Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Dr_LaTino · 31/08/2008 09:07 PM

feinicks Wrote:Since you only want disadvantages, I'll shed light only on that:

* First disadvantage is that even now not many programs come in 64-bit. A good example is that there is no 64-bit media player. So eventhough it you can still use 32-bit players, you are essentially wasting the additional processing power by not using it. PS doesn't have 64-bit version either.

* 64-bit machines draw more power and heat up more due to the same.

* 64 bit drivers are still a big issue.

* Many devices are incompatible with 64-bit OS (apparently even after installing drivers, though this is rare.)

* Some language compilers are reported to have issues in a 64-bit environment.

* Not many games use 64-bit capabilities.

* although most 64-bit OS support 32-bit applications, some 32-bit applications do not support 64-bit OS.

These are some thta I remember from top of the head... google for a far indepth knowledge.

But do not let that put you off. The simple matter is that since 64-bit is becoming more popular, many application exclusively for 64-bit have been written. Most worthwhile 32-bit applications will work on 64 bit. If they do not, it simply means that they have a 64-bit version.

The advantages of 64-bit outweigh its disadvantage. In case of Vista, the biggest and the most prominent advantage is that only the 64-Bit Vista supports more than 4GB RAM.

Ah, thank you. As it is now it looks like the only computer I'm using 64 bit is on my home computer power house. My laptop's battery is as bad enough as it is. Two questions: is the amount of energy drawn very significant, and do the devices include, I don't know, things like iPod synchonization?

squee666 · 31/08/2008 09:17 PM

Dr_LaTino Wrote:
feinicks Wrote:Since you only want disadvantages, I'll shed light only on that:

* First disadvantage is that even now not many programs come in 64-bit. A good example is that there is no 64-bit media player. So eventhough it you can still use 32-bit players, you are essentially wasting the additional processing power by not using it. PS doesn't have 64-bit version either.

* 64-bit machines draw more power and heat up more due to the same.

* 64 bit drivers are still a big issue.

* Many devices are incompatible with 64-bit OS (apparently even after installing drivers, though this is rare.)

* Some language compilers are reported to have issues in a 64-bit environment.

* Not many games use 64-bit capabilities.

* although most 64-bit OS support 32-bit applications, some 32-bit applications do not support 64-bit OS.

These are some thta I remember from top of the head... google for a far indepth knowledge.

But do not let that put you off. The simple matter is that since 64-bit is becoming more popular, many application exclusively for 64-bit have been written. Most worthwhile 32-bit applications will work on 64 bit. If they do not, it simply means that they have a 64-bit version.

The advantages of 64-bit outweigh its disadvantage. In case of Vista, the biggest and the most prominent advantage is that only the 64-Bit Vista supports more than 4GB RAM.
Ah, thank you. As it is now it looks like the only computer I'm using 64 bit is on my home computer power house. My laptop's battery is as bad enough as it is. Two questions: is the amount of energy drawn very significant, and do the devices include, I don't know, things like iPod synchonization?

nah the enrgy drawn isn't significant since it just the core using full power which isn't much more

also feinicks os wrong about some things aka the drivers

and the is a 64bit media player its just the shortcut in the start menu links to the 32bit version

and very few devices are incompatible with 64bit

don't worry ipod synchronization works with 64bit or apple would have had many complaints

Dr_LaTino · 31/08/2008 09:34 PM

Do you run 64 bit squee? Just wondering, seeing as how you're highly patriotic torwards it. ^^

feinicks · 31/08/2008 09:41 PM

Dr_LaTino Wrote:Ah, thank you. As it is now it looks like the only computer I'm using 64 bit is on my home computer power house. My laptop's battery is as bad enough as it is. Two questions: is the amount of energy drawn very significant[quote]

Nope. Extra power is needed for better RAM utilization and processing. Its not too significant. But only real life test will confirm that.

[quote=Dr_LaTino]
and do the devices include, I don't know, things like iPod synchonization?

Most new devices support 64-bit. iPod of all things should have little issues, as long as you have 64-bit iTunes installed. (which isn't a problem as you can't install 32-bit version in 64-bit environment. )

squee666 Wrote:also feinicks os wrong about some things aka the drivers

is that so.. funny...

squee666 Wrote:and the is a 64bit media player its just the shortcut in the start menu links to the 32bit version

am glad that at least someone likes the Windows Media Player. Good one!

squee666 Wrote:and very few devices are incompatible with 64bit

don't worry ipod synchronization works with 64bit or apple would have had many complaints

yup! most modern devices give no issues.

@Dr_Latino

install 64 bit without any worries! You'll like the increased responsiveness and speed of the 64-bit!

squee666 · 31/08/2008 09:55 PM

yeh some 32bit drivers work some don't you have to have force unsigned drivers set

Kuu · 31/08/2008 10:30 PM

I'm ignoring every single post and even the OP post in this post, keep that in mind.

64 > 32

It's faster and more reliable in my experience. I have my Quad-core PC running on 64-bit, and my dual-core running on 32-bit.
On my 32-bit I'm experienced lock-ups, slow load times, and even a BSOD once.

If you want 64-bit, go Vista. 64 XP is not worth it and full of problems.

Vista 64 runs 32-bit programs. I've never come across a, incompatible program yet (I believe some older DOS programs won't work, not that you'll ever use them..)

Drivers for 64-bit have become MUCH more popular. Every major company has a 64-bit driver, like Nvidia, ATI, HP, LG, ASUS, EVGA, ete, etc. Vista 64 can use some 32-bit drivers as well.

Speed is a MASSIVE increase.

Simply put, I use my computer at least 6 hours a say. I would never go back to 32-bit.

ZiNgA BuRgA · 31/08/2008 10:51 PM

feinicks Wrote:* First disadvantage is that even now not many programs come in 64-bit. A good example is that there is no 64-bit media player. So eventhough it you can still use 32-bit players, you are essentially wasting the additional processing power by not using it. PS doesn't have 64-bit version either.

I wouldn't claim that as a disadvantage...

feinicks Wrote:* 64-bit machines draw more power and heat up more due to the same.

Not really. All CPUs these days are 64 bit. Disabling 64 bit extensions doesn't magically lower electricity usage...

feinicks Wrote:* 64 bit drivers are still a big issue.

Not really - CPU drivers exist (obviously). All mobo manufactures include necessary 64 bit drivers for components on them, to my knowledge at least (my 2.5 year old MSI K8N Diamond mobo did, so I expect all current gen mobos to do the same). nVidia has 64 bit drivers, and I'd expect ATI to as well. If I recall correctly, Creative have 64 bit drivers too. So really, most of your bases should be covered. There may be some older peripherals where drivers don't exist, so I'd suggest checking those though.

feinicks Wrote:* Some language compilers are reported to have issues in a 64-bit environment.

Not a 32 bit compiler...

feinicks Wrote:* Not many games use 64-bit capabilities.

Not a disadvantage.

feinicks Wrote:* although most 64-bit OS support 32-bit applications, some 32-bit applications do not support 64-bit OS.

Primarily system level applications.

feinicks Wrote:Nope. Extra power is needed for better RAM utilization and processing. Its not too significant. But only real life test will confirm that.

I can't see sending a few extra bits over a bus to be a significant difference. The main power drain is from CPU cycles, not sending messages over a bus...

On the other side, you're unlikely to get a significant speed boost. Applications must be compiled into 64 bit for you to get any advantage. Also, 64 bit doesn't double clockspeed, it just adds a few improvements over the existing x86 architecture (more GP registers and built in SIMD extensions etc (for the latter, basically all modern CPUs have these extensions anyway, it just allows compilers to use them directly)).
64 bit also does consume more memory (pointers are now 8 bytes in length as opposed to 4 bytes)

Windows XP x64 works very well actually - IMO much better than Vista x64, however, you may not be able to use it unless you have the drivers...

feinicks · 31/08/2008 11:19 PM

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:
feinicks Wrote:* First disadvantage is that even now not many programs come in 64-bit. A good example is that there is no 64-bit media player. So eventhough it you can still use 32-bit players, you are essentially wasting the additional processing power by not using it. PS doesn't have 64-bit version either.
I wouldn't claim that as a disadvantage...

Today, 64 bit has no serious disadvantage, due to its popularity and support. But if you have to list, this would count as a waste of resource. Hence a downside.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:
feinicks Wrote:* 64-bit machines draw more power and heat up more due to the same.
Not really. All CPUs these days are 64 bit. Disabling 64 bit extensions doesn't magically lower electricity usage...

I did not say 64-bit OS. 64-bit machine, tend to draw more power and heat up more. But that is still very little to seriously cause an issue.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:
feinicks Wrote:* 64 bit drivers are still a big issue.
Not really - CPU drivers exist (obviously). All mobo manufactures include necessary 64 bit drivers for components on them, to my knowledge at least (my 2.5 year old MSI K8N Diamond mobo did, so I expect all current gen mobos to do the same). nVidia has 64 bit drivers, and I'd expect ATI to as well. If I recall correctly, Creative have 64 bit drivers too. So really, most of your bases should be covered. There may be some older peripherals where drivers don't exist, so I'd suggest checking those though.

That is my point. Older devices. Modern day devices have little, if any, problems with 64-bit. The most primary issue is that not many vendors include 64-bit OS with laptops/pre-built machines.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:
feinicks Wrote:* Some language compilers are reported to have issues in a 64-bit environment.
Not a 32 bit compiler...

Wee are strictly talking 64-bit. Not compatibility.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:
feinicks Wrote:* Not many games use 64-bit capabilities.
Not a disadvantage.[\quote]
To some it is. 64-bit gaming is faster, more detailed and more enjoyable. and then again. A game is a major resource hog. Its surely a waste of processing power if it doesn't use it all!

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:[quote=feinicks]* although most 64-bit OS support 32-bit applications, some 32-bit applications do not support 64-bit OS.
Primarily system level applications.

Even so..

feinicks Wrote:Nope. Extra power is needed for better RAM utilization and processing. Its not too significant. But only real life test will confirm that.

I can't see sending a few extra bits over a bus to be a significant difference. The main power drain is from CPU cycles, not sending messages over a bus...

Given, but still it does include it all. I am referring to the entire Processing process. from calculations in the processor to transfer of data to RAM, Northbridge etc. 64-bit processors will increase CPU cycles as you said, and that in turn will increase the overall power consumption. However, this is increase is good only for statistics. Not real life scenario, where its hardly noticeable.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:On the other side, you're unlikely to get a significant speed boost. Applications must be compiled into 64 bit for you to get any advantage. Also, 64 bit doesn't double clockspeed, it just adds a few improvements over the existing x86 architecture (more GP registers and built in SIMD extensions etc (for the latter, basically all modern CPUs have these extensions anyway, it just allows compilers to use them directly)).
64 bit also does consume more memory (pointers are now 8 bytes in length as opposed to 4 bytes)
[quote]

which is the reason for one of my earlier disadvantages. Consider this, there is no decent music player (WMP and iTunes are exceptions) with 64-bit capability and a media player is one of the most utilized software. same goes for Browsers. No one in right senses would use IE and Firefox 64-bit is unstable.

[quote=ZiNgA BuRgA]
Windows XP x64 works very well actually - IMO much better than Vista x64, however, you may not be able to use it unless you have the drivers...

I had no major issues, as in modern day, 64-bit drivers are really not as much an issue as they were a couple of years ago...

ZiNgA BuRgA · 31/08/2008 11:42 PM

I should probably remind you that wee're talking about 64 vs 32 bit OSes, not about apps ;)
But anyway...

feinicks Wrote:Today, 64 bit has no serious disadvantage, due to its popularity and support. But if you have to list, this would count as a waste of resource. Hence a downside.

Not really. If you use a 32 bit OS with a 32 bit media player on a 64 bit CPU, vs a 64 bit OS with a 32 bit media player on a 64 bit CPU, which wastes resources more?

feinicks Wrote:I did not say 64-bit OS. 64-bit machine, tend to draw more power and heat up more. But that is still very little to seriously cause an issue.

Kinda beside the point then, since the OP's CPU is 64 bit (plus all CPUs on todays market are 64 bit)...

feinicks Wrote:
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:
feinicks Wrote:* Some language compilers are reported to have issues in a 64-bit environment.
Not a 32 bit compiler...

Wee are strictly talking 64-bit. Not compatibility.

It's really an issue with the compiler then, not the OS.

feinicks Wrote:which is the reason for one of my earlier disadvantages. Consider this, there is no decent music player (WMP and iTunes are exceptions) with 64-bit capability and a media player is one of the most utilized software. same goes for Browsers. No one in right senses would use IE and Firefox 64-bit is unstable.

I use Firefox x64 (Minefield) - perfectly stable. Main disadvantage is no flash support, but I disable flash anyway, so not really an issue... (and you can blame Adobe for that)
I've never really looked at what 64 bit players exist for Windows. Codecs are somewhat limited (though If I recall correctly ffdshow exists). Still don't think there's a 64 bit Avisynth.

S7* · 01/09/2008 12:06 AM

:<

I do not belong here xD

The only thing I do know, is that the Drivers have to be those ones that Microsoft certify... I believe theres a workaround, but that's the only limitation I know of.

One could easily utilize Virtual PC to run older OSes for older apps as well I suppose [correct me if I'm mistaken]

There is indeed a Beta for ffdshow x64... but that is indeed all I know of. I'd imagine AviSynth will be built for 64-bit platforms when it hits v3.0

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Disadvanteges of a 64 bit?
Author	Message