Best Windows OS.

[LeftEyeNine]

Tito-san, the links you provided agree only on the possibility of utilizing 4+ GB RAM for gaming purposes. The applications still are not optimized and are not looking to be in a middle-term period of time.

So I conclude 64-bit is a bugger, rather than an innovation, for now. Nothing ain't broken and I ain't fixin' it.

[Caius]

Faulty video drivers are now the annoyance of Win7, but UAC is less annoying. UAC is Paradise for those who have a brother who wants to install every program on Internet.

[Beskar]

64-bit Windows also allows applications to run with 3gb of Ram whilst 32-bit is capped at 2gigs. Also, the normal applications are improved in an 64-bit environment by 25% performance increase, apparently. There are a great many of reasons to adopt 64-bit.

So I conclude 64-bit is a bugger, rather than an innovation, for now. Nothing ain't broken and I ain't fixin' it.

Wrong. Those who are not on 64-bit are the s, because they hold back innovation by using internet Explorer 6, etc. Also, let me know how the Horse and cart is getting along in Turkey, as no point getting a car if it isn't 'broken',

[Husar]

64-bit Windows also allows applications to run with 3gb of Ram whilst 32-bit is capped at 2gigs. Also, the normal applications are improved in an 64-bit environment by 25% performance increase, apparently. There are a great many of reasons to adopt 64-bit.

It's actually capped at 4GB in 32-bit but there was some reason I forgot so you can only use about 3.5GB.

Good point about the cars though.
Other than that, 64bit is the way to go.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It's actually capped at 4GB in 32-bit but there was some reason I forgot so you can only use about 3.5GB.

Good point about the cars though.
Other than that, 64bit is the way to go.

No. Individual (as opposed to the entire system with all running processes) 32bit applications are by default capped at 2GB maximum memory. This is enforced in the header of the executable binary; and yes you can fix that yourself by setting the binary flag that tells the OS whether or not the application can (is allowed to) handle more than 2GB. CFF explorer will let you do that from a GUI.

[Beskar]

It's actually capped at 4GB in 32-bit but there was some reason I forgot so you can only use about 3.5GB.

Good point about the cars though.
Other than that, 64bit is the way to go.

No. Individual (as opposed to the entire system with all running processes) 32bit applications are by default capped at 2GB maximum memory. This is enforced in the header of the executable binary; and yes you can fix that yourself by setting the binary flag that tells the OS whether or not the application can (is allowed to) handle more than 2GB. CFF explorer will let you do that from a GUI.

This is what I was referring to.

[Husar]

This is what I was referring to.

Oh, I see, but the system as a whole can use more afaik, never had more than 2GB with a 32bit system myself.

[Xiahou]

This is what I was referring to.

I'm still not sure that's quite right. I think we need to seperate out two seperate issues to try to clarify....

First, no 32-bit software will ever support more than 4GB of address space. With 2^32 bits of address space, it's just not possible.

Now, the 2GB limitation comes in once you're talking about Windows. In 32-bit Windows, the most RAM the system would ever see is 3GB and change. That's because, as 32-bit software, it can never(excepting PAE) address address more than 4GB and part of that must be reserved for hardware addresses. By default, 32-bit Windows would reserve part of that for itself, leaving 2GB for user processes. Therefore, 32-bit programs made for Windows never needed to see more than 2GB of RAM and most are not coded to be aware of larger addresses. The 3GB switch that was mentioned previously would make the OS leave 3GB of space available for user processes, but the result would be that the OS would be left with less RAM- generally not a good idea. And even still, no one application would see more than 2GB.

Now, with 64-bit Windows you have many more times the amount of addressable space (2^64). However, most of us are still running 32-bit applications on our 64-bit Windows and the 2GB limitation still applies. In the rare instance when we're running a 64-bit app, it can have access to huge amounts of RAM, but most apps we're using are still 32-bit. The benefit to running a 32-bit app on 64-bit Windows is that you can have a bigger pool of RAM that can be handed out in 2GB or smaller chunks

Here's a table from MSDN that outlines some of what I'm talking about.

[LeftEyeNine]

Wrong. Those who are not on 64-bit are the s, because they hold back innovation by using internet Explorer 6, etc. Also, let me know how the Horse and cart is getting along in Turkey, as no point getting a car if it isn't 'broken',

Are you distressed about something in your real life ?

[Beskar]

Are you distressed about something in your real life ?

I was just wondering how life was, without technical and engineering progress. No point doing anything different, if it works, right?

Edit: This is commented towards the phrase "Do not fix what is not broken."

[LeftEyeNine]

I take it you haven't had the best time of your life recently. Okay.

[Lemur]

Beskar, it ain't polite to troll a mod in his own sub-forum. He can't respond to you properly (or at least he's not supposed to), 'cause he's supposed to maintain the peace. I'll pitch in:

I was just wondering how life was, without technical and engineering progress. No point doing anything different, if it works, right?

Beskar, you want to know what's sad about people like you, who gladly fork over money for Windows Vista and the Segway Personal Transport? What's really sad is that without early victims adopters like you, our economy would implode.

[Furunculus]

win 7 64 bit.

[al Roumi]

Given the improvements mentioned by several posters in the first page of this thread, i find it both funny and upsetting that the key features in Windows' advertising are the snap feature. If that is simmultaneously the main advancement that win7 offers and the main reason people buy it, isn't this one of the saddest indictments of MS' product, its creativity and us as consumers? Or just their cynical, pisspoor marketing startegy?

It had better be the latter.

That said, I'm a PC and Win7 was my idea. [retch] [/retch]

I am happy with Win7 64 cos it runs much faster and better than XP 32.

/nerd rage.

[Tellos Athenaios]

What snap feature? And how is that unique? Tiling window manager have been there, done that since the dawn of X? And to think I only bought Windows 7 'cause I figured that €45 was sort of not too much money to spend on another 3 to 5 years of maintenance -- I figure they'll close the maintenance window of Vista early (plus it gave me an upgrade to the slightly less handcuffed Professional version instead of Home Premium).

Oh well.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Tito-san, the links you provided agree only on the possibility of utilizing 4+ GB RAM for gaming purposes. The applications still are not optimized and are not looking to be in a middle-term period of time.

So I conclude 64-bit is a bugger, rather than an innovation, for now. Nothing ain't broken and I ain't fixin' it.

If one has no need to "fix it" or upgrade then you are wise to save your money. However, I just purchased a new reasonably cheap *$600* laptop with a 32-bit system to run older programs that are incompatible with my 64-bit desktop. I really had to search for a 32-bit os, most offerings are 64-bit only. Eventually you will submit.