Which version is best

**NooNoo** · October 5th, 2008, 04:38 AM

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?

**Vakas** · October 5th, 2008, 08:39 AM

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

**NooNoo** · October 5th, 2008, 10:24 AM

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.

**NooNoo** · October 5th, 2008, 10:31 AM

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

**Vakas** · October 5th, 2008, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by OMGmissinglink

NooNoo,

Your point is irrelevent

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?

**Ferrit** · October 5th, 2008, 09:33 PM

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

**Platypus** · October 5th, 2008, 11:35 PM

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.

**NooNoo** · October 6th, 2008, 01:46 AM

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.