Last edited by ghettoperson (2007-05-09 14:54:09)
Last edited by jsnipy (2007-05-09 15:00:14)
So.... it's not worth getting 64 bit? I'm in the same boat as this guy; I plan to purchase Vista soon, and I didn't know what to buy. My comp only has 2 GB (2 x 1 GB), so would I be missing out on anything assuming I wanted to add 2 more 1 GB sticks while running 32 bit in the future?jsnipy wrote:
64 bit would allow you to access greater amount of memory ... but ... all of your 32bit apps (which is probably all of them) are in essence emulated so they will still have the 3.*GB cap.
IMO it's a novelty at this point for most.
Last edited by Havok (2007-05-09 15:06:49)
With 32 bit versions of Windows you can use 3.24GB of RAM.Havok wrote:
So.... it's not worth getting 64 bit? I'm in the same boat as this guy; I plan to purchase Vista soon, and I didn't know what to buy. My comp only has 2 GB (2 x 1 GB), so would I be missing out on anything assuming I wanted to add 2 more 1 GB sticks in the future?jsnipy wrote:
64 bit would allow you to access greater amount of memory ... but ... all of your 32bit apps (which is probably all of them) are in essence emulated so they will still have the 3.*GB cap.
IMO it's a novelty at this point for most.
Ah. I have two more questions. I've heard there are compatibility issues with 32 bit programs on 64 bit (i.e. you cant use them). Is this true? And would you recommend getting 32 bit or 64 bit?jsnipy wrote:
With 32 bit versions of Windows you can use 3.24GB of RAM.Havok wrote:
So.... it's not worth getting 64 bit? I'm in the same boat as this guy; I plan to purchase Vista soon, and I didn't know what to buy. My comp only has 2 GB (2 x 1 GB), so would I be missing out on anything assuming I wanted to add 2 more 1 GB sticks in the future?jsnipy wrote:
64 bit would allow you to access greater amount of memory ... but ... all of your 32bit apps (which is probably all of them) are in essence emulated so they will still have the 3.*GB cap.
IMO it's a novelty at this point for most.
Even if you have have a 64 bit OS and lets say 8 GBs of ram, your 32bit apps will not be able to use more than it would be able to on a 32bit platform.
Last edited by jsnipy (2007-05-09 15:14:21)
Last edited by rushyb (2007-05-09 15:25:08)
The amount ram under 32bit was an assumption (I was just looking at my laptop which has 4 in it, but not all avail).Kmarion wrote:
Um.. aren't both version included? Mine was at least.
Jsnipythe specific amount of ram that shows under a 32 bit environment depends on your hardware configuration. I have seen it show over 3.75 with lesser hardware taking up minimal address space.
Well, I'm just going on what Microsoft say - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/2 … fault.mspx - or is that just for upgrade versions maybe?Kmarion wrote:
Um.. aren't both version included? Mine was at least.
Jsnipythe specific amount of ram that shows under a 32 bit environment depends on your hardware configuration. I have seen it show over 3.75 with lesser hardware taking up minimal address space.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-05-09 15:30:38)
spot onBertster7 wrote:
I'd definately get 64-bit edition, you'll be pissed off in 6 months when loads of games and apps are released that you don't get the best from because you don't have 64-bit.
Crysis will run better on Vista 64-bit. Does that help make your mind up?
lol I don't know about loads ... Crysis is because Farcry did.Bertster7 wrote:
I'd definately get 64-bit edition, you'll be pissed off in 6 months when loads of games and apps are released that you don't get the best from because you don't have 64-bit.
Crysis will run better on Vista 64-bit. Does that help make your mind up?