32 bit to 64 bit transition - - some Qs?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by aigle, Dec 6, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    I am seeing many laptops/ netbooks with 64 bit OEM vista/ windows 7 pre-installed. Seems 64 bit computing will be mainstream earlier than expected.

    I plan to switch to 64 bit OS with my next system/ notebook( OSX/ Windows/ Linux). I have some Qs in my mind:

    1- Can 32 bit applications be installed in a 64 bit OS and vice versa? Like a 32 bit version of an antivirus in a 64 bit windows ? I guess not!

    2- I know security software ususally? have two versions: 32 bit and 64 bit. Does same applies to all other software like browsers, mail clients, imaging software, audio and video software etc etc?

    3- Does 64 bit applications use same resources, hard drive space etc as their 32 bit counterparts?

    Thanks for any answers.
     
  2. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    1- Yes most can. x64 has a x86 emulating capability for most softwares. There are some that are coded only to run on their native platform and will terminate an install upon OS detection.

    2- Not all software is x64 and x86. Firefox for example is x86 native, but will install on an x64 platform. Right now they are in a beta for their x64 platform. Some are and some arent. Its really up to the developer.

    3- No. x64 apps are generally a little larger in install size. Not really sure why. Its just something Ive noticed. If I had to take a guess its because the x64 software also includes the x86 emulation in it as well as the x64 or it could be due to the x64 drivers needed to run properly on an x64 system. As for system resources by looking at Task Manager I dont see any differences between RAM and CPU usage. I would assume CPU usage would go up for a properly coded x64 program thats utilizing its x64 capabilities properly.
     
  3. Raza0007

    Raza0007 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Posts:
    1,425
    Location:
    USA
    I was under the impression that x64 bit OS and software uses twice the memory of their counterpart 32-bit versions?

    Will old 32-bit games (1998 onwards) that require 32-bit versions of directx work on 64-bit OS?
     
  4. softtouch

    softtouch Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Posts:
    415
    All my 32-bit games from farcry upto call of duty 6 are working fine on my Windows 7 X64, so I guess your games should work as well.
     
  5. Raza0007

    Raza0007 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Posts:
    1,425
    Location:
    USA
    Thats great. What about memory consumption? I have 3 GB of RAM on my system (32-bit Vista), and on average at any given moment I am consuming around 1.2 GB. If I switch to x64 bit OS, with the same software currently on my system, will my memory consumption jump to 2.4 GB?
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2009
  6. InfinityAz

    InfinityAz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Posts:
    828
    Location:
    Arizona
    Raza0007,

    I tested Win7 32 and 64. The 64-bit version, after boot up and a couple of minutes, uses ~200MB more than the 32-bit version. Overall, switching to 64-bit has been painless.
     
  7. SourMilk

    SourMilk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Posts:
    630
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Hold still now. This won't hurt a bit. Oops, I forgot about the tried and true security programs that won't work in 64bit. Well, this won't be too big of a problem if you are a safe surfer and use some kind of redirection control on your browser with a superduper gadget-filled antivirus that works on 64bit.

    Worst case: you can't get exactly what you want with 64bit.
    Best case: you don't use any security programs incompatible with 64bit.
    Usual case: you use what is out there for 64bit and wait for further developments like Shadow Defender or Returnil now offering 64bit programs.

    I made the switch because I believe that someday most programs will not only be 64bit compatible but run in 64bit. I was also a Polio Pioneer for the Salk vaccine as a small child (the needle not the cube.) Hold still now.

    SourMilk out
     
  8. 1boss1

    1boss1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Posts:
    401
    Location:
    Australia
    Yes i bought a new PC 2 days ago, and it had a 64 Bit Win7 OS pre-installed as did most the other PC's in the store which i was surprised about.

    I deleted it before i even booted in to it however.
     
  9. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    The Switch to 64bit from 32bit was painless the only issues there really ever was was drivers. Now most of that is resolved even on my oldest system a 3500+ AMD64 with 4gigs of ram it runs quite snappy. As for performance I can't see a diff in the two unless I'm running like Adobe Imaging then I notice the quicker load times of 64bit. 64bit is here to stay and only will get stronger as time goes on. Now that the OEM's have switched holding on to 32bit is just stupid IMO.

    If your software is not 64x compatible yet then find better software. The company's that have held back is ether due to lack of resources to devote to it or just pure stupidity on the Developers part.
     
  10. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,042
    Easy words to write, but.... I can't find better software to do what I need. As for the developers being stupid, I don't think so. If I am writing software for businesses that I know will stick with 32bit for the fore see able future then why would I drop developing 32 bit software for 64 bit.

    Also 32 bit is still quite available. I checked with Velocity Micro who's website now only shows 64bit systems, and they said if I wanted 32bit, no problem. I expect that is true with most manufacturers.

    pete
     
  11. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,812
    I'm sorry even that will change once Microsoft stops supporting certain operating systems company's upgrade. What do you think that upgrade will be, whatever is available at that point in time. Most chips are Already 64bit is by default have been for a few years and now, Windows OS comes by default as 64bit. To a company looking toward the future it's a very simple choice. The company I work for has stripped out all computers (Windows XP) and switched to 64bit and the new OS. The software is being updated to support this move so far its been a very easy transition from the Tech side and the consumer side.

    As for the other comment I'm not telling them to stop developing 32bit But make a 64bit counterpart. Or you will run out of options once its mainstreem. Microsoft will stop eventually making 32bit OS altogether and people will have no choice to follow or sink its there choice.

    64bit will phase in as easy as 16bit phased out. Developers that CHOOSE to stay 32bit and not support 64bit. Because of this or that reason are doing nothing but shooting them self's in the foot in the long run. Just as the company I work for If your not compatible your out the door we will find someone else that is.


    Blue also Had a good explanation of this.
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1586186&postcount=75
     
  12. Raza0007

    Raza0007 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Posts:
    1,425
    Location:
    USA
    I read somewhere that 64 bit OS by default will use almost twice the amount of RAM than a 32 bit OS. This was sometime ago. Can you explain why Microsoft recommends 1GB minimum RAM for 32 bit and 2 GB minimum RAM for 64 bit Windows 7?

    If you are getting a PC with 4 GB RAM or higher, then there is no logic in using 32-bit OS, as you will not be able to utilize around 300-700 MB of your RAM under 32 bit OS for a 4 GB RAM system.

    If you use a lot of video editing, video encoding or some software that requires a lot of processing power, then you should upgrade to 64 bit. You will see a significant performance boost (provided you use 64 bit versions of those softwares on the 64 bit OS).

    With 64 bit OS you will encounter software from time to time that are not compatible and will not run. Even those software that are compatible with 64 bit OS have some module that won't be available on 64 bit. For Example, see the system requirements for Norton internet security 2010. Even though it is 64 bit Vista and windows 7 compatible, the "Browser Vulnerability Protection and Phishing Protection" works on 32-bit IE/Firefox only.

    64 bit OS uses more hard disk space upon installation. 64 bit installers are larger in size and upon installation use more hard disk space than their 32 bit cousins. So, keep this is mind.

    In my case, since I only have 3 GB of RAM and I do not use any high processing power consuming software, so I have delayed the move to 64 bit OS.

    Hope this helps.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2009
  13. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    What has the past 25 or so years of computing taught us?

    Bleeding edge becomes high performance becomes advanced/desired becomes advanced/standard becomes commonplace becomes passé.

    Realistically, where are we on this arc with respect to 64-bit computing? What's the timeline and where do the pricepoints sit? My own read is that we're transitioning from the high performance to the advanced/desired phase with 64-bit computing. It's mainstream in a sense, but that's more with respect to future orientation than current practices. The full transition will occur over a period of years and be driven by hardware refresh.

    Lead adopters are the ones now embracing this technology, but it's important to recognize that they do have a heavy influence on the direction of the market. However, for the vast majority of users, there is no compelling reason to convert to 64-bit on existing hardware. The conversion will occur as hardware is turned over, but that will take some time to occur. For the minority of users who do engage in compute and RAM intensive applications (image processing, numerics, etc. - I'll leave gaming aside since the consoles have essentially won that battle), 64-bit makes sense now, they will see the performance advantages quickly, and they will refresh hardware now for the productivity gain. At the moment, that remains a niche market. It will be a niche market for the foreseeable future.

    That doesn't mean 64-bit is not coming. It is. Conversion in hardware has been a lot faster than software, but that reflects volume based production needs and building in future upgrade paths. The standard configurations available now are not a lot different than their 32-bit cousins (what's the real difference between a 3GB 32 bit system and a 4 GB 64 bit PC?). In other words - it's basically at or close to cost neutrality now, which means you select for the future and go with 64-bit. For developers, one can either be in the lead or left behind. Development and product launches need to reflect both product and environment lifecycles. The product lifecycle say 32-bit even now, while the environment lifecycle says 64-bit. Ultimately, the environment wins.

    Blue
     
  14. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    the lastest windows server is 64bit only and windows 7 would of been if more people had adopted vista. im sure windows 8 will be 64bit only. even some of the cheapest systems come with 4gb of ram so the only real option is 64bit. Ive been using 64bit for ages and applications work fine on it.
    People need to move on and use 64bit operating system on new computers.
    If applications dont work on 64bit complain to the company who wrote it.
     
  15. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    I would agree with that. When 64bit becomes as prevalent as it is now, it's time for developers to get with the program and put out 64bit versions of their apps if necessary.
     
  16. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    No the OS can handle 64 bits intructions and data streams at a time. This means instruction sets can be more complex (achieving more at the same time) and more data can be transfered/handled by one CPU cycle.

    Due to this feature 64 natice aps using 64 bits code, should be 10 to 20 percent more efficient/faster. When code instruction extension sets appear, this gap will increase. In practise Vista64 bits did make up to this promise due to the dual 64bits-32bits compatibility.

    When you go for a 64 bits OS make sure you will use a Solid State Disk for your OS, most harddisk are not capable of handling more than 32 or 48 bits transfers.



    Regards
     
  17. Raza0007

    Raza0007 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Posts:
    1,425
    Location:
    USA
    CPU consumption and memory consumption are two different things. No doubt a 64 bit OS will be able to do twice the amount of work in one cycle than a 32 bit OS. But what about the memory consumption? For example, assume a 32 bit software "X" runs on a 32 bit OS, and consumes 50 MB of RAM. Since the 64 bit counter part of X, on a 64 bit OS does twice the work in one cycle, isn't it natural to assume it will consume 100 MB of RAM?

    Furthermore, what is the logic in Microsoft doubling the minimum amount of RAM for a 64 bit Windows 7?

    Isn't this a deal breaker. If a hard disk cannot process more than 48 bits per cycle, what is the point of running a 64 bit OS? I can safely say that a vast majority of computer users cannot afford a SSD today and probably will not be able to do so for the next 2 years.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.