64 bits capable

[Sam]

Hi

I am about to buy a system with Win 7 32bit but I want to make sure that
when I upgrade to 64bit the computer will be just as good as those that come
with the 64bit version of the operating system.

I know that the processor has 64 mode but does that mean that the entire
hardware is geared for 64 to give the real benefit.

Thank you,
Samuel

 

[Chuck]

Hi

I am about to buy a system with Win 7 32bit but I want to make sure that
when I upgrade to 64bit the computer will be just as good as those that come
with the 64bit version of the operating system.

I know that the processor has 64 mode but does that mean that the entire
hardware is geared for 64 to give the real benefit.

Thank you,
Samuel

Unless you have a specific application or peripheral that will not run
in 64 bit, you are better off for the long run getting 64 instead of 32.
That said, Win 7 pro is preferable to the home versions, due to the
ability to run a "virtual machine" and such things as Win XP inside the
virtual machine.

We were able to get things from the dark ages, such as "Qbasic" and QB
applications to run under 64 bit win 7.

 

[Ken Blake]

I am about to buy a system with Win 7 32bit but I want to make sure that
when I upgrade to 64bit

A clarification here: you can *not* upgrade to 64-bit Windows. The
only way to get there is via a clean installation.

the computer will be just as good as those that come
with the 64bit version of the operating system.

Then why not start out with 64-bit Windows 7 now?

I know that the processor has 64 mode but does that mean that the entire
hardware is geared for 64 to give the real benefit.

The *real* benefit has to do with running 64-bit applications, not
with "hardware is geared for 64." Here's my standard message on the
subject:

The advantage of running a 64-bit version of Windows mostly exists
only if you also run 64-bit applications under it. Bear in mind that
there are very few such applications available yet. If you are
presently running 32-bit Windows, you don't have any 64-bit
applications, so to achieve any significant advantage, you not only
have to replace Windows, but also your applications, *if* (and that's
a big "if") 64-bit versions exist.

Also note that you will need 64-bit drivers for all your hardware.
Those drivers may not all be available, especially if some of your
hardware is a few years old. So it's possible that you might also have
to replace things like your printer, scanner, etc.

So the answer to your question is that it may not be a great idea
right now. That will undoubtedly change in the near future, as 64-bit
applications become more available, but for now, 64-bit Windows often
means some extra trouble and expense for little or no benefit.

On the other hand, installing 64-bit Windows instead of 32-bit Windows
makes you able to buy 64-bit software as it becomes available, instead
of the older 32-bit versions. That means that installing 64-bit
Windows--even though it may do very little for you at present--puts
you into a better position for the future.

One additional point: the 64-bit version lets you use more than the
approximately 3.1GB of RAM that the 32-bit version can use. Very few
people need or can make effective use of more than 3.1GB, but if you
are one of those who can, that's something else to consider.

 

[Sam]

Thank you for your detailed reply,

The question is really whether there is such a thing as Hardware compatible
to 64 as opposed to hardware Capable where the 64 is supported consistently
throughout the process of the computation

 

[Al Dykes]

Thank you for your detailed reply,

The question is really whether there is such a thing as Hardware compatible
to 64 as opposed to hardware Capable where the 64 is supported consistently
throughout the process of the computation

if th

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Thank you for your detailed reply,

The question is really whether there is such a thing as Hardware compatible
to 64 as opposed to hardware Capable where the 64 is supported consistently
throughout the process of the computation
No.

 

[Paul]

Thank you for your detailed reply,

The question is really whether there is such a thing as Hardware compatible
to 64 as opposed to hardware Capable where the 64 is supported consistently
throughout the process of the computation

What matters to hardware, is speed. (The "64 bit" part, is
important mainly inside the processor, and is an issue for
OS design and compatibility for executables. 64 bit is what
helps break the "4GB" barrier, for total installed memory.)

And only the parts that affect execution speed, are the
ones that have to be optimal. The "legacy" parts of the
computer, can be just as slow as they used to be.

Take the Real Time Clock on your PC. The interface on that
is as slow as molasses. But they don't actually use that
while the OS is running. The OS maintains a software clock
instead, to keep time. That is stored in RAM, and the CPU updates
the clock using clock tick interrupts. So someone made the decision
years ago, that the RTC was no good for high performance usage.
The design spec for the RTC hasn't changed in 15 years. And
that is fine, because it's not a "performance issue".

The SMBUS, which reads the timing table from the SPD
chip on a memory DIMM, is slow as well. But it doesn't
matter, because it is used very infrequently now.
On new systems, it is used during the BIOS time, but
is less likely to be consulted while the PC is running.

The parts that are important, *have* changed. For example,
a lot of the new processors, have the memory connected
directly to the processor. That is removing one device
from the path.

Old way New way
------- --------

Processor Processor --- Memory
|
Northbridge --- Memory

The path to memory, should be very fast and efficient. It
can't get much better, than a direct connection.

So don't worry, people are looking after this stuff.

The price you pay for this stuff, still makes a difference.
The low end computers, have the most compromises. You can read
hardware reviews, to find out what those compromises would be.
But, unless you're running synthetic benchmarks, if we blindfolded
you and had you test two systems (one with the compromise, the
other without), you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Where the money makes the most difference, is on tasks that
"grind" for hours. If you edit video, shrink DVDs so you can
burn them on single layer media or the like, some of those
things take hours to complete. The "less compromised" system
may cut the time to complete such a task in half. But in terms
of interactive performance (how fast your web page
comes up), it wouldn't make any difference to that.
Even a cheesy system, can have perfectly acceptable
web browsing speed.

In fact, the single biggest change on systems now, is
the added speed that a SATA SSD can give you. If
I wanted to feel that technology was progressing,
I'd put a SATA SSD as my boot drive. Even if you
can't buy a Dell with things set up that way, you
can always add that yourself.

(There are better ones coming out, every day...
It takes a lot of study and research, to buy the
right one. Getting a good one, is not a trivial
exercise.)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148349

Paul

 

[Ken Blake]

Thank you for your detailed reply,

The question is really whether there is such a thing as Hardware compatible
to 64 as opposed to hardware Capable where the 64 is supported consistently
throughout the process of the computation

You're welcome. Glad to help. And no there isn't.