<p>With what do you disagree? That there’s “hype” or that there’s currently a transition involved?</p>
<p>If you already have a computer with a 32-bit OS that you’re happy with, then there’s no need to switch. I switched for fun and because my copy of Vista Business x64 was obtained via MSDN Academic Alliance (ie. it was free). If you’re buying a new computer with a x86-64 processor, why stick with a 32-bit Windows when 64-bit Windows runs 32-bit software seamlessly?</p>
<p>^ I disagree with the idea that this transition has any meaning whatsoever for the overwhelming majority of computer users. There is simply no need for more than 4 gigabytes of RAM at this time, nor do I forsee one in the near future.</p>
<p>No need for more than 4GB of RAM? Virtualization? Gaming? Video encoding? Graphics?</p>
<p>You’re pretty brave to make such a prediction. The “near future” becomes today very quickly, especially in the computer industry. It wasn’t so long ago that 2GB in a desktop was worthy of bragging rights.</p>
<p>The problem is next to nobody is writing 64 bit programs. They’re still writing 32 as everybody can use it. It’s a chicken or the egg thing. Intel makes 64 bit processors, Microsoft writes 64 bit OS. Now it’s up to the programers. I’m not against 64 bit but not all hardware has 64 bit drivers. 64 bit is the future. We’re just waiting on the programs. Some are still dinking around making their stuff usable on Vista. Oh, Windows 7 is coming out on October 22.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know you’re going to pull out that Bill Gates quote about 640k of memory (though he denies saying it), but I’m not sure exactly what most people would do with so much RAM. Virtualization is indeed one use, but this is not a particularly common pursuit save for those of us who like trying many operating systems. Gaming may be another reason, about which I know next to nothing.</p>
<p>My problem is with the overall concept of “progress” in computing. Despite all our “innovations” in hardware and software, most tasks take just as much time now as five or ten years ago. Why? Because we buy into the marketing ploy of bloat and blindly assume that more is better. My browser is using 5 MB of memory, while most “modern” equivelants use 100+ MB. Yet I can still do everything I need or want to, with the exception of Flash-heavy pages. For these I fire up Opera and still never exceed 256 MB of RAM used.</p>
<p>I am not saying that 1 GB is enough RAM forever - nobody can predict that. But until something like ZFS or HAMMER (filesystems) or Xen (virtualization) hits the desktop computing industry at large, there is no productive use for so much RAM.</p>
<p>I agree. 64 bit will not be important for a while. And speaking loosely, visualization, etc. with 64 bits has a bunch of issues that lower speed in ways that are interesting in computer science.</p>
<p>Do you think I should buy the laptop with Windows Vista 32 bit and then upgrade to Windows 7 64 bit when it comes out?</p>
<p>Re #26</p>
<p>What’s the point of minimizing RAM usage to that extent? Unused RAM is wasted RAM, especially if you’re using Vista. Having more RAM allows more more programs to be cached, thereby [reducing</a> the time it takes to start your most commonly used applications](<a href=“http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-vista-superfetch-and-readyboostanalyzed,1532-6.html]reducing”>Conclusion - Windows Vista's SuperFetch and ReadyBoost Analyzed | Tom's Hardware). No marketing ploy, just good technology.</p>
<p>^ If your software takes long enough to start that it needs caching, perhaps that is the problem.</p>
<p>@kachilous: It is totally up to you. Since Vista 64 can run 32-bit apps, you will be fine there. However, I see no disadvantage to 32-bit.</p>
<p>I’ve been using Windows XP x64 since 2004 so I’m an early adopter. Finding drivers back then was a real pain in the neck and forget about any kind of vendor support. I have 32-bit on some computers and 64-bit on other computers and some computers with both.</p>
<p>I’m typing this message on 64-bit Firefox. I also have 64-bit Thunderbird, 64-bit 7-Zip and other assorted 64-bit programs.</p>
<p>There are architectural differences between the 32-bit and 64-bit modes. X86 in 32-bit mode has 8 32-bit general purpose registers available and 8 SIMD (vector) registers which are useful for multimedia operations. 32-bit programs only have access to those resources. Native 64-bit programs have 16 64-bit general purpose registers and 16 SIMD registers. This generally means that 64-bit programs should run faster than 32-bit programs as you don’t need to save temporary values on the stack. X86 32-bit generally suffers from register pressure where you have to move things to and from the stack for temporary storage. Stack movement can be expensive as you’re doing operations to cache and off-chip memory.</p>
<p>My biggest personal headache on 64-bit Windows is that Cisco VPN isn’t supported. This is a big deal for me as that’s how I log into work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, I’m still curious to know as to what the point of minimizing RAM usage to as little as possible is. If it’s just academic and for fun, more power to you, but I hope you’re not advocating that it’s actually a good thing, because it’s not. Unused RAM is just sitting there, not doing anything; therefore, it is wasted.</p>
<p>Second, what’s “long enough”? If think waiting three seconds is too long, then you must be even more of a CLIer than I am.</p>
<p>
Minimizing RAM use is for fun, but aiming for responsiveness and performance without paying a fortune for hardware is simply good sense. I am not advocating leaving the RAM you do have empty if you might be happier with it full, but I am advocating using software that does not require replacing the hardware you have.</p>
<p>As far as what constitutes “long enough”, that will vary depending on personal preference. To me, any delay of any kind is “too long”. A computer can perform incredibly complex calculations very quickly. If it is taking time on something, it’s probably not due to what you actually want done but instead related to some sort of cruft in the way of the data.</p>
<p>In short, both extremes are bad. Choosing software solely based on resource use is foolish, but choosing software with no regard to resource use is equally unwise. Use the best tool that requires the least computing power and you can do almost anything without new hardware. I personally choose to do things at the command line most of the time. However, I use OpenOffice for spreadsheets instead of something like Oleo because it works better for me.</p>
<p>Many operating systems use unused memory for caching the disk.</p>
<p>So, let’s cut to the chase: should a college student starting this fall get a laptop with 32-bit or 64-bit?</p>
<p>Re #32</p>
<p>As I’ve suggested with Vista, used RAM doesn’t necessarily imply lack of responsiveness or a decrease in performance. Rather, it can imply increased responsiveness, the exact opposite. And, 2 or even 4GB of RAM hardly costs a fortune nowadays. I bought a 4GB set of g.Skill DDR2-800 RAM last Christmas for $38.</p>
<p>Re #34</p>
<p>Go with 64-bit. Unless you plan on running software with 16-bit code, you shouldn’t have any compatibility issues.</p>
<p>
Sure. Just don’t replace what you have if you don’t need to.
If there is a price difference, go with the cheaper one. If you use specific apps that have known issues with Vista 64, go with 32-bit. Otherwise, why not choose 64-bit?</p>