64bit OS

[Azrael Strife]

64bit > 32bit - period - bigger, better, faster, more secure.

 

This is very inaccurate.

It is not intrinsecally faster, unless running a specially compiled for 64 bits, and even so nothing guarantees a speedup. 64 just basically increases your RAM cap, not really much else. Granted more RAM allows you to run more software faster, and software that consumes a lot of RAM faster, but you're not likely to see a really huge speedup in your daily routine. I switched to 64bit Win7 with 4GB RAM (from 2GB) and unless I'm doing heavy multitasking with really heavy software like multiple Visual Studios, it's pretty much the same speed.

[Sgt. Strike]

To me, Vista was a reversion back to ME. 7, well, I don't know yet about, but it does seem kinda like XP. And most places are selling computers loaded, now, with 7, rather than Vista. So, is 64-bit better, faster, more secure? It all depends on factors. Let me take them one by one.

 

Is a 64-bit operating system better than a 32-bit? This is best answered by asking another question, are running a 32-bit cpu or a 64-bit? If you are running a 32-bit one, then the answer is your best bet is a 32-bit operating system. If it's a 64-bit processor, then you need to ask yourself a couple of questions. Do you have an Intel or an AMD processor? Also, you should factor in the age of the processor, the amount of RAM you have, and some other things. Also this may answer if it's faster. Again, speed is all dependent on your processor, RAM, etc. As for security, then have you, yourself made it cecure, rather than just leaving everything open wide? What have you done, put in an anti-virus, or a firewall, or even anti-spyware software? What other steps have you taken for your personal security?

 

Is 7 better than XP? I don't know. It could be, but I will wait and see.

[silencer_pl]

I was using VIsta x64 when it was released - all old programs and even games run faster. With every update it just went better.

 

W7 is not just upgrade. Whole system was written mostly from scratch.

 

"unless you care about compatibility and don't want to purchase new crap for the sake of having new crap".

 

What compatibility - everything works fine and dandy. Remember that all the CPUs you are using are not native 64bit CPU's.

 

A native 64 bit CPU would be Intel Itanium and client type Windows dosen't support this kind of CPU.

The only comatibility issues are with programs/games badly designed (example Silent Storm). But you can handle it with virtual machine -> In case of W7 you can download XP mode. It is just instaling Virtual PC with Windows XP.

[Azrael Strife]

I was using VIsta x64 when it was released - all old programs and even games run faster. With every update it just went better.

 

W7 is not just upgrade. Whole system was written mostly from scratch.

W7 is Vista with bugs ironed out and new features, it's impossible that the whole system is rewritten from scratch.

 

What compatibility - everything works fine and dandy. Remember that all the CPUs you are using are not native 64bit CPU's.

 

A native 64 bit CPU would be Intel Itanium and client type Windows dosen't support this kind of CPU.

The only comatibility issues are with programs/games badly designed (example Silent Storm). But you can handle it with virtual machine -> In case of W7 you can download XP mode. It is just instaling Virtual PC with Windows XP.

This is not true either. Practically all modern CPUs are 64 bits. All. Maaaaaaaaaaaaaybe a very low end CPU could still be 32 bits, but I find that unlikely.

 

I've had compatibility issues with copies of Half Life 2 and Mass Effect 1. Changing to 64 bits can have an impact on compatibility.

[silencer_pl]

Men - read up before you comment on this.

 

64 bit architecture isn't compatibile with 32 bit - current processors are x86-64 which means they are emulating some of the x64 commands.

 

Maybe read up on Intel Itanium technology, learn why AMD64 technology won with Itanium.

 

Wikipeida on x86-64

86-64 is an extension of the x86 instruction set. It supports vastly larger virtual and physical address spaces than are possible on x86, thereby allowing programmers to conveniently work with much larger data sets. x86-64 also provides 64-bit general purpose registers and numerous other enhancements. The original specification was created by AMD, and has been implemented by AMD, Intel, VIA, and others. It is fully backwards compatible with 32-bit code.[1](p13) Because the full 32-bit instruction set remains implemented in hardware without any intervening emulation, existing 32-bit x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties,[2] although existing applications that are recoded to take advantage of new features of the processor design may see significant performance increases.

 

About Windows.

 

Read about project Longhorm - it was first plan for windows Vista but then something change and the project was canceled or postponed. Windows 7 is reincarnation of project Longhorn. So Windows 7 is mostly written from scratch. Of course many features from Vista are included only optimized. Again wikipedia has mostly written it up.

And of course I mean the Kernell - this is the heart of Windows.

[Azrael Strife]

Men - read up before you comment on this.

 

64 bit architecture isn't compatibile with 32 bit - current processors are x86-64 which means they are emulating some of the x64 commands.

 

Maybe read up on Intel Itanium technology, learn why AMD64 technology won with Itanium.

Please do your best to attempt to remain civil in a conversation.

 

All modern CPUs are 64 bit. They are not emulating it, they are.

Itanium is merely a different architecture, nothing else.

 

x86-64 refers to a instruction set, read up your wikipedia article. If it was not compatible with 32 bits, you would not be able to run 32 bit software, which you are (most of the time).

x86-64 is a 64 bit instruction set for 64bit CPUs which is backwards compatible with x86 (32).

 

 

About Windows.

 

Read about project Longhorm - it was first plan for windows Vista but then something change and the project was canceled or postponed. Windows 7 is reincarnation of project Longhorn. So Windows 7 is mostly written from scratch. Of course many features from Vista are included only optimized. Again wikipedia has mostly written it up.

And of course I mean the Kernell - this is the heart of Windows.

You're talking about features. We'll probably never know how many bits of the kernel have or have not been rewritten, but I seriously doubt they ditched Vista's kernel to completely rewrite it.

[Knan]

Eyeyey... move this to the religion forum already.

[Sunflash]

Eyeyey... move this to the religion forum already.

 

 

SECONDED!

 

*runs from brick-brigade*

[Bomb Bloke]

The typical 64-bit processor is a 64-bit processor. The "extension of a 32-bit processor" simply means they're 64-bit processors with full backwards compatibility. That may not be the same thing as the new ones you're talking about, Silencer, but you get the point.

 

Your average programs doesn't get to talk directly to the processor, it has to go through the operating system. That means 32-bit programs have to deal with the 64-bit OS, or more accurately, the 64-bit OS has to accommodate for 32-bit programs (or no one will use it!).

 

Microsoft put some work into this matter, and so 64-bit Windows comes with 32-bit versions of a fair chunk of it's code. However, not everything is covered (the DOS VM for starters - 64-bit Windows comes with no 16-bit support at all!), and stability between code bases still seems to lean in favour of 32-bit at the moment. That will change, and things are a lot better then they were (certainly acceptable for many users), but that's how it is now.

 

Longhorn was the initial codename for Vista, just as Chicago became Windows '95. I'd be interested to know where you picked up the idea that it was cancelled, as you're not the first person I've heard that from.

 

Windows 7 is a heavily modified version of Vista, rushed out the door because Vista was failing badly. Larger businesses, who would normally be bulk-purchasing new licenses, were sticking with their XP rigs and purchasing new XP machines when they needed new computers.

 

I suspect the name "Windows 7" is a joke poking fun at this. Vista is version 6.0, but 7 is internally marked as version 6.1! However, the entire point of 7 was so Microsoft could distance themselves from the image Vista was giving them, so I'd assume that's where the name comes from; to make it seem further "away" then it really was. This is just conjecture on my part; but it's obvious 7 isn't the seventh release of Windows (there's tons of them out there!), so...

 

Rush job though it was, 7 really is a great improvement over Vista. I just don't see it as an overall improvement over XP.

 

Things like "XP mode" are a nice gesture (even if MS isn't offering it to the average OEM user, see my rant earlier in the thread), but they don't beat the performance of an actual physical computer running the older operating system.

[silencer_pl]

Adding turbo-charge to a family car dosen't make it a sports car.

 

About Longhorn - basic article from wiki

Originally, a version of Windows codenamed Blackcomb was planned as the successor to Windows XP (codename Whistler) and Windows Server 2003. Major features were planned for Blackcomb, including an emphasis on searching and querying data and an advanced storage system named WinFS to enable such scenarios. However, an interim, minor release, codenamed "Longhorn," was announced for 2003, delaying the development of Blackcomb.[13] By the middle of 2003, however, Longhorn had acquired some of the features originally intended for Blackcomb. After three major viruses exploited flaws in Windows operating systems within a short time period in 2003, Microsoft changed its development priorities, putting some of Longhorn's major development work on hold while developing new service packs for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. Development of Longhorn (Windows Vista) was also restarted, and thus delayed, in August 2004. A number of features were cut from Longhorn.[14]

 

Other information I found by reading tech sites like x-bit, guru3d or anandtech and my local similar sites.

Maybe saying canceled was a bad word, but surely Windows 7 is what Vista should be in first place.

There were tests that what XP can do, W7 does it better (the only thing that is faster in XP is file copying) but that is marginal.

 

Have you read initial reviews when W7 was in state of beta ? Most review I read was filled with excitement.

[Sgt. Strike]

I could be very wrong on things here, but I could also be right on them, as well. I won't rehash old stuff, but just say this, that Vista, for an operating system, is getting to the point of XP, with it's service packs, etc. And that with some work, 7 is actually even better than Vista, and could be the stepping stone for Micro$oft getting better and better with what they are doing. 7 is the first project that was produced after Bill Gates retired from Micro$oft.

[Azrael Strife]

I still feel 7 is far superior to XP or, at the very least, just as good. I have had no issues whatsoever where I said "God, this did not happen in XP".

There are some stuff that are mildly annoying, like the lack of a "move up one level in the filesystem tree" button in Windows Explorer (that's the thing I actually do miss), but nothing too serious.

[Space Voyager]

Sorry for going on topic but... XP, Vista or Win7, 64 bit version is definitely better than 32 bit, except for (very) old programs, right?

[silencer_pl]

Actually there is a 'button' that says - move to any level from current directory path and it adds simple change directory from any level.

[Bomb Bloke]

Yeah, you can just click on the folder you want to backtrack to in the address bar, it'll jump right there. It won't always show the full address, and things get a bit messy when you try to combine that with the search function, but most of the time it'll work quite well.

 

64-bit compatibility is not only an issue of program age. Work out what programs you need working - old or not - check that they'll function, and if so, you'll probably be quite happy with 64-bit.

 

Worst comes to worst, you can always just install both. It's not like we're short on HDD space these days.

[Sgt. Strike]

From XP 64-bit edition to the 64-bit editions of Vista and 7, there is a bit more support of both the 64-bit processor, and the multi-core processors. And I'm starting to like both Vista and 7 a little more, as time goes by. However, I am not going to switch over my main desktop to anything beyond XP.

[Azrael Strife]

Yeah, you can just click on the folder you want to backtrack to in the address bar, it'll jump right there. It won't always show the full address, and things get a bit messy when you try to combine that with the search function, but most of the time it'll work quite well.

I run into the "not showing full path" more often than the other, I find it annoying

[Pete]

Sorry for going on topic but... XP, Vista or Win7, 64 bit version is definitely better than 32 bit, except for (very) old programs, right?

 

Well with 32 bit if you have 4GB of RAM or more Windows won't use anything over 3.5 if I recall correctly.

 

64bit definitely removed some limitations going forwards, and I can still play the Steam versions of X-COM fine so I'm happy

[Thorondor]

Win 10...

 

 

::

 

p.s.: If you ask me, with the shortened cycle of Window$ releases of late I spy, with my little eye, a subscription-based OS before long.

[silencer_pl]

I think they've also mentioned free update for Windows 8 / 8.1 users and a discount for Windows 7 users.

[Space Voyager]

Win 10...

p.s.: If you ask me, with the shortened cycle of Window$ releases of late I spy, with my little eye, a subscription-based OS before long.

 

DEAR LORD, THE HAIR on that dude...

 

Could be, that subscription thought. Though it would probably cover updates, not usage. I'm not sure even M$ would risk such a move, especially since this would make the usage of last pre-subscription Win last longer than XP. IMO.

[Zombie]

Not sure if they would switch over to a full subscription based model. Microsoft Office suite has 2 options: full payment for the two basic packages and subs for the top two tiers. I suspect the subs are there for businesses and the pay packages are for private individuals, but I'm not a expert on Microsoft marketing.

 

- Zombie

[Thorondor]

It's simply a matter of time, I suspect, Zombie, and time is not in our favour. Adobe has already unashamedly taken the software as a service route and I don't see them turning back.

 

Just take a look at their products page. What's the standard being pushed - pay per month.

 

All that Microsoft has to do is discontinue support to prior versions and sooner or later we'll want to run something or have security features a prior product simply does not have.

 

::

 

We've been farther away from a time when software isn't even locally installed. We'll actually own virtually nothing.

[Zombie]

I guess. It's the nature of cloud computing these days. But there will still be people out there who do not trust anything cloud related. I mean, just look at all those female clebs who had their iPhone selfie pics hacked.

 

My feeling is that software might be heading to a sub based model quickly, but operating systems will probably remain the same for a longer time. If it does switch over, I'll bet there will be droves of people downloading the free OS like Ubuntu or Linux.

 

- Zombie

[silencer_pl]

Whole softwares won't be stored on clouds, there are too many factors that may render access to your app impossible. Host server errors, host network overload, hacker attacks, your ISP network issues.

 

Windows is something different than Word or Adobe software's. They might introduce subscription but standard license will still be there. Most companies stay with 1 system for years, and subscription payment is not worth in long term.

 

And about celebs - well first of all - iPhone, why they even did it in the first place? Apple is known to be least secure. They only have good policy when it comes to adding apps to their store.