what is the diffrence in 32 and 64 bit programs? which one is better to use
on xp?
thanks

Mike <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>what is the diffrence in 32 and 64 bit programs? which one is better to use
>on xp?

You can run 64-bit programs only if you have 64-bit hardware and the
64-bit version of WinXP. If you don't know whether your gear measures
up to this standard, it pretty surely doesn't.

64-bit gear would enable you to use much more RAM. 32-bit XP has a
32-bit address space which theoretically allows you to use 4GB of RAM.
Various considerations usually reduce this to 3.5GB or something like
that.

A 64-bit address space would allow something like 10**38 bytes to be
addressed, an astronomical number. I think the current implementations
impose a limit of several terabytes. That's RAM, not disk space.

64-bit computing would also allow integer arithmetic operations on
much larger numbers (increase the max from 2x10**9 and change to
2x10**35 or something like that?)

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
(E-Mail Removed)

This question is "mute" since there are very limited 64bit software out now.
Microsoft XP 64Bit is only distributed as OEM (sold with hardware normally)
and it does not seem to be a "large" XP install base yet. You also should
know that 64Bit software can only be used on 64Bit base computers and that a
lot have device drivers do not exist for 64bit computers. Also, a lot of PC
games do not seem to work well on XP 64Bit.

However, this will be changing next year (2007) when Vista will be
shipping/selling.



On 03/11/2006 Mike <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>what is the diffrence in 32 and 64 bit programs? which one is better to use
>on xp?
>thanks

--
---

Y.

IMO 64 bit is the future of computing. BUT, I don't think it's quite there
yet. Too many issues with it, and too few drivers.

I'd stick with 32 bit for now (on a 64 bit capable system) - there'll be
plenty of opportunity to upgrade later on.

- John

"Tim Slattery" wrote:

> Mike <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >what is the diffrence in 32 and 64 bit programs? which one is better to use
> >on xp?
>
> You can run 64-bit programs only if you have 64-bit hardware and the
> 64-bit version of WinXP. If you don't know whether your gear measures
> up to this standard, it pretty surely doesn't.
>
> 64-bit gear would enable you to use much more RAM. 32-bit XP has a
> 32-bit address space which theoretically allows you to use 4GB of RAM.
> Various considerations usually reduce this to 3.5GB or something like
> that.
>
> A 64-bit address space would allow something like 10**38 bytes to be
> addressed, an astronomical number. I think the current implementations
> impose a limit of several terabytes. That's RAM, not disk space.
>
> 64-bit computing would also allow integer arithmetic operations on
> much larger numbers (increase the max from 2x10**9 and change to
> 2x10**35 or something like that?)
>
> --
> Tim Slattery
> MS MVP(DTS)
> (E-Mail Removed)
>

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 07:58:03 -0800, usasma wrote:

> IMO 64 bit is the future of computing. BUT, I don't think it's quite
> there yet. Too many issues with it, and too few drivers.

That "future" has been here for years with other operating systems.

> I'd stick with 32 bit for now (on a 64 bit capable system) - there'll be
> plenty of opportunity to upgrade later on.

Except then you have to repurchase your 32-bit applications as 64-bit
applications. And I bet they charge you a premium for "state of the art"
64-bits.

It's probably a silly question - but humour me...... The fairly new
Duo CPU's now are, as I understand it, effectively two ordinary ones
joined together. I understand the concept of 32 or 64 bit addressing
but by using a Duo, although not stictly 64 bit addressing, the result
is the same. That is a CPU that is twice as fast as an ordinary one?

Think of Duo as stuffing two CPUs into 1 socket, thats all.

Pete L wrote:

> It's probably a silly question - but humour me...... The fairly new
> Duo CPU's now are, as I understand it, effectively two ordinary ones
> joined together. I understand the concept of 32 or 64 bit addressing
> but by using a Duo, although not stictly 64 bit addressing, the result
> is the same. That is a CPU that is twice as fast as an ordinary one?
>

"Pete L" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>It's probably a silly question - but humour me...... The fairly new
>Duo CPU's now are, as I understand it, effectively two ordinary ones
>joined together. I understand the concept of 32 or 64 bit addressing
>but by using a Duo, although not stictly 64 bit addressing, the result
>is the same. That is a CPU that is twice as fast as an ordinary one?

Not 64-bit at all. These things have two 32-bit processors (called
"cores" in this case) on a single chip. They have 32-bit registers,
use 32-bit addressing, are 32-bit in all ways.

Since it has two processors, it should be twice as fast as a single
equivalent processor. But, of course, there are things in the way. The
OS has to keep track of both cores, and both cores (as I understand)
use the same pathway to memory and peripherals which could slow things
down in some cases.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
(E-Mail Removed)

Tim Slattery wrote:

> "Pete L" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>It's probably a silly question - but humour me...... The fairly new
>>Duo CPU's now are, as I understand it, effectively two ordinary ones
>>joined together. I understand the concept of 32 or 64 bit addressing
>>but by using a Duo, although not stictly 64 bit addressing, the result
>>is the same. That is a CPU that is twice as fast as an ordinary one?
>
>
> Not 64-bit at all. These things have two 32-bit processors (called
> "cores" in this case) on a single chip. They have 32-bit registers,
> use 32-bit addressing, are 32-bit in all ways.
>
> Since it has two processors, it should be twice as fast as a single
> equivalent processor. But, of course, there are things in the way. The
> OS has to keep track of both cores, and both cores (as I understand)
> use the same pathway to memory and peripherals which could slow things
> down in some cases.
>

Info update Tim

http://www.intel.com/design/processo...hts/313278.htm

"The Intel® Core™2 Extreme processor X6800? and Intel® Core™2 Duo
desktop processor E6000? sequence combine the performance of the
previous generation of desktop products with the power efficiencies of a
low-power microarchitecture to enable smaller, quieter systems. These
processors are 64-bit processors that maintain compatibility with IA-32
software."

Bob I <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"The Intel® Core™2 Extreme processor X6800? and Intel® Core™2 Duo
>desktop processor E6000? sequence combine the performance of the
>previous generation of desktop products with the power efficiencies of a
>low-power microarchitecture to enable smaller, quieter systems. These
>processors are 64-bit processors that maintain compatibility with IA-32
>software."

I guess that's the next step: dual 64-bit cores.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
(E-Mail Removed)