Which version is best

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OMGmissinglink

Then you do not have to upgrade your scanner?



Doubt that I'm waiting on replacing a sata HD that has smart enabled it passes all HD diagonistic tests, cold boot it sits and clunks!

---

Will 64 bit os run 16 bit applications?

As far as I know 64bit os will not address 16 bit that most flash/cm drives use.. there are know 64 bit games that you cannot get in 32 bit, as fare as 64 bit applications the average user will never use period!



Ask Ferret why he uses 4 gb ram with 64 bit OS, is it that you most likely will never have the use for over 4 gb ram.[/quote]

it's only a scanner everything else is good I have had it for 4 years now anything that old needs an upgrade in this day and age.

I don't use any 16 bit applications so it's ok with me.

What I think you don't see is every version of vista is different ie 32/64. Thats why they make them so people can get thier prefered version for what they want to use.

I have a 64bit processor too so it's all the better. 64bit is not all bad why are people making such a deal of it it can do everything 32 bit can do and a whole lot more.

So what do you guys think would you get 32bit over 64bit? and why?

I have cheked all my flash drives and MP3 players and they will work with 64bit so it's not a problem for me.

Incase you didn't know Microsoft says when runnig the upgrade Advirsor that if I install Home premium I will loose some of my system funtionality and it won't use it it to it to it's full potential.

Thats right you heard it from the horse's mouth what else do you need :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OMGmissinglink

I doubt all will go 64 bit anytime soon as too many pc owners rather stay with 32 bit OS's. We have customers still prefer XP pro over Vista.

---

Sorry that doesnt cut any ice XP was the first of the desktop 64 bit systems.
The very same answers were spawned by the people saying there is no need to go to 32 bit.
Where are they today? Running 32 bit i expect
Why do I use 4 gigs of ram?
I think your eyesight is failing OMG. Check my signature. I have 8 gigs of ram.
Why? cause I can and cause its cheap come to mind right off the bat.
Do i use it all?
Frankly I could care less. It's not like if I don't use it the world will come to an end.
I can have 2 large games in my tray and still work without having to close the windows and then restart the game.
Your arguments about customers who want only 32 bit are really just rehashing of old "My customers only want 16 bit and win 95.
If they want to run win95 great I could care less but don't ask me to fix outdsated systems which have relatively no support.
I have been refusing win 98 systems for about 6 months and will continue to.
Repairing those for customers is a looseing battle period, both in terms of hardware and software

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferrit

Sorry that doesnt cut any ice XP was the first of the desktop 64 bit systems.
The very same answers were spawned by the people saying there is no need to go to 32 bit.
Where are they today? Running 32 bit i expect
Why do I use 4 gigs of ram?
I think your eyesight is failing OMG. Check my signature. I have 8 gigs of ram.
Why? cause I can and cause its cheap come to mind right off the bat.
Do i use it all?
Frankly I could care less. It's not like if I don't use it the world will come to an end.
I can have 2 large games in my tray and still work without having to close the windows and then restart the game.
Your arguments about customers who want only 32 bit are really just rehashing of old "My customers only want 16 bit and win 95.
If they want to run win95 great I could care less but don't ask me to fix outdsated systems which have relatively no support.
I have been refusing win 98 systems for about 6 months and will continue to.
Repairing those for customers is a looseing battle period, both in terms of hardware and software

---

I agree 64bit is really the way to go tight now. I have been to a few retailers around my area and they say the same thing and would recommend over 32bit any day.

The only real issue is if you don't have drivers but it's been a while and you can find drivers for all good things from good manufacutures out there.

Also the fact that it does not let you instsall unsigned drivers is a good thing in that manufactures have to produve new drivers that we know wont't cause a problem.

If your system is recent or if you buy any new hardware and someware off the market now all should be 54bit supported so I don't really see a problem.

OMG are you confusing FAT16 with 16bit processing?

uhhh yes they are....

Quote:

---

Windows Vista provides support for Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows Me file systems, including FAT16 and FAT32 file systems. If you upgrade computers that use FAT or FAT32 as their file system, consider converting the partitions to NTFS.

---

from here

The item you quote regards advice to flash memory makers since there are limits on the size FAT, FAT12 and FAT16 file systems can support. For example, under FAT16 the largest volume is 4GB. Given that we are now seeing 32gb drives, it would not make sense to force the user into having to split a 32gb flash drive into 8 partitions of 4GB each.

Vista reads these file systems fine. You may be thinking that the U3 software was not initially supported under Vista - the flash drive itself worked fine if the U3 software was not loaded. Since then Sandisk have updated the U3 software to work with Vista.

Let me get this straight.
Your are saying


I'm not confusing Fat16 with 16bit... I quoted compact flash drives, mp3 players. etc. formats are Fat12 & Fat 16 formats that is supported under a 32 bit Operating System.. they are not supported under a 64bit Operating System.
Thus this is the reason most PC users prefer to stay with a 32 bit OS. "IE XP 32bit, XP pro 32 bit, Vista 32 bit.

I would like to get models and makes that do not work under vista 64.
Because I have all kinds of variations and every single one is detected in vista 64 and i can read and write to in 64 bit so exactly what are these said "COMPACT FLASH" units you speak of that do not work ?
You speak of 64 bit programs .Let me get you a list
http://www.64xsoft.com/
http://www.planetamd64.com/index.php...0&#entry344563
http://www.start64.com/index.php?opt...190&Itemid=116

Significant information and lists about 64 bit computing
I mean consider 64 bit server os's.
Good lord man why would it matter if a desktop version of software isn't supported by a server processor?
Kind of a ridiculous argument dont you think?
I mean there are 64 bit versions of Server 2003 2008 Redhat Suse etc etc etc.
Frankly why would anyone care if Itanium doesn't work with Vista?
All your accomplishing with these arguments is well
frankly nothing.

OMG we get that you don't think x64 is worth it at the moment. That's fine. But please don't change the facts to suit your prejudices.

Technically Itanium is the only true 64bit processor since it contains no code to run 32bit instructions. It is used in servers throughout the world. It runs Windows server 2003/2008 and other 64bit server OS's just fine.

x64 (AMD64 or EMT64) processors are both 64bit and 32bit so that they can run both 32bit and 64bit applications and operating systems. These processors can run both server and desktop OSes written for 32bit or 64bit.

OMG you have to ask yourself, "If I have a x64 processor which runs both 64bit and 32bit applications, why should I buy just the 32bit OS when I can have both capabilities for the same price if I buy the 64bit OS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NooNoo

OMG you have to ask yourself, "If I have a x64 processor which runs both 64bit and 32bit applications, why should I buy just the 32bit OS when I can have both capabilities for the same price if I buy the 64bit OS?

---

That is the first and most obvious question one would ask himeslf

OMG, the point about x64 processors is that they also run 32bit applications and operating systems, making the question you pose irrelevant. It does not matter what applications are 32bit and which ones are 64 bit with x64 processors. What matters is that he can run a 64bit OS on a x64 processor for the same price as a 32bit OS and it will still run 32bit applications.

The only issue is the availability of 64 bit drivers and that is a choice made by the manufacturer whether or not to support 64bit requirements. If they don't and you really need that hardware, then that governs your choice of 32 or 64 bit, not the number of available 64bit applications.

No one is forced to run 64bit OS, however some are forced to run 32bit based on their choice of hardware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OMGmissinglink

NooNoo,

I'm not prejudice against Vista 64, when 7% current Vista ownership most are 32bit, that average pc user has no need to be forced into a 64 bit OS where as they will fork out wasted $$$ on a handfull of 64 bit applications not taking into account the extra $$$ forked out for compatable componets. EOS!

---

When you quote figures, it would really be a good idea to back them up with a reference. 1 in 5 Vista pcs going to microsoft update is a 64bit one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OMGmissinglink

NooNoo,

Your point is irrelevent :eek:

Vakas how many 64 bit programs you own?

---

This point in also irrelevent.

A 64bit Operating system will run both 32 and 64bit applications so it's not a matter of how many prgrams I own I can use both without any problem.

So like NooNoo said why get a 32bit operating system for the same price?

Also a 64bit operating system is future proof as everything is going 64bit most people say 32bit is a step backwards and I agree.

All the points you have made so far are irrelvent it's clear that 64bit is the best way to go so why do you keep going round in circles?

If you believe that Vakas is NooNoo that surely explains why your having such a hard time with 64 bit

If all your hardware and software is compatible, the main reason not to consider using a 64bit OS is if the system has 3GB or less of RAM. A 64bit OS itself occupies more space in memory, so compared to the 32bit OS, will be at a disadvantage without the compensation of the potential advantages experienced when the system has 4GB or more of RAM.

If the system has just 4GB of RAM and is capable of relocating the uppermost 1GB, using a 64bit OS will allow the full 4GB of RAM to be utilised. Whilst it isn't contiguous memory, it at least allows use to be made of the substantial portion of the upper 1GB that would otherwise not be available using a 32bit OS. The advantage would be modest, but is likely to smooth system behaviour by delaying recourse to the page file. And it saves people the irritation of having paid for memory and only getting partial benefit from it.

If the system has more than 4GB of RAM, there's even less likelihood for it to be necessary to use the page file, as the OS has a larger pool of RAM for WOW64 to serve the 32bit subsystem addresses from. Even if a user doesn't tax the memory availability by having several applications running concurrently, the system's responsiveness can be enhanced in comparison with a 32bit OS by SuperFetch being able to background cache frequently used applications in real memory. So when you shut down one app and start another, that one is likely to already be in memory ready to start immediately.

So even if you don't presently run any 64bit software, there are still advantages to be had from the 64bit OS. But I think the biggest advantage will be if you ever do want to use a 64bit application, you can just go ahead and install it. If you stay with the 32bit OS, you've got to re-install Windows if you want to use a 64bit app.

OMG I fixed your quote for you.... I had to, it's priceless! ROFL

OK guys I think Vakas has an answer and Platypus, thanks for the RAM explanation. The only other thing to add is that x64 has a little more security than 32bit as explained here

So I think that wraps up this thread and to save a lot of toing and froing, I will lock it on this occasion. Please PM me if you have anything further (and relevant) to add to this thread.