC.
I dont have one yet so i see where your coming from.
Intel macs wont support native os9 (unless emulated )properly which means 32 bit is out as well soon.

jasonhtml
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Mar 2004
Location: OC, California, USA
Posted: 17th Jun 2007 18:25
64 bit is best in my opinion. i got Vista 64bit and everything works just fine. its true though that the drivers are a bit shakey... but i believe its for the better in the long run

SpyDaniel
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 17th Jun 2007 20:33 Edited at: 17th Jun 2007 20:34
I have just remembered what bit I had last time, which caused the problems. I bought a 86bit XP Pro, looking back now, that was really silly

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-18 19:44:57
Your offset time is: 2024-11-18 19:44:57