Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Jan 2009 11:30 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems We've been able to drop the world of 32bit for a while now, with 64bit processors and support for them being prevalent in all popular, modern operating systems. However, where Mac OS X and Linux seem to make the move to 64bit rather effortlessly, Windows has more problems. Even though 32bit applications should run fine on 64bit Windows, some don't; and to make matters worse, drivers need to be 64bit, as there's no support for 32bit drivers in 64bit versions of Windows. Still, Gizmodo claims that with Windows 7, the time is right to take the plunge. But really, is it so? And why do Linux and Mac OS X seem to handle the transition so much easier?
Permalink for comment 344864
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by pixel8r on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 04:21 UTC
Member since:

A few years ago I switched from 32bit to 64bit linux and after using it for a year or 2 I found that there was absolutely no performance benefit (for what i use it for - just general stuff) and most of the time i just had problems - things like the flash plugin etc.

There were workarounds but I eventually got sick of having to do more work and just switched back to 32bit. I've been using 32bit ever since without any trouble. My PC runs fast (even though its 3 years old) and dont run into any trouble due to it being 32 bit.

One thing all the 64bit users may not realise is that 64 bits means applications will USE more memory due to the size of all your integers etc and memory addresses so yes you can map more memory with 64bit but you'll also NEED more memory too. And as mentioned in above posts, you then effectively get half(?) your cpu cache size etc.

I still haven't heard of 64bit being that much (if at all) faster than 32bit so I'll be still staying with 32bit for the forseeable future.

Reply Score: 2