32-Bit Vs. 64-Bit Windows
- 11
- Add a Comment
What’s the difference between 32-bit Windows and 64-bit Windows? – Spencer
This question is one that is deeply rooted in technology and one that could easily take more space than is available in this column, but here is my digest version.
In the computer world, bottlenecks are what cause those performance delays that we all detest and anything that can reduce the bottlenecks can improve performance.
In simple terms, the data path on a 32-bit operating system is half the size of 64-bit operating systems. That means that your computer can be slogging twice as much data around at any given time with a 64-bit OS.
Think 32-lane highway vs 64-lane highway: twice as much traffic can use the highway at any given time.
In the computer world, however, in order to take full advantage of the 64 lanes you need specially designated cars that are capable of using the extra lanes. Think of the extra lanes as only available for car pool vehicles that run on alternative fuels that are the color green.
In order for a 64-bit version of Windows to be of value to you, you will also need a 64-bit processor and 64-bit versions of the software that you plan to run. Without all three, you would be wasting your time.
Additionally, the 64-bit version of Windows can run faster because it can address more physical memory (generally referred to as RAM - Random Access Memory) and avoid using the much slower hard drive for active memory needs.
The 32-bit limitation for RAM access is @ 4 GB which means as soon as Windows needs more working memory it has to swap out information in temporary free space created on the hard drive (referred to as the swap file) and this is only if you have that much RAM installed.
Since most of us have much less than 4 GB of RAM, we are using the hard drive much more often for working memory, which is why we often find ourselves waiting for the computer to respond to our requests (meanwhile the hard drive light is flashing almost solid).
To really make things zing on a 64-bit system, you would want to install huge amounts of RAM (8GB or more) and again, only if your software programs can address this additional memory.
While all of this sounds like exactly what we have all been waiting for (both Linux and the MacOS have been 64-bit for many years), the reality in today’s computing environment is that you will be more likely to suffer from the compatibility issues that have always plagued the 64-bit Windows world than benefit from the advancements that it provides.
Unless you are building a computer that is specifically designed to run a special application such as 3D modeling, video gaming or work with massive amounts of data AND you have the discipline to only install applications that have been written as 64-bit programs or you do the research to ensure that whatever you install including your printer, scanner or digital camera software will not cause a problem on 64-bit Windows versions, your likely better off sticking to the 32-bit version that provides less headaches.
The best way that I can explain how to navigate this question is, if you have to rely on this column to make your decision about which way to go, stick to the 32-bit version.
Those technically savvy enough to make 64-bit Windows function well have little use for my advice column!
Ken Colburn
President of Data Doctors Computer Services, Host of the award-winning Computer Corner radio show, and Author of Computer Q&A in the East Valley Tribune newspapers.
11 Comments
Lee
January 7th, 2009
at 1:14pm
Or, you could just use 64-bit Ubuntu Linux, which comes with all the 64-bit software and drivers you need — thousands of packages, in fact.
Harry
January 8th, 2009
at 2:14am
Windows 32-bits can actually use more than 4 GB of memory, thru Physical Address Extension (PAE). The real limit is 2 GB per application, and this can also be enlarged to 3GB.
See the following articles:
Physical Address Extension (PAE) overview:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc775523.aspx
Boot Parameters to Configure DEP and PAE:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa468629.aspx
I haven’t tried it though - 4 GB are enough for me.
Shawn
January 9th, 2009
at 10:29pm
I have been using Vista x64 at home since June of 2007. It was painful initially, but has gotten easy in the last year since most programs support x64 now. I have recently upgrade my work computer and laptop x64 from 32 also.
The disclaimer at the end of the article is priceless!
Sunfell
January 25th, 2009
at 6:05pm
The question of whether or not I should get a 32-or 64-bit system is moot, since I found a nice quad-core system running 64-bit Vista at a price I could not resist.
I have a whole stack of older software that l hoped would run, but a visit to the Compatibility Center quickly killed that idea. Happily, most of my newer stuff will run on the machine, plus I now have a system powerful enough to play real games on.
Vista runs beautifully on this computer, and I am happy with its performance so far. It runs my printers, too- even my old Samsung laser printer. But I won’t buy another scrap of hard- or software without consulting the Compatibility site.
Windows XP allowed to live again - Page 3 - AllDeaf.com
January 28th, 2009
at 9:17am
[...] show me the documents. 32 bit OS couldn’t utilize more than 4 GB RAM due 32 bit limitation. 32-Bit Vs. 64-Bit Windows ~ Windows Fanatics If Vista does listed on spec and they supposed to misled like WEI (Windows Experience Index) does [...]
J X
January 31st, 2009
at 7:47am
Ah, I think this response to this age-old question is out of date.
Vista, unlike what ridiculous ads by the competition would have you believe is as compatible as any new operating system has ever been (with software designed for previous versions). That being said, Vista is not 110% compatible with every piece of software ever released. Part of this is due to money-making-schemes by Adobe (Adobe CS2 doesn’t run well on Vista quite deliberately… they want to sell you CS3 and CS4).
In any case, switching to a new OS has always had its hurdles, the hurdles used to be gargantuan (Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X was a sloppy mess for example) or from (PowerPC Mac to Intel Mac) even going from Windows 98 to Windows XP was a bigger problem. Vista by contrast, is one of the easiest transitions to make. Office 2003 is fully supported in Vista as well.
Finally, and this is my whole point: Vista itself has some compatibility issues, the 64-bit version is only slightly less compatible. You DO NOT need “special cars” to run on 64-bit Vista… 32-bit apps runs very smoothly on it, and since systems can have a lot of RAM these individual apps can make use of 2GB+ of RAM just for themselves (which they like). Rather than your description, 64-bit Vista with 8GB or more of RAM (which is VERY affordable, again, more affordable than ever) is like having a playground wherein you can run a bunch of 32-bit sandboxes. The sandbox can be as big as the whole playground used to be… the sandbox likes that.
32-Bit is simply obselete at this point… and my advice would go precisely the other way: If you don’t know: then 64-bit. Now, if you know the limitations of 32-bit and you fully understand how crippled your system will be… then get 32-bit. I have both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista and from the user perspective there’s not much difference other than selecting 64-bit drivers when downloading drivers. The other huge difference is that Vista loves having 4GB+ of RAM (at least 3GB) so it definitely runs smoother (not faster most of the time, just smoother… more consistent) on the machine that has 8GB (and is running 64-bit).
This comment is, I guess too “techy” … but a las I hope you’ll revise your advise. I’ll tell you another reason why: Users don’t like transitions… I think most people don’t get a new computer but every 3+ years (I get 3+ computers a year) so if 32-bit systems (particularly desktops) look slightly crippled, in 3 years time they’re be severely crippled.
8GB is $80.00 for a desktop. For a laptop… sure 32-bit is fine… most laptops won’t benefit as much since they’re more limited to begin with (generally!)
rasmasyean
April 17th, 2009
at 7:01pm
http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/ms-windows/TAFO24TCPAGMJLBCA
Fox
May 12th, 2009
at 6:38pm
If you really want perfomance try Windows 7 64 bit. I installed it on an additional dirve and it flys. On my other drive I have XP pro 32 bits- I removed Vista Pro that came with the machine that one really sucked. I’m running a Core2Duo Quad q6600 2.40 Ghz. with 4GB kingston mem (2 x 2GB) runnig oon dual chanel. 2 S-ATA disks. Gforce 9500 GT video. Realtech Sound. Almost everything runs great. Only thing that my Lexmark p3150 multifuncion does not work no drivers for 64 bit- of course they also dont provide drivers for Vista either. Anti virus Nod32, excelet opcion for 64 bits. Great adevantages can access all of my memory, xp handles a little bit over 3GB only. But if your thinking of going 64 bit don’t think about it any more, go Windows7 64 bit, you wont belive your eyes, Its pure speed.!!!
mnd
May 16th, 2009
at 1:47am
32bit apps can fully utilized under 64bit os. + u re ok with 32bit drivers too. all you have to do is to disable driver signing requirement
chris
June 26th, 2009
at 7:31pm
I’d love to have an Intel i7 extreme on a Gigabit board, with maxed out 1200 mghz RAM fully taken to max the board can handle, with a NVIDIA 9 series or better on a 16x slot with SLI capability and a Samsung LED 32″ with either Velicoraptor HD or SSD (though I hear they slow down after plenty of use)!!!! And of course a wireless key board and mouse, all hooked to surround sound.
And I say that cause Win 7 x64 would FLY on it!!! I would just frickin love that, but hell its not practical. Being that I don’t need it Win 7 64 bit still works awesome on my current system…
Sanyo 26″ LCD HDTV
FOXCONN board 2gb DDR2 max 533 FSB
intel Celeron D 3 GHZ
NVIDIA 8500GT
Westgate Digital HD
Now that should tell you how much better Win 7 is.
autocad
June 28th, 2009
at 9:27am
Yes in did, even the AutoCAD 2010 works good on 32 bit system with 4GB of memory, only 3D studio MAX 2010 needs 64 bit system,and only if you have more than 16GB of memory, for office 2007 or mathematica 7 no deferent of.