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

[AsheGuy]

Actually everyone posting here is talking about the side-effects of a 64-bit processor. The basic difference between a 32-bit and 64-bit processor is that all data is 64-bits. This allows many benefits including larger address space for memory hence larger processor memory space, faster data transfer since it is 8 bytes at a time rather than 4 bytes, higher number precision, etc. Here is a pretty good description of 64-bit computing.

One of the first IBM transistorized computers was the 1401 that had 4K base memory and with an add on box a little bigger than a dorm room refrigerator that allowed expansion all the way up to 16k. We thought it was miraculous. 🙂

And the first IBM mainframe computer with 1MB of memory had a box just for the memory that was about the size of two refrigerators. This generation of computers was used to design the F-111 fighter plane. Oh, and it was hard for us to imagine how you could use 1MB of memory. Sort of like it was hard to imagine how you could use the bandwidth of a fiber optic cable when it first came along. Streaming video, what was that???

[sue_t]

My machine from Nov 2007 is 32 bit. It was a high-end system back then, designed to run AutoCAD, Photoshop, both at the same time even. Last year I reformatted the hard drive with the operating system (prefer my desktops to have two internal hard drives - one for the operating system and one for my files) and loaded Windows 7. Cleaning up the operating system by getting rid of the seven years of Windows updates made a huge difference. It runs just fine and is the computer my average computer-user hubby uses now.

I have a newer 64-bit high end desktop, again because I multi-task with numerous memory-hog programs open at a time. And I don't mind getting on my old computer (his computer) at all - it does everything well, and doesn't feel slow.

And it also is compatible with a piece of hardware I have (an old Hauppauge PVR) that won't work with my 64-bit system. So if I want to record an old VHS tape to digital, I use the 32-bit system with my vintage VHS player and the Hauppauge.

[covetsthesun]

OP here... "listening" to y'all is like watching a high tech tennis match. Left me in the dust a loooonnnngggg time ago. I am not a Geek by any stretch. My machine is a 32 bit... I suppose it's time for it to go bye bye.

Thanks for all the info!
cts

[8_1_Van]

Intel (Core 2 Duo) and AMD CPU's from the last 10 years are 64-bit so it makes no sense to run a 32-bit OS with them in 2015. I also would not waste my time or money upgrading a 2008 PC when you could get a new desktop PC with 20" monitor for $269 with free shipping and free upgrade to Windows 10.

[christopherglen]

In most cases you want 4-8 Gigs of ram, and 2-4 cores in the cpu. The higher clock rate the better. Going beyond 3.4 GB of ram requires a 64 bit os. Once you hit 8 gigs of ram, start spending money on a SSD.
*Most* computers don't *need* more then 3-4 cores, assuming windows and the video chews up 1-2 cores (peak) that leaves 2-3 cores for everything else. Unless you are going nuts with multi threaded software, or only have 2 cores, turn hyper threading off on Intel cpu's.
The machine I am sitting in front of has 64 gigs, and 6 cores. I am currently bouncing between 7% and 13% cpu, and using 6.2 Gigs of the ram. Task manager says 2 cores are 0-1%, 3 of the other 4 are bouncing between 5-10%, the last one is actually doing some work. I also have a 480 gig RVD3X2-FHPX4-480G. This disk is beyond stupid fast. I routinely benchmark 1.2 Gig / second rear and .8 Gig / second write.

[tatest]

If your PC is 2008 vintage, chances are that it is already has a 64-bit processor and could run a 64-bit OS. But if it was a low-end machine, the chipset and motherboard may not allow the installation of enough memory to take advantage of the additional address space, and you may lack some I/O and graphics features expected beyond Windows 7.

By 2008, even the "Pentium" branded dual core CPUs and base level dual core AMD CPUs had 64-bit addressing.

[wildtoad]

Johno02 wrote:
My first IBM mainframe was the biggest in its series at 64K bytes. We even had three ramdom-access disk drives, and two tape drives. And we played music on the printer!

First job I had was at a small insurance company running a 16k s/360/30. All programs were assembly language, 2 disk drives, 4 tape. the disk drives were "reserved" for the systems programmer so all applications were tape. Boy was it fun loading two trays of cards to compile the main auto rating program. Hope you didn't drop them.

We got in a "new to us hand me down" 30 from our home office. Upgraded it to 32k so we could run the Power partition, an online partition, and a batch. We were big time.

I've written some C, Java and it's all just coding. Different problems to solve. The adage of yesteryear still holds true. Software will grow to fit the box its loaded into. You know you're in trouble when the hardware company also sells software.

[Johno02]

My first IBM mainframe was the biggest in its series at 64K bytes. We even had three ramdom-access disk drives, and two tape drives. And we played music on the printer!

[mlts22]

I see entire languages devoted to the "it compiled successfully, ship it" method of software development. This is why we have so many security problems with almost every single piece of software out there, just because there is no thought of doing anything but making a mass of half-baked code before a deadline.

Maybe I'm showing my age, but I remember Word 3.0 running on a Mac Plus, which had a spell checker, and did 95% of the features Word 2013 does... but would entirely fit, with a copy of the OS, and space for Word documents, in less than 800k of disk space. WordPerfect for MS-DOS is another example.

[strollin]

wa8yxm wrote:
... I go back to SMALL machines where we measured the RAM in not Gigs as we do today but in KBytes FOUR OF THEM and still we wrote programs that ran and ran well...

Yeah, I'm from the same place. Unfortunately, those programs ran well but had a only a mere fraction of the capability of modern software.

[pconroy328]

road-runner wrote:
The biggest factor IMO was that it allowed inefficient software developed by programmers of all skill levels to be brought to market faster.

Awww - cmon guys. You're killing me.
I've been programming since the 6502, 6800, 8088. Assembly, Pascal, C and 12 others.

You're correct in that when I want a 36KB program I pull out C. When I want a something sophisticated and fast, I pull out Java. And, yes, it ends up as 3.6MB.

But to do the same thing in C as Java, to accomplish the same tasks - would take me 10x as long.

It's about productivity.

I've got a 25 line Python program that does the same work as a 250 line Java program that does the same work as a 2500 line C program. Is Python the most efficient?
Heck no...

Would I do this in assembly - oh h*ll no!!!

You must be hardware engineers. 🙂

[wa8yxm]

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.

In addition to the best laugh I've had yet today.. That has got to be the best and most accurate description of the difference I have read to date... I go back to SMALL machines where we measured the RAM in not Gigs as we do today but in KBytes FOUR OF THEM and still we wrote programs that ran and ran well... Finally I got my first home unit it had 5 but well. only 3.5 usable. (rest were video ram and operational reserved).

64 bit offers more precision for math operations and generally higher speed. But in prctice,, See what Bob wrote, he nailed it.

[strollin]

pconroy328 wrote:
... 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. ...

Actually, if you really want to get nerdy, 24 wasn't skipped, that denomination just isn't part of the progression. Just as in the Base 10 numbering system, you have 1s, 10s, 100s, 1000s, etc... In the binary world the progression is 1s, 2s, 4s, 8s, 16s, 32s, 64s, etc... In Base 10 each position is 10X of the previous position. In Binary each position is 2X the previous position.

32-bit or 64-bit or whatever is the number of bits in what is referred to as a "word" to the cpu.

[wildtoad]

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.

I've installed W10 over 8.1 on my 6 year old Compaq laptop. I liked 8.1 better than 7, and like 10 better than 8.1. There have been a few hiccups which is to be expected with a new opsys and updates have been coming out fast and furious. Good thing I'm on my home wifi with cable modem.

I don't see anything in W10 that was a "must install to get" driving force other than it's the newest. In my past life I was a mainframe geek, then downsized to PC's 30+ years ago and always moved forward regardless of the landmines.

Perhaps waiting a few months for things to shake out would be prudent.

[wildtoad]

covetsthesun wrote:
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

Others have pointed out the main differences. Just about any new computer you buy either desktop, laptop, tablet will be 64 bit to allow for additional processing memory and other internal improvements. Moving off of a 7 year old computer will also bring improvements in all the hardware based components.

If you can afford this years technology, don't buy last years.