32bit vs 64bit machines

[covetsthesun]

Ok...another dumb question before I either upgrade current computer or go new. Decided this should be separate from my other post.

Currently have a 2008 HP Pavillion Desktop running Vista Home Premium. It's a 32bit machine. Replaced the hard drive about 3 years ago. Geeks are telling me to get new... I'm dragging my feet.

What is the real difference between 32bit and 64 bit machines?

thx
cts

[road-runner]

Ed_Gee wrote:
32bit or 64bit, either way the single most effective thing you can do to speed up your computer is switch from a Hard Disk to a Solid State Drive (SSD).

X2 (assuming the memory size isn't ridiculously low), but I'm getting worn out trying to convince others. The typical response I get is that if that were true the manufacturers would ship them that way. I practice what I'm preaching: 4 machines with 5 SSDs total. The old hard discs make great backup devices.

[Ed_Gee]

32bit or 64bit, either way the single most effective thing you can do to speed up your computer is switch from a Hard Disk to a Solid State Drive (SSD).

[The_Texan]

Johno02 wrote:
Now, I am getting all the stuff from MS wanting me to upgrade to W10, and am wondering if there is actual improvement there that I need. Or, if would be a disaster.

Have always been sort of geeky and tried to stay with the latest and greatest. Was a Beta tester for IE-8,9,10&11 and never reverted when it was brought to market. Buuuuttt W-10 is IMO a total nightmare unless you get the professional edition and MS is not giving that one away. I tried it for a couple weeks and returned the new computer to the store, as I was NOT impressed at all. I bought the wife a nice tablet with keyboard and it is using the Android 5.1 OS, which IMO is 100X better than W-10. Will be ordering myself a new Android tablet w/keyboard today and getting away from MS and their disaster.

[road-runner]

Are you sure you have a "32 bit machine"? With Intel processors, the 64-bit address space goes back to 2004. It all depends on which CPU is in your machine. Unless you are running some heavier-duty apps than most of us do, IMO you'll never see much difference between 32 and 64 bit mode other than more of your older applications will run in 32 bit mode.

As to the statement "I worked in the computer industry during the transition from 16-bit to 32-bit. The biggest difference I saw then was it allowed for more lower skilled programmers to develop highly inefficient code that required the larger address space.", that was one of three major factors. Another was the legitimate advantage of a direct address space over 4 gB for things like huge databases. The biggest factor IMO was that it allowed inefficient software developed by programmers of all skill levels to be brought to market faster. I was there also for the 8-to-16 and 32-to-64 bit transitions, and a lot of software was pried from my clutching hands and shipped way before it was ready. Time to market always trumped quality.

[Johno02]

Instead of replacing, I upgraded my quad processor puter to 64 bit Win7 Pro, added mrmory to the max, had already installed a high memory graphics card. Put in a USB3 card at the same time. It really zips along well not, but until SW folks learn to write tighter(like we used to), more efficient code, The hardware will always have problems keeping up. Now, I am getting all the stuff from MS wanting me to upgrade to W10, and am wondering if there is actual improvement there that I need. Or, if would be a disaster.

[pconroy328]

bob_nestor wrote:
I worked in the computer industry during the transition from 16-bit to 32-bit. The biggest difference I saw then was it allowed for more lower skilled programmers to develop highly inefficient code that required the larger address space.

As a lower-skilled programmer myself, I'll assume that's tongue-in-cheek.

Or maybe you agree with Bill in that "no one will ever need more than 640Kb..." 😉

[pconroy328]

covetsthesun wrote:

What is the real difference between 32bit and 64 bit machines?

thx
cts

As stated below, the pragmatic, noticeable difference is the amount of memory that can be *directly* used by the computer. More is better. Also, most chips are 64 bits so again, pragmatically, you don't worry too much about it.

If you're feeling a bit nerdy, the number 64, 32, 16, 8 (we skipped 24 in the Intel world) has to do with the number of bits that the chip can store and process internally. Again, more is better.

The more bits a chip can deal with internally, the less bites it needs to take to get info from it's memory and the bigger the numbers it can handle.

With *gross oversimplification* the largest number an 8 bit CPU could handle internally was 255. A 16 bit chip could go up to 65,535. A 32 bit machine can do a bit above 4 billion, and a 64 bit chip can do, well, a very big number.

[bwanshoom]

covetsthesun wrote:
Does either affect the way graphics display? I've noticed that DH's 2009 64 bit machine does not have near the issues with video (or those annoying fast speed ads trying to get attention) that I do. My computer hangs and freezes while waiting for graphics or ads to come up. If the ad's are active... motion.. scrolling can be choppy and jerky.

Not inherently. It may be that his machine has a discrete graphics adapter (a separate card just for graphics) which produces better performance or it has more memory which would allow an integrated graphics controller (one that's built into the CPU itself) to perform better because it has more memory to work with.

P.S. Sounds like you should looking into ad blocking extensions like AdBlock Plus to cut down on those annoyances.

[Fizz]

It's like drving on the freeway with everybody driving the same speed.
No problem untill traffic builds up then 64 lanes is faster than 32 lanes.
Basicaly same speed but more traffic going through.... Sorta.

[covetsthesun]

Does either affect the way graphics display? I've noticed that DH's 2009 64 bit machine does not have near the issues with video (or those annoying fast speed ads trying to get attention) that I do. My computer hangs and freezes while waiting for graphics or ads to come up. If the ad's are active... motion.. scrolling can be choppy and jerky.

[strollin]

Yes, support for more memory is the most observable difference for most users. IMO, few people need more than 4GB of RAM unless they do lots of multi-tasking but there's no hurt in having the ability to add more RAM, if needed. Pretty much all new desktops & laptops being sold today will be 64-bit. Windows tablets and some netbooks may still be shipping with 32-bit.

One caveat regarding Windows systems. A 32-bit Windows OS can run 16 & 32-bit programs while a 64-bit system can run 32 & 64-bit programs. If you have any old, 16-bit programs and you upgrade to a 64-bit machine, you will no longer be able to run those old programs.

[bob_nestor]

I worked in the computer industry during the transition from 16-bit to 32-bit. The biggest difference I saw then was it allowed for more lower skilled programmers to develop highly inefficient code that required the larger address space. Some of that still holds true for the 32-bit to 64-bit transition, although the more sophisticated Operating Systems and complex, fancy graphical interfaces consume a lot more address space all by themselves. Thankfully the HW engineers have been able to keep pace with the SW engineers and improve computer speeds to make up for less efficient SW.

So one of the main advantages of moving up to 64-bit systems is there will be a larger universe of software available to use, and most 64-bit OSes will support and run software written for 32-bit as well.

[bwanshoom]

The most evident difference is the amount of memory (RAM) the system will support. 32bit are limited to 4GB, 64bit have a considerably higher limit in theory, but in practice 32GB is most common for desktops