Here, they always take advantage ($$) for CPUs, Windows and Office, and pretty much everything else. Truth be told, most people don't understand a damn thing about this, so they just take advantage.
Figures. It's a shame though, people should be encouraged to move to 64bit... not the other way around.
Really? No water, food, air, etc then. Seriously, there will be a time when 32-bit is obsolete like 16-bit, 8-bit, etc. Same can be said for 64-bit.
I can't see 64bit being phased out the same way 32bit and 16bit will be. If only because 128bit will be difficult to program for.
32 bit fills my needs completely. 64 bit would be incompatible with much of what I use. With the stripped down lite operating systems I use, the "RAM limitation" is a non issue. As for security, what I have is more than sufficient and 64 bit isn't as bulletproof as they'd have us believe. I don't trust their kernel level protection to be near as good as they claim and its design doesn't allow the type of classic HIPS I prefer. For me, 64 bit is not an upgrade. Changing to keep up with the times only benefits those who sell "with the times" items. After listening to all the noise MS made about how secure Win-7 is only to see it being compromised as much as anything else, I have little inclination to believe their claims regarding 64 bit security.
^^Basically. Only recently have they managed to crop up. Patch Gaurd is an effective security measure. edit: Incompatible with much of what you use? how many 16bit programs are you using?
You don't have to ask this man, whichever is the fastest, the ultimate and the most expensive I'll go for it.
Quite a few. Many of the batch files I use will not function on a 64 bit system. It will not permit what these files do. Regarding 32 bit and RAM, the limitation is artificial and was deliberately added to promote 64 bit. It's limited by the license and can be bypassed. 32 bit server editions don't have this limitation. Microsoft has repeatedly resorted to tactics like these (artificially created hardware limitations and restricting installers to make apps appear to be incompatible with the older systems) in order to promote the newer products. These underhanded games have gone on since the 9X days. Threads like this always end up the same, with 2 opposing opinions. The first repeats all of the hype that MS and their paid spokespeople spread about the newer or "more advanced" systems. The second group sees it as advertizing and exaggeration, along with many of the lousy tactics used to make the newer systems appear to be superior. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one and leave it there.
The physical limit of 32-bit is 4GB. Don't make up nonsense. The reason Windows Server can use more than that is PAE. Your misguided opinion of course. Newer system are more advanced, try disproving that fact. Of course it's advertising, but the reality can't be ignored.
Calling the benefits of 64bit hype... uh huh... yes because Microsoft invented 64bit technology and they're the sole profiteers... I can't even argue with that (because you're just so blatantly wrong.) Even if there WEREN'T a limit on RAM usage by 32bit, which there IS... 64bit is useful for other reasons. The performance benefits of 64bit have a lot more to do with other things than an increase in RAM.
Completely different. The differences between 32bit and 64bit are documented and objective. The differences between pie and cake are subjective. Besides, now noone_inparticular knows the difference between PAE and 64bit RAM allocation.
I give up, as you clearly know more than I do, about pretty much everything. You fellow Wilders members should now ignore me, Hungry Man is taking over now. Sully.
And yet you wanted to stop the discussion -- but you sarcastically (and ironically?) state that I'm taking over... I'm willing to have a discussion, but saying that two documented and objectively different ways of programming are only subjectively different is just flat out wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#32-bit_vs_64-bit I hate to cite wikipedia... but it gets quite technical and there are many performance benefits with only the one inherent issue (slightly larger RAM footprint.)
Oh yeah, I just remembered discussing this, and the wikipedia article, here: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1694002&postcount=18 Careful! My opinion may be somewhat different from yours.
Like I said (responding to that post) I wouldn't suggest 32bit for Windows 7 without at least 2GB of RAM. To take advantage of the double register size you DO have to deal with the slightly larger RAM footprint. Software/ driver availability has already been discussed. It's not an inherent flaw to 64bit systems IMO, but it's definitely something to consider. edit: And don't think that I'm close minded... I'm more than willing to hear the other site to arguments. But it's annoying when someone decides to "close" the argument and then say something as ridiculous as "it's all subjective."
So, we agree, but I would say that people should go for 64-bit if they have 3GB or more of RAM, not 2GB, on 2GB systems the larger RAM footprint could still play a significant role.
I suppose it depends on usage. There's also the fact that you can program a 64bit application but it won't necessarily take advantage (or full advantage) of 64bit optimizations.
