Samsung Galaxy Note 7 review: An almost flawless smartphone, almost
Before someone tells me I've posted this in the wrong forum, I tried to post it a dozen time - no exageration! - in 'Consumerwatch' but without any luck.
As the title states 'New PC with Microsoft Windows 7 and the choice of 32 or 64 bit?' at no extra cost.
Which one is better or to put it another way, what's the difference?
My question relates to a theory I have regarding software not running on a later OS. Even if you use the 'Compatibility Mode'. Sometimes, some people have a good result, yet others don't. Even though, to all intents and purposes they are using the same hard and software? I myself, not knowing much about 32 and or 64 bit. Wonders if there could be a connection, such as...
Perhaps it is possible to run software designed to run on WinXP 32bit and also Win7 32bit in compatibility mode. But NOT on be able to run WinXP 32bit on Win7 64bit, even with compatibility mode?.
This makes sense to me, but as I've already said they're just numbers to me?
Here we go
In view of no responses on here yet? I looked elsewhere and found this. I thought I would post it in case there are others that are/were as in the dark on this subject as I WAS!
"32-bit vs 64-bit Computing
To start, let me explain the difference between 32 and 64-bit systems, and the 'why' behind it.
In your computer, you have several 'items' that, normally, you don't concern yourself about. One of those is the 'data buss'. It doesn't go across town or anything like that, but it does provide transportation. Basically, It connects memory to the rest of the system including the processor, which does all the thinking in your computer.
The 'data buss' is used to move the data around inside your computer. In a 32-bit computer, the width (or size) of the data buss is 32-bits wide. A 64-bit buss is twice as wide so the system can move twice as much data around. Being able to process more data means a faster system -- but only for specific things. Normal office productivity and web surfing will show no advantages at all, whereas graphics processing and scientific calculations will go much faster.
Processor manufacturers are working out ways to provide 64-bit processors that are faster and cooler running temperatures so you may hear about multi-core processors and other highly technical terms that are related to 64-bit computing. So, as they say, the band is in the bandwagon, playing a bouncy tune, the parade has started, and 64-bit is being touted as the up and coming technology for computing.
However, it is also said that the thing about bandwagons is that it never takes you where you want to go! For example: Windows for 64-bit is not where it should be.
It has been reported that Vista 64-bit, Microsoft's next Windows release, already has severe problems. It already has had critical updates applied, prior to release. Nothing like getting a head start, is there. Other problems with 64-bit is the general lack of stable software to run on these Ferrari of the computer world. The entire system has to be designed and built for the wider data buss, too, so the system will cost more. On the contrary, most 32-bit software will run on a 64-bit system, but that causes one to wonder why one spent the money in the first place."
As you say, it's a lot clearer now, NOT. Even though my offering is somewhat out of date, I think it's still basically correct and as clear as mud. I think I'll probably end up making a virtual drive with XP and running my 32bit programmes from there.
PS - to the Forum Editor, hi peter I wish PCA would get a 'English British' spellchecker, instead of an 'English American' one.
Re UK Spell checker - is that for the article or for your postings? If for your postings then spell checker is the one in your browser and you need to ensure it is UK.
A pointv to be considered in this discussion/argument is the amount of RAM youb use. As I understand - and will no doubt be corrected - is that 32bit can 'see' only a maximum of ( about ) 3.5MB whereas 64bit can 'see' 4TB. Now I agree most people will not use anything like 4TB BUT some applications really need more than 3.5MB, so 64bit actively helps them. I would also say that since I got Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit with 4MB on this computer I have not really had any problems relating to a 32/64bit conflict. Others yes, but not 32/64bit!
I use the 64bit version and wish I had stuck to the 32bit version.
You have two versions of I/E flash.Java if you download the 64bit beta version.
Some downloads you are not sure if you should be downloading the 64 bit or the 32 bit versions.
Revo uninstaller only removes 32bit programs.
So for me the 32Bit version would be much easier to use,but I am sure others prefer the 64 bit version.
Well, from what I've deduced so far, it would seem that we have a case of swings and roundabouts here. On the one hand it would appear that 64bit is faster than 32bit. Which, so it is said, some programmes will benefit from the speed ie graphics and music. Being as these are my main topics of work, logic would have me getting 64bit. However, hereby lies the rub, I am being deterred by two quandries. Those being...(1) both my main graphics software of choice and my favourite music editing software are 32bit. Neither will run on Win7, without using 'Compatibility mode'. Even then I am uncertain if they will perform as good as they hitherto have. Others have had problems trying to getting them to work in Win7. Wether or not the problem lies with 32 or 64 bit is open to conjecture. But to add another shard of glass to the mix. It is also said that 64bit is or can be unstable.
My laptop runs win7 64bit and I have not yet come across a program that does not work on it. Also if you intend to use more than 3.2gig of ram then it will have to be 64bit.
have used win 7 64 bit in beta on 1 machine now running it on 3 machines since it was released one of them an old p4 2.8ghz and not experienced any problems with stability in win 7 or programs running a lot of which are 32bit imho it is a worthy sucessor to xp
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.