64-bits vs 32-bits

So you have the BIG idea that the Church or community needs to develop. Discuss that idea here. Maybe you just want to make a suggestion on a new forum topic. Let us know.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 31322
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#31

Post by russellhltn »

srweight wrote:Those of us that are not greatly trained on computers (I have only been using them since the mid 70s) might find Linux and OS2 or the Mac OS as more than we are interested in learning on top of just tryiing to do a good job as STS.
I hear you. I'd rather know one OS well then two of them half way. ;) I have messed with Unix just a bit, but so far it's not tempted me to it's ways. There is so much more to OS choice then initial price.
User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

#32

Post by thedqs »

srweight wrote:Now 64 vs 32 is more interesting.

What is your take on 64bit vs. 32bit?
- David
User avatar
srweight
Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:55 am
Location: North Ogden UT USA
Contact:

64bit vs 32bit - ???

#33

Post by srweight »

thedqs wrote:What is your take on 64bit vs. 32bit?

I don't know enough about this to have an opinion - that's why I am interested in this thread. I have 5 computers at home - all 32 bit machines - and a server that I think might be 64bit.

I am looking for more "light and knowledge" about this issue/technology.

Is Bigger Better?:rolleyes:
User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

#34

Post by thedqs »

Depends, from a computer engineer perspective a 64-bit machine means that you can move large data from one point to another faster (a 64-bit long takes one instruction instead of two) and possibly a better instruction set is avaliable. Also you can reference a larger memory space. But becides that I do not know much more about the benifits of 64-bit.

There is the ammount of light I have to share for now.
- David
User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

#35

Post by mkmurray »

You almost can't buy a 32-bit processor anymore; it seems the chip makers are pushing 64-bit. I installed 64-bit Vista on my box I just built and had a ton of issues with programs I wanted to use. I switched back to 32-bit OS. I just don't think enough people are on board yet to make it worthwhile.
User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

#36

Post by thedqs »

Though a 32-bit OS will work on a 64-bit machine so you can wait it out, just like people waited out Vista until you had the software support.
- David
User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

#37

Post by mkmurray »

thedqs wrote:Though a 32-bit OS will work on a 64-bit machine so you can wait it out, just like people waited out Vista until you had the software support.
Yes, I kept my 64-bit processor. Just will run 32-bit OS for a year or two.
User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

#38

Post by thedqs »

Another nice thing about 64-bit is that you can use all those nice new assembly operators that you haven't been able to because you do not know what processor generation the end user is using. (Thus all 32-bit programs were basically using the 386 or 486 opcodes which resulted in a very bloated app).

And yes you could compile it to be processor specific but the default output of most programs was the 386/486 opcode set.
- David
rmrichesjr
Community Moderators
Posts: 2958
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Dundee, Oregon, USA

#39

Post by rmrichesjr »

thedqs wrote:Another nice thing about 64-bit is that you can use all those nice new assembly operators that you haven't been able to because you do not know what processor generation the end user is using. (Thus all 32-bit programs were basically using the 386 or 486 opcodes which resulted in a very bloated app).

And yes you could compile it to be processor specific but the default output of most programs was the 386/486 opcode set.
If I am informed correctly by my friends who still work on CPU design at a very large semiconductor manufacturer, the AMD64 instruction set is a whole new instruction set, leaving behind essentially all of the mess that resulting from modern the X86 32-bit instruction set being stepwise assembly source backward compatible to the 8008 from around 1973-4. I'm told AMD64 is actually a rather clean ISA.

However, 64-bit code and RAM footprint will likely be larger than with 32-bit for a few reasons. First, pointers are wider. Second, the byte-granularity X86-32 instructions are very compact, while more modern instruction encodings are less worried about code density so they sacrifice code density for decoding and execution speed.

By the way, AMD64 (alias X86-64 alias EMT-64...) is not the only 64-bit instruction set architecture. Others include Alpha, Sparc, Power, perhaps MIPS, and perhaps others.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 31322
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#40

Post by russellhltn »

I'm not really up on all the differences. Clearly the ability to address more RAM will help. Otherwise 64 vs 32 would be best summed up as "same but different". Same UI, just needs 64 bit versions of programs and utilities to work best. <shrug>

Right now, I don't think anyone is really hurting under 32 bit so bad they need to go to 64, and with low demand for 64, most vendors don't want to add another version to be tested and supported. I'm guessing it's going to take a killer app to make it happen. Something really cool/good, but it needs 64bit power to run. Perhaps a video editing application?
Locked

Return to “Ideas & Suggestions”