Author Topic: 64 Bit OS - When to Switch ? (Read 38,660 times)

f0dder · « **Reply #25 on:** July 18, 2011, 11:42 PM »

Quote from: vlastimil on July 08, 2011, 09:06 AM

Here is the catch: the amount of memory available for the stack is the same in 32-bit and 64-bit Windows, but the stack entries are twice as long on 64-bit Windows. Hence the usable window hierarchy depth is halved. And if you think that you can avoid the problem by using 32-bit edition of the affected application on 64-bit Windows, that is not the case. The problem is in the 64-bit kernel. The worst thing is that Microsoft refuses to consider this a bug and fix it (unless they changed their mind since the last time I checked).

I've run into that issue with some of my C# code, and speaking from experience, I can say the following:

that will only ever be an issue with very badly designed code. If you run into this issue, you're doing things wrong - massively wrong.

As for compatibility, I jumped onto the x64 bandwagon relatively early with XP64. At my first attempt, drivers were a problem (blame Creative) and I had to go back to XP32... at my second attempt, I never looked back. Yeah, you can no longer run 16bit apps (neither DOS nor Windows) without an emulator, and some older 32bit apps come with 16bit installers... but generally I've had very little trouble. x64 is slightly faster sometimes (and for some tasks, a lot), it's somewhat more secure, and it lets me use all my memory. It's good.

TheManRetired · « **Reply #26 on:** July 18, 2011, 11:48 PM »

No reason not to run x64 if you have the hardware or getting a new system as it is a lot better of a system and works a lot faster.

superboyac · « **Reply #27 on:** July 19, 2011, 02:16 AM »

I asked this same question here. This is what I ended up doing and I'm happy with how everything went, more or less.

When I was building my new computer a couple of years ago, I wondered whether to install Windows XP 64-bit. The majority here said it wouldn't be that noticeable, and some issues may arise. Basically, they said if you don't have or need more than 4 GB of RAM, it's probably not worth it. So I didn't do it (I had exactly 4GB).

Then, a few months ago, I was ready to install Windows 7. So many more people use 64-bit for Win7 as compared to WinXP, that it seemed like a pretty safe thing to do. So I did, and I'm happy. The most difficult issue I ran into was trying to get the Windows7 install dvd to boot and install properly because of some AHCI issues I had (which is in a thread here, and I remember somebody giving me fantastic instructions to resolve it). So that's my story.

vlastimil · « **Reply #28 on:** July 19, 2011, 09:25 AM »

Quote from: f0dder on July 18, 2011, 11:42 PM

I've run into that issue with some of my C# code, and speaking from experience, I can say the following:

that will only ever be an issue with very badly designed code. If you run into this issue, you're doing things wrong - massively wrong.

Our opinions differ in this point. I say quite the opposite. If you design your code in a good way and isolate things from each other, this limitation will bite you in the ass. Is it a bad design to use tabs, splitters or collapsible panels? http://www.rw-designer.com/screenshots/edit-animated-cursor-big.png Maybe I went a bit over the board with the complexity, but not in an unreasonable way.

I prefer isolated components, little black-boxes I can juggle around as I want. They need a bit more window nesting depth than the 64-bit edition gives...

telephonics · « **Reply #29 on:** July 19, 2011, 01:12 PM »

I have a problem involving the 64 bit OS. I have same and it works finer. However I have one program -RoboForm- that I rely on to store web site IDs and passwords that will not run on 64bt browser-requires a 32 bit browser. When I try to download and install the 32 bit I get message saying later version already installed and will not allow me to proceed. Is there a way I can install IE(32 bit and IE9 64 bit??

f0dder · « **Reply #30 on:** July 19, 2011, 04:26 PM »

Quote from: vlastimil on July 19, 2011, 09:25 AM

I prefer isolated components, little black-boxes I can juggle around as I want. They need a bit more window nesting depth than the 64-bit edition gives...

The times I've bumped into the issue it has either been because of using way too many controls to simulate something that should have been done as a single custom control - or because of too-recursive message sending (which there's usually sensible ways around).

Might have worked under 32bit versions, but redesigning means the stuff runs on x64 as well as being less sluggish on x86.

telephonics · « **Reply #31 on:** July 19, 2011, 07:56 PM »

The developer of the siftware program, RoboForm advuises that this program will omnly run under the 32 bit bversion of IE9. So I still need to be able to download and install IE( (32bit)

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #32 on:** July 19, 2011, 08:05 PM »

As far as I can tell Windows 7 64-bit has both IE versions (32 and 64 bit) installed.

Can't really see the point of the 64 bit version.

Actually can't really see the point of IE - why don't you just use a decent browser? (I also avoid RoboForm these days after the crap they pulled on lifetime upgrades).

Eóin · « **Reply #33 on:** July 19, 2011, 09:48 PM »

Yep 64bit Windows ships (and when updating it installs) both 32bit and 64bit versions of IE. In fact the 64 bit version has "(64 bit)" after the name in the start menu, while the 32bit one is just called plain Internet Explorer. In some ways that almost implies MS expects you to default to using the 32bit one.

Ath · « **Reply #34 on:** July 19, 2011, 09:57 PM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on July 19, 2011, 08:05 PM

can't really see the point of IE

Despite several attempts for plug-ins in FF, the only way to get ActiveX controls working completely/correctly is running them in IE (usually 32 bit only), and some sites (an internal app specifically) require those controls

And for Outlook WebAccess on Exchange 2007, IE is the only browser that is fully supported, but that should be fixed once we switch to Exchange 2010 with official FF (and probably Chrome, not sure) support

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #35 on:** July 19, 2011, 10:55 PM »

Just run FF with IE TAB addon - you can configure it to use IE to do the rendering on specific websites and ActiveX then works fine without having to swap browsers all the time.

Ath · « **Reply #36 on:** July 19, 2011, 11:15 PM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on July 19, 2011, 10:55 PM

Just run FF with IE TAB addon

I've been using/trying that up until FF 3.6, but it just bogged down/crashed the entire FF instance if I also have several 'normal' tabs open. Didn't yet try it with FF 5 (FF 4 I only used very briefly), but I should prolly give it a go, now that I've got a new PC at work

...
I first had to uninstall an older version of IETab Plus to get the new one installed, but it seems to work at first glance. I'll have a better look/try the rest of this week, thanks Carol

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #37 on:** July 20, 2011, 08:32 AM »

I have been using IE TAB since Firefox 2 (I think) and have never experienced that issue.

There are a number of flavours of IE TAB on the addons pages, the one I use is: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ie-tab-2-ff-36/

I have this set to automatically display any microsoft related websites in IE and have had no issues in FF3, 4 or 5.

Ath · « **Reply #38 on:** July 20, 2011, 10:03 AM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on July 20, 2011, 08:32 AM

I have this set to automatically display any microsoft related websites in IE and have had no issues in FF3, 4 or 5.

Most likely it's related to our webapplication, as it also slows down IE quite a bit after a few hours of inactivity (It's for workhours registration, and I keep the page open during the day). Paging back/forward a week within the app solves it. I'll discuss this with the developer (a colleague) to see if it's something he can solve.

I'm now re-installing it on my system, will report back with results later this week.

justice · « **Reply #39 on:** July 28, 2011, 11:11 AM »

Quote from: Alexcosta on July 28, 2011, 10:59 AM

What is the best bit os 64bit or 32bit for 2gb of ram?

as is? 32bit as long as you are not going to upgrade it over 4GB though...

f0dder · « **Reply #40 on:** July 31, 2011, 02:45 PM »

Quote from: justice on July 28, 2011, 11:11 AM

Quote from: Alexcosta on July 28, 2011, 10:59 AM
What is the best bit os 64bit or 32bit for 2gb of ram?
as is? 32bit as long as you are not going to upgrade it over 4GB though...

Why? I ran 64-bit Windows with 2gb of ram and enjoyed it

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #41 on:** July 31, 2011, 02:53 PM »

I am not sure but I think as 32 bit Windows uses a 32-bit word size it is more efficient in smaller memory situations. There isn't a lot to be gained by using 64-bit Windows below 2-3Gb of memory and some reports are that it is faster.

Having said that if you plan to add memory lose the headache and go for 64 bit from the outset as it will save having to do a clean install!

f0dder · « **Reply #42 on:** July 31, 2011, 03:45 PM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on July 31, 2011, 02:53 PM

I am not sure but I think as 32 bit Windows uses a 32-bit word size it is more efficient in smaller memory situations. There isn't a lot to be gained by using 64-bit Windows below 2-3Gb of memory and some reports are that it is faster.

Yep, the word (and pointer) size is 64bit instead of 32bit, but that doesn't mean everything ends up taking 2x the space... you do pay a bit of overhead, though. OTOH, you get some kernel-mode safety improvements that helps against malware, and some software can gain a fair speed boost in 64bit versions.

40hz · « **Reply #43 on:** July 31, 2011, 05:28 PM »

Quote from: f0dder on July 31, 2011, 02:45 PM

Quote from: justice on July 28, 2011, 11:11 AM
Quote from: Alexcosta on July 28, 2011, 10:59 AM
What is the best bit os 64bit or 32bit for 2gb of ram?
as is? 32bit as long as you are not going to upgrade it over 4GB though...
Why? I ran 64-bit Windows with 2gb of ram and enjoyed it

+1

I'm posting right now via a 64-bit Linux Mint distro running on a laptop with only 1Gb of RAM. It's very responsive and light on it's feet. Only hesitates once in a great while when I have too many web connected apps (ex: wget download + irc chat + two Web2.0 business apps + FF5) all running simultaneously.

Same goes for Win7 which I have running on an old Athlon box with 1.5Gb. It runs just fine for me. Works better than running the 32-bit version of Win7 on this same machine.

Systems come and systems go. But now is the time to go for 64-bit of at all possible.

edrez · « **Reply #44 on:** August 01, 2011, 01:01 AM »

I would have to say that if you have hardware that can keep up with a 64 bit OS, then you should take the jump immediately. There is no reason to stay with 32 if you could get better allocation with 64, that is of course talking about a lot of memory in need for a better allocation scheme. It would not matter that much if you only have 2gb of memory. Though an earlier statement, would be misleading if taken differently, as a 64 bit can also work with 32bit drivers as they are in compatibility mode.

f0dder · « **Reply #45 on:** August 01, 2011, 02:57 PM »

Quote from: edrez on August 01, 2011, 01:01 AM

Though an earlier statement, would be misleading if taken differently, as a 64 bit can also work with 32bit drivers as they are in compatibility mode.

A 64-bit OS requires 64-bit drivers - no way around that for the mainstream operating systems. Something to keep in mind if you have old or esoteric hardware.

mitzevo · « **Reply #46 on:** August 02, 2011, 11:22 AM »

I'd hit it.

I am now.

edit: Switch to 64bit already. Stop living in the past! lol. Use 64bit if you want more than 3-4gb of memory. I've got a laptop with 4gb of ram, about to add another 2gb for now so that's around 5-6gb of RAM!! Superman stuff. Now I can multitask with huge mofo apps like I have never before because of 64bit.