Who here runs a 64bit OS?

[FiLeZz]

I have Windows vista Ultimate. I was running 32bit Vista. I now have installed the 64bit os to play with it and see how it works out. So far I am happy with it. It seems to run everthing I have installed so far.


Drivers seem to be there for vista 64bit unlike windows xp 64bit.

What OS are you running and why?

 

[imported_LoKe]

Ubuntu 32bit. 64bit when it hits final.

There's an O/S forum, by the way.

 

[FiLeZz]

Yea but my question is not really OS specific really user preference.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Windows xp, x64, but doesn't this belong in the OS forum?

I left out why.

Because I can.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: FiLeZz
Yea but my question is not really OS specific really user preference.

i imagine anyone who cares to answer has likely already posted in the OS polls in the OS forum

i use ubuntu, and debian, both 32bit

 

[everman]

There doesn't seem to be any real advantage for general office work yet, so not me.

 

[Accipiter22]

is there ANY difference between the two? I'm yet to hear about one if there is.

 

[TallBill]

Wrong forum.

 

[evetstech]

I used Fedora 7 64bit, found out that there was crap support, so I jumped back to 32bit.

 

[imported_LoKe]

64 bit computers process data in larger chunks than 32 bit computers. This means a number of things, but the big 2 are:

1) When programs are written to support 64-bit processors, those programs will generally perform faster than on a 32-bit processor of the same speed. This is partially because 32-bit computers must handle 64-bit numbers in two steps, whereas 64-bit computers only need to use one step.

2) 64-bit processors can address more memory than 32-bit processors. This means your server can have more RAM, and therefore can store more data in memory, making memory-intensive programs like databases faster.

As for databases, yes, there are versions of several major databases out there that support 64-bit processors. The one that I am most familiar with is SQL Server of course. SQL Server 2000 is available in a 64-bit version, and is intended to run on the 64-bit version of Windows 2003 Server. Unfortunately, without the underlying 64-bit server OS, I dont believe the 64-bit version of SQL Server will give you any benefit (if it even runs).

 

[LS20]

XP SP2 32-bit on work laptop
RH Linux 32-bit on work PC
Solaris 32-bit on work PC
Ubuntu Linux 32-bit on home PC 1
Vista 32-bit on home PC 2 (came with new computer that way)... wish it were 64-bit because thats what the hardware is

 

[w3stfa11]

Not enough benefit from 64-bit for desktop usage, in my opinion.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: w3stfa11
Not enough benefit from 64-bit for desktop usage, in my opinion.

It's not really about a performance benefit, it's about supporting more than 3GB of memory. Once you have 4GB, you need a 64bit OS.

 

[iamaelephant]

32 bit XP here.

 

[DukeN]

64 bit xp for RAM support.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: w3stfa11
Not enough benefit from 64-bit for desktop usage, in my opinion.

It's not really about a performance benefit, it's about supporting more than 3GB of memory. Once you have 4GB, you need a 64bit OS.

This is exactly the reason I'm running Vista Ultimate 64 at home.

 

[Viper GTS]

I run XP x64 at work, and dualboot XP x64 and Vista Ultimate x64 at home.

I need it for memory support (4 GB at work, 8 at home).

BTW the bad reputation XP x64 gets is completely unwarranted. It is my OS of choice until nvidia gets their shit together in Vista.

Viper GTS

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I run XP x64 at work, and dualboot XP x64 and Vista Ultimate x64 at home.

I need it for memory support (4 GB at work, 8 at home).

BTW the bad reputation XP x64 gets is completely unwarranted. It is my OS of choice until nvidia gets their shit together in Vista.

Viper GTS

XP x64 is a fine OS, its fault is that it's orphaned and undersupported. Vista x64 is a lot more practical to run in that respect.

 

[n7]

Wrong forum...

Vista Ultimate x64 for my main system here.

 

[EvilYoda]

I am, but for no particular reason.

 

[secretanchitman]

running xp 32 bit. was going to switch to xp64 bit actually a while ago but never got around to backing up my files. ill prolly do it after my vacation next week.

fortunately, all of my drivers have win xp 64 compatibility too.

 

[olds]

Moved from Off Topic.

 

[Mem]

I'm running Vista x64 HP OEM,use it for gaming and general use,solid in all areas,gaming compatibility for 32 bit games is excellent in my experience,I would go as far and say probably best OS Microsoft have released so far .

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: w3stfa11
Not enough benefit from 64-bit for desktop usage, in my opinion.

It's not really about a performance benefit, it's about supporting more than 3GB of memory. Once you have 4GB, you need a 64bit OS.

Agreed, and that' s why I run Vista 64-bit. However, 32-bit Windows does support 4GB. The problem is that those 4GB have to be allocated to the hardware on the motherboard (video card, etc) and depending on one's configuration, the amount of RAM usable by 32-bit Windows will be different. It's usually about 3.2GB, but could be less, or more.

Anyway, In abut a year 4GB or more most games will no doubt require 4GB for the smoothest experience possible, making Vista 64-bit the OS of choice for gamers and enthusiasts. I predict adoption of Vista 64-bit to increase dramatically in the next 18 months.

Oh, and like Mem, I've been running Vista 64-bit with no problems, and I game heavily on it.

 

[Nothinman]

64-bit Debian just because.