# Need A Quick Explanation 32 vs 64 Bit



## Archlute (Sep 2, 2009)

If anyone could oblige, and give a quick and clean, point for point rundown of the pros and cons of having a 64-bit system over a 32-bit system, I would greatly appreciate it.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 2, 2009)

Archlute said:


> If anyone could oblige, and give a quick and clean, point for point rundown of the pros and cons of having a 64-bit system over a 32-bit system, I would greatly appreciate it.



That question is very hard to answer unless you describe what it is you want your system to do. Your intended purpose will help figure out whether it's advantageous for you to go to 64 bit (which really in my opinion has NO negatives - it's only the cost difference that might make you prefer a 32-bit architecture instead).


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 2, 2009)

You get a 64bit. You don't get a 32 bit if you have a choice of 64.

Simple enough?


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 2, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> You get a 64bit. You don't get a 32 bit if you have a choice of 64.
> 
> Simple enough?



Well, well, Mr. Snappy-Answer  (sounds like a Bunyan character)


----------



## kvanlaan (Sep 2, 2009)

I was going to say that "well, 64 is twice as much as 32, so it is twice as good". That's my technical answer. My less technical answer consists of an open-mouthed stare.


----------



## Berean (Sep 2, 2009)

Is it true that software written for a 32-bit OS won't run on a 64-bit system?


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 2, 2009)

Berean said:


> Is it true that software written for a 32-bit OS won't run on a 64-bit system?



32-bit software runs in 32-bit mode on a 64-bit system.

It might be true that there is some piece of software that won't run, but I am not aware of any major software that won't.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 2, 2009)

The occasion is that I will most likely be picking up a new laptop this week. The one I currently use is 32 bit system. The one I am looking at is only offered in 64 bit. I use my laptops for basic computing and word processing, but also for watching movies with my wife, and for some gaming with my boys.

What does it affect, and are there changes in software, etc, that have to be made between the two specs?

Btw, I can't believe how quickly computer sales change over the course of just 18mos. Everything that was a higher-end option (such as a BluRay slot drive, better processor, etc, etc) now comes standard on a similarly priced model. The baseline laptop even comes with a silly little facial security scan built in. Insane.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 2, 2009)

Archlute said:


> The occasion is that I will most likely be picking up a new laptop this week. The one I currently use is 32 bit system. The one I am looking at is only offered in 64 bit. I use my laptops for basic computing and word processing, but also for watching movies with my wife, and for some gaming with my boys.
> 
> What does it affect, and are there changes in software, etc, that have to be made between the two specs?
> 
> Btw, I can't believe how quickly computer sales change over the course of just 18mos. Everything that was a higher-end option (such as a BluRay slot drive, better processor, etc, etc) now comes standard on a similarly priced model. The baseline laptop even comes with a silly little facial security scan built in. Insane.



Seriously, Adam. Get the 64 bit. The newer programs will all eventually be 64 bit versions. The biggest immediate change is that 32-bit systems have a limitation of 3GB RAM. Even if you put in more, it really does not recognize or utilize it properly. 64-bit systems can.

You will be able to run 32-bit programs (I'm typing this on 32-bit Firefox on a 64bit system, and I use MS Office 2007 every day, which is also 32-bit), and won't be limited when newer programs come out only in 64-bit (which is still likely 2-3 years away at least). MS Office 2010, for example, has both 32 and 64 bit versions.


----------



## dr_parsley (Sep 3, 2009)

It's really very simple - 32 bit can only access 4GB of RAM. Systems with 4GB of ram are readily available these days and so one would think that in a couple of years it will be on the low end of the scale. Particularly if you want to play games, you will need more than 4GB.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 3, 2009)

This system is upgradeable to 8GB of RAM, but for my purposes I think that is probably a bit overkill (as well as pricey).


----------



## Skyler (Sep 3, 2009)

64-bit architecture can handle a lot more RAM than 32-bit architecture. The downside is, drivers and such have to be rewritten to accommodate the 64-bit architecture, which means that 64-bit operating systems are often undersupported when it comes to drivers. Windows XP 64-bit was notorious for not having enough 64-bit drivers.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 3, 2009)

It's nice to know we have plenty of computer Geeks around here.


----------



## jfschultz (Sep 3, 2009)

According to some Mac oriented sites information about the new Mac OS (Snow Leoplard) indicate that there is a performance issue with Intel's 32-bit implementation that is fixed by 64-bits.

"Snow Leopard's upgrade to 64-bit system apps provides an overall speed boost due to limitations in the original design of Intel's 32-bit chips; the move to the new 64-bit x64 processor model, originally developed by AMD, solves these issues. " (Apple Insider)


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 3, 2009)

This is one of the reasons why Dos-Box was one of the greatest inventions ever.


----------



## White Knight (Sep 3, 2009)

toddpeddler's first answer nailed it. 32 bit is efficient, 64 bit is upgradeable. For what you said you'd be using it for, either one will be fine. I have one computer that's 32 bit that, if I ever fixed, that would be for gaming, but me and games have a bad history...The other one is 64 bit that I use for documentation, video, the like. No "real" reason other than personal preference that I have that setup.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 3, 2009)

My reco: Go with 64-bit architecture and OS. I have three systems presently 64-bit, two Intel and one AMD. Mix of Windows Vista and Ubuntu 64-bit OSes. Never had a problem getting an app to run. Never had an issue with driver support. 

32-bit is so '90s.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 3, 2009)

I agree with the recommendation to go to 64-bit for more RAM. If you're running Logos and a lot of other apps concurrently during research you might find it beneficial to have more RAM. RAM is so cheap today compared to what it used to be.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 3, 2009)

Well, I picked up the 64bit system with 4GB RAM. The upgrade from 3 to 4 was only about 56 bucks or so, but when you went from there up to 6 and subsequently 8 GB it jumped to 188.00 and then 332.00 or thereabouts. That's got to be some spiffy stuff.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 3, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I agree with the recommendation to go to 64-bit for more RAM. If you're running Logos and a lot of other apps concurrently during research you might find it beneficial to have more RAM. *RAM is so cheap today compared to what it used to be*.



Yeah. I remember paying $300 for 32K (yes, kilobytes) of extra memory in my original TRS-80.


----------



## Curt (Sep 3, 2009)

tcalbrecht said:


> My reco: Go with 64-bit architecture and OS. I have three systems presently 64-bit, two Intel and one AMD. Mix of Windows Vista and Ubuntu 64-bit OSes. Never had a problem getting an app to run. Never had an issue with driver support.
> 
> 32-bit is so '90s.



Huh?


----------



## Lady of the Lake (Sep 3, 2009)

tcalbrecht said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. I remember paying $300 for 32K (yes, kilobytes) of extra memory in my original TRS-80.
> ...


----------

