Hello everyone I've been using windows seven for about a month now, and well I like it a lot, but after looking around I think I may have installed the wrong version.
I'll show you my spec's and what I have and you can let me know if I should change.
I have a AMD Athalon dual core 4850e 2.51GHz
only 1gig of ram (but that will change soon)
and I'm running the 32 bit operating system, should I be using the 64?
I'll show you my spec's and what I have and you can let me know if I should change.
I have a AMD Athalon dual core 4850e 2.51GHz
only 1gig of ram (but that will change soon)
and I'm running the 32 bit operating system, should I be using the 64?
If you add more ram as 1 gig is pretty tight for 64 bit, then your all set for 64 bit.
but I mean to say is it worth it? will I notice the difference?
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Namelessbond 
but I mean to say is it worth it? will I notice the difference?
Although, with such little RAM, you may be bogged down a bit. 64 bit is much more conservative with system resources, and simotanious tasks, but requries more overhead.
I say give it a try for your setup, although dont get rid of your 32 bit before you give it a test whirl.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Namelessbond will I notice the difference?
As was said, you really need more RAM to make use of 64-bit Windows. Even then, 32-bit Windows is usually faster.
The only reason I use 64-bit is for Gaming. I play most of my games on 32-bit Windows XP with best speed. But a couple of games do run a tiny bit better in 64-bit.
I avoided 64 bit Win XP Pro and Vista because of the known driver problems and program issues. But now I'm running Win 7 64 bit and I really haven't had a single compatibility issue. Also, I only have 2 GB of RAM but Win 7 rarely goes over 75 to 80% usage. Unless you have some old/oddball hardware or need to run some programs that just refuse to play nice in X64 then I would recommend switching to 64 bit.
antalgebra has the best answer.
You'll need to try 64-bit for yourself to determine if it works for you.
If you're rich, you can buy everything that is 64-bit compatible if it isn't already...
If you're poor like me and have some older hardware and software, 64-bit is just not an option for main operating system. That is why I use dual boot setup and get the best of both worlds (and some extra cash in my pocket).
You'll need to try 64-bit for yourself to determine if it works for you.
If you're rich, you can buy everything that is 64-bit compatible if it isn't already...
If you're poor like me and have some older hardware and software, 64-bit is just not an option for main operating system. That is why I use dual boot setup and get the best of both worlds (and some extra cash in my pocket).
�� Quote: Originally Posted by sup3rsprt The frustration of dealing with incompatible software and drivers will totally outweigh any performance increase (which you will probably not get anyways).
As was said, you really need more RAM to make use of 64-bit Windows. Even then, 32-bit Windows is usually faster.
The only reason I use 64-bit is for Gaming. I play most of my games on 32-bit Windows XP with best speed. But a couple of games do run a tiny bit better in 64-bit.
As was said, you really need more RAM to make use of 64-bit Windows. Even then, 32-bit Windows is usually faster.
The only reason I use 64-bit is for Gaming. I play most of my games on 32-bit Windows XP with best speed. But a couple of games do run a tiny bit better in 64-bit.
I couldn't tell any speed difference from x32 to x64, and I've seen benchmarks where the only noticeable difference is with more than 4gb. With 1gb I think you might see a slight decrease in speed because of increased disk and memory requirements of x64.
Also, there are some compatibility problems with x64 (personally, onenote 2007 isn't fully functional, my ti-89 calculator won't connect)
I wouldn't bother the reinstall unless you have 4gb+ of memory (which is dirt cheap at $10/GB).
Also, there are some compatibility problems with x64 (personally, onenote 2007 isn't fully functional, my ti-89 calculator won't connect)
I wouldn't bother the reinstall unless you have 4gb+ of memory (which is dirt cheap at $10/GB).
�� Quote: Originally Posted by sup3rsprt The frustration of dealing with incompatible software and drivers will totally outweigh any performance increase (which you will probably not get anyways).
As was said, you really need more RAM to make use of 64-bit Windows. Even then, 32-bit Windows is usually faster.
The only reason I use 64-bit is for Gaming. I play most of my games on 32-bit Windows XP with best speed. But a couple of games do run a tiny bit better in 64-bit.
As was said, you really need more RAM to make use of 64-bit Windows. Even then, 32-bit Windows is usually faster.
The only reason I use 64-bit is for Gaming. I play most of my games on 32-bit Windows XP with best speed. But a couple of games do run a tiny bit better in 64-bit.
Here is the deal: x64 is the future. Basically every processor made in the last 5 (or more) years is a x64 bit processor. As long as you have over 2 gigs of RAM, then x64 is the better deal.
x86 (x32) cannot handle OVER 3.5 (or so) gigs of RAM, so if you get more than that, then you need x64 to get the benefit.
As to incompatibilities, I have only EVER had one program not be x64 compatible, and I fixed that by setting up a VM with a x86 arch.
Around the time Vista came out, newer systems were getting enough RAM to make x64 a viable alternative. The reason x64 drivers for XP were so hard to find was because almost no one used it; the hardware was not quite ready. Now, because a lot of computers are using 4 gigs of RAM, people started using it (just because it was what came installed). So with Vista, the x64 drivers became commonplace. With Seven, I have had only the ONE issue.
I don't know where you got your info sup3rsprt, but you are wrong! Over all (especially with newer systems), x64 is going to increasingly pull ahead.
~Lordbob
Does anybody have any controlled benchmarks comparing 32 vs 64-bit? I run x64 because of having 8GB of memory, but to say that 64-bit is unequivalently better isn't the whole truth. All the benchmarks I've seen only show single digit differences either way depending on memory size, and personally I think having incompatible apps isn't worth that tradeoff. Onenote 2007 can't use the printer driver and some of the OCR stuff I believe on x64, gadgets that use flash break because sidebar runs as x64 by default, and as I mentioned my ti-89 calculator doesn't have the drivers to sync. Though I've gotten around these issues: onenote 2010 fixes the issue, you can just replace the sidebar executable with the x32 version, and I have another x32 pc to occasionally sync the calculator, and there are tons of other little incompatibilities that exist that may or may not affect you. I've yet to see any evidence that switching to 64-bit on 3gb or less has any benefit at the moment.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by jw12345 Does anybody have any controlled benchmarks comparing 32 vs 64-bit? I run x64 because of having 8GB of memory, but to say that 64-bit is unequivalently better isn't the whole truth. All the benchmarks I've seen only show single digit differences either way depending on memory size, and personally I think having incompatible apps isn't worth that tradeoff. Onenote 2007 can't use the printer driver and some of the OCR stuff I believe on x64, gadgets that use flash break because sidebar runs as x64 by default, and as I mentioned my ti-89 calculator doesn't have the drivers to sync. (though I've gotten around these issues: onenote 2010 fixes the issue, you can just replace the sidebar executable with the x32 version, and I have another x32 pc to occasionally sync the calculator)
Look at it this way: Sometimes x86 is faster, sometimes x64 is.
But you CAN'T look at it like that!
You are using a x64 processor, along with over 4 gigs RAM and other things. There really is no good reason TO use x32 bit!
Yes, there are some other issues, some things don't work right. This is just like the transition from 16 bit to 32 bit. Things will not be perfect until we completely switch over.
~Lordbob
I can appreciate wanting to move the computing world up to a better standard, but I think that reality bites and it's a lot easier to stick with the theoretically inferior 32-bit if it doesn't give you problems. Why risk incompatibilities when there's nothing really to gain?
Give it a year or so though, and I'd imagine there will be even fewer manufacturers not putting out 64-bit drivers since even cheapo laptops are running up against the memory barrier. I mean onenote 2007 is recent software (by Microsoft to boot!) and ti-89 calculators are top of the ti line, and both have very serious problems with 64-bit. I consider either of those very good reasons to use 32-bit.
Give it a year or so though, and I'd imagine there will be even fewer manufacturers not putting out 64-bit drivers since even cheapo laptops are running up against the memory barrier. I mean onenote 2007 is recent software (by Microsoft to boot!) and ti-89 calculators are top of the ti line, and both have very serious problems with 64-bit. I consider either of those very good reasons to use 32-bit.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by jw12345 I can appreciate wanting to move the computing world up to a better standard, but I think that reality bites and it's a lot easier to stick with the theoretically inferior 32-bit if it doesn't give you problems. Why risk incompatibilities when there's nothing really to gain?
~Lordbob
You just quoted it 15 minutes ago:
Just from my upgrading to 64-bit: Onenote 2007 can't use the printer driver and some of the OCR stuff I believe on x64, gadgets that use flash break because sidebar runs as x64 by default, ti-89 calculator doesn't have the drivers to sync
Maybe I'm particularly unlucky, but these are all up-to-date common applications that many people use. And I haven't even tested that many programs, there's a good chance every person will run into their own set of issues.
Just from my upgrading to 64-bit: Onenote 2007 can't use the printer driver and some of the OCR stuff I believe on x64, gadgets that use flash break because sidebar runs as x64 by default, ti-89 calculator doesn't have the drivers to sync
Maybe I'm particularly unlucky, but these are all up-to-date common applications that many people use. And I haven't even tested that many programs, there's a good chance every person will run into their own set of issues.
Having run both 32 bit and 64 bit, all I can say is that there is virtually no difference unless you are doing multimedia stuff and have a minimum of 4 gb ram then yeah why not go with x64 so you can access all your ram.
x64 DOES indeed use more resources than 32 bit and a simple example is because it has to support both 32 bit and 64 bit applications and also because the pointers used in the OS are well 64 bit vs 32 bit hence more memory usage but it wont matter if you are running 4 gigs
I think the main difference if you were running XP 32 vs XP 64 then yes the performance difference would be quite evident because the 64 bit version besides having 64 bitness well it was written off of a very good rock solid server OS. So any perceived performance difference between those 2 versions is simply that the 64 bit version was written using a more rock solid OS.
That is not the case with 64 bit Windows 7. Its your preference but like I said once you are at 4 gb there really is no reason to NOT use 64 bit. There are no more lack of drivers as it used to be once though some things like SLR cameras and so on you may have a bit of a hard time finding drivers for.
My 2 cents.
x64 DOES indeed use more resources than 32 bit and a simple example is because it has to support both 32 bit and 64 bit applications and also because the pointers used in the OS are well 64 bit vs 32 bit hence more memory usage but it wont matter if you are running 4 gigs
I think the main difference if you were running XP 32 vs XP 64 then yes the performance difference would be quite evident because the 64 bit version besides having 64 bitness well it was written off of a very good rock solid server OS. So any perceived performance difference between those 2 versions is simply that the 64 bit version was written using a more rock solid OS.
That is not the case with 64 bit Windows 7. Its your preference but like I said once you are at 4 gb there really is no reason to NOT use 64 bit. There are no more lack of drivers as it used to be once though some things like SLR cameras and so on you may have a bit of a hard time finding drivers for.
My 2 cents.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by digitalrurouni Having run both 32 bit and 64 bit, all I can say is that there is virtually no difference unless you are doing multimedia stuff and have a minimum of 4 gb ram then yeah why not go with x64 so you can access all your ram.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by jw12345 Does anybody have any controlled benchmarks comparing 32 vs 64-bit? I run x64 because of having 8GB of memory, but to say that 64-bit is unequivalently better isn't the whole truth. All the benchmarks I've seen only show single digit differences either way depending on memory size, and personally I think having incompatible apps isn't worth that tradeoff. Onenote 2007 can't use the printer driver and some of the OCR stuff I believe on x64, gadgets that use flash break because sidebar runs as x64 by default, and as I mentioned my ti-89 calculator doesn't have the drivers to sync. Though I've gotten around these issues: onenote 2010 fixes the issue, you can just replace the sidebar executable with the x32 version, and I have another x32 pc to occasionally sync the calculator, and there are tons of other little incompatibilities that exist that may or may not affect you. I've yet to see any evidence that switching to 64-bit on 3gb or less has any benefit at the moment.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by fakeasdf Check out my signature. It is true that it's difficult to do clean comparisons of 32 bit versus 64 bit when using 64 bit CPU's. Intel 64 (formerly EMT64) and AMD64. If you have a 64 bit CPU, both 64 bit and 32 bit software generally run better on a 64 bit OS than on a 32 bit OS.
1. Saying "Always Yes" simply isn't true. When to comes down to critical apps, it doesn't matter if everything runs 10% faster or whatever. Heck, I don't care if everything runs 150% faster, if I couldn't get onenote working properly, because that's critical software for me, and without it, I couldn't work. Luckily onenote 2010 fixed the issue, or otherwise I'd be selling my extra ram and going back to 32-bit.
2. Personally I would have set the intercepts of those graphs at 0. It's a bit misleading to look at the graph that exaggerates the 10% gain. And on say a 2gb system, the extra memory footprint of 64-bit would cause more paging out and probably kill that advantage.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by jw12345 I mean onenote 2007 is recent software (by Microsoft to boot!) and ti-89 calculators are top of the ti line, and both have very serious problems with 64-bit. I consider either of those very good reasons to use 32-bit.
.The only benchmark I have between 32-bit and 64-bit, and I'll grant it's not a common one and originally 32-bit XP vs. 64-bit XP, but for me a real deal-breaker/maker, is my image backup. 32-bit XP times for the 500GB data volume was a little over 2 hours. For 64-bit it went down to 54 minutes, same hardware and backup program (Paragon's Drive Backup 2008 Server Express). My XP vs. Win 7 times are fairly equivalent in 64-bit. I imagine a lot of it is how the buffering is handled, but you can't dismiss a 100% improvement on a common and important long process.
In general things are noticeably snappier in x64 for me to a lesser and larger extent, the afore-mentioned image backup being on the extreme side of "good". I do have a substantial workstation which can take full advantage, and my Lenovo tablet has 4GB and a snappy SSD, so YMMV.
Either way, there's no "wrong" version of Win 7 here, just try them both. You could do x64 and see if you have any pain points, and if so then try x86.
One thing I do recommend regardless is a good backup / restore process you can rely on that works under both x64 and x86.
DJ
The Send to Onenote printer driver is broken, insert printouts relies on that driver also, and OCR is tied in somehow. There are work arounds which fix some of this with third party drivers (though I don't know of any free ones that will), but I myself use these features several times a day, and it's a problem. But yes, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Onenote 2010 fixes this, and is the only reason I can use 64-bit.
Apologies for not explaining what I meant by "theoretically inferior". I know why 32-bit is inferior technically, but when you have show-stopper incompatibilities like that, 32-bit becomes superior, because it actually works. Practicality beats out small technical advances.
I'm with DJG on this: try 64-bit, but be ready to drop down to 32-bit, because serious incompatibilities do exist.
Apologies for not explaining what I meant by "theoretically inferior". I know why 32-bit is inferior technically, but when you have show-stopper incompatibilities like that, 32-bit becomes superior, because it actually works. Practicality beats out small technical advances.
I'm with DJG on this: try 64-bit, but be ready to drop down to 32-bit, because serious incompatibilities do exist.
32 bit to 64 bit equally levels out at 1.5GB RAM, or 2 GB assuming Dual Channel isen't being used. Any less than that is a benefit to x86 mode, taking in account the overhead. If your running 2BG+, 64 is the better alternative, strictly looking at performance on a win7 platform.
Sorry, I can't share my graphs
Sorry, I can't share my graphs
�� Quote: Originally Posted by jw12345 The Send to Onenote printer driver is broken, insert printouts relies on that driver also, and OCR is tied in somehow. There are work arounds which fix some of this with third party drivers (though I don't know of any free ones that will), but I myself use these features several times a day, and it's a problem. But yes, as I mentioned in an earlier post, Onenote 2010 fixes this, and is the only reason I can use 64-bit.
Apologies for not explaining what I meant by "theoretically inferior". I know why 32-bit is inferior technically, but when you have show-stopper incompatibilities like that, 32-bit becomes superior, because it actually works. Practicality beats out small technical advances.
I'm with DJG on this: try 64-bit, but be ready to drop down to 32-bit, because serious incompatibilities do exist.
Apologies for not explaining what I meant by "theoretically inferior". I know why 32-bit is inferior technically, but when you have show-stopper incompatibilities like that, 32-bit becomes superior, because it actually works. Practicality beats out small technical advances.
I'm with DJG on this: try 64-bit, but be ready to drop down to 32-bit, because serious incompatibilities do exist.
So I'll leave my post to this: If you have the time, energy, and frontal brain bandwidth to be able to get over the 64 bit hurdles, do it! It will be rewarded in a faster, and more stable system.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by antalgebra 32 bit to 64 bit equally levels out at 1.5GB RAM, or 2 GB assuming Dual Channel isen't being used. Any less than that is a benefit to x86 mode, taking in account the overhead. If your running 2BG+, 64 is the better alternative, strictly looking at performance on a win7 platform.
Sorry, I can't share my graphs
Sorry, I can't share my graphs
�� Quote: Originally Posted by antalgebra EVERYTHING can be made compatible with 64 bit. It just depends on your willingness on how much time and effort you want to spend getting drivers and making programs compatible. I've been on a 100% 64 bit diet for a little over a year now, and have been able to overcome every driver obstacle I've run across.
So I'll leave my post to this: If you have the time, energy, and frontal brain bandwidth to be able to get over the 64 bit hurdles, do it! It will be rewarded in a faster, and more stable system.
So I'll leave my post to this: If you have the time, energy, and frontal brain bandwidth to be able to get over the 64 bit hurdles, do it! It will be rewarded in a faster, and more stable system.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by jw12345 Eh, I don't think anybody's found a way around ti-89 calculators not connecting to the official client, other than the do some hacks to get in working in this crummy unofficial client that doesn't half work. Running it in virtual XP works, but an entire VM for a calculator program can't be great for performance, virtual XP isn't really free, and it isn't seamless because of having to connect the usb in the VM before doing the whole coherence mode thing. Since I rarely sync the calculator anymore, I just use the 32-bit laptop I have, but I'm just making a point of there being instances where 64-bit simply won't work (I'm excluding VMs because of cost and resources)
Win7 comes with an xp 32 bit simlulator built in. Have you tried that?
�� Quote: Originally Posted by antalgebra Win7 comes with an xp 32 bit simlulator built in. Have you tried that?
Or if you're talking about compatibility modes: it doesn't work. There have been tons of people trying to get this to work for several years trying all sorts of hacks. TI refuses to issue a 64-bit driver, though I imagine their hand will be forced soon enough.
I've been using 64 bit for the last 4 years with almost zero incompatibilities. Just because you are having some issues with it doesn't mean everyone else will. Stay in the past, it helps those lazy ass companies who don't want to create 64 bit drivers justify themselves It really doesn't matter to me if you use 32 bit or 64 bit, I'm using 64 bit and enjoying all of the advantages (which aren't just increased memory amount).
It really doesn't matter to me if you use 32 bit or 64 bit, I'm using 64 bit and enjoying all of the advantages (which aren't just increased memory amount). �� Quote: Originally Posted by fakeasdf I've been using 64 bit for the last 4 years with almost zero incompatibilities. Just because you are having some issues with it doesn't mean everyone else will. Stay in the past, it helps those lazy ass companies who don't want to create 64 bit drivers justify themselves It really doesn't matter to me if you use 32 bit or 64 bit, I'm using 64 bit and enjoying all of the advantages (which aren't just increased memory amount).
It really doesn't matter to me if you use 32 bit or 64 bit, I'm using 64 bit and enjoying all of the advantages (which aren't just increased memory amount).�� Quote: Originally Posted by jw12345 Are you referring to Virtual XP? Then yes, that's what I meant by the VM, but it's a hassle to load the VM, connect the usb to the vm, and then switch to the coherence mode (whatever it's called). But since it doesn't come on the most common version of Windows (Home Premium) then you have to pay more for a higher version of Windows for the feature.
Or if you're talking about compatibility modes: it doesn't work. There have been tons of people trying to get this to work for several years trying all sorts of hacks. TI refuses to issue a 64-bit driver, though I imagine their hand will be forced soon enough.
Or if you're talking about compatibility modes: it doesn't work. There have been tons of people trying to get this to work for several years trying all sorts of hacks. TI refuses to issue a 64-bit driver, though I imagine their hand will be forced soon enough.
Yup, your right, this is a premium service for Ultimate/Enterprise/Professional. I do hope the bugs will be ironed out before release.
And yes, the debate of having many 'grades' of software is up for debate for pros/cons, and what to include in each level. I personally hate not being able to setup a domain on the lower levels... but hey, when you got a monopoly, build hotels
�� Quote: Originally Posted by jw12345 I think some of you are mistaking me as arguing against 64-bit. I run 64-bit 95% of the time, but I'm just noting that telling somebody that it's ALWAYS the best idea to upgrade to 64-bit as your signature says isn't the best course of action, because there still are issues some people experience on modern software/hardware that flat out can't be resolved without running a 32-bit VM.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by fakeasdf This is a forum for people using a beta OS, They should switch to a 64 bit OS and try it out. If there is some weird issue then they can switch back to 32 bit. And if people follow my signature without reading the article then they are more than likely going to switch to Mac OS X cause the commercials told them to. Which has moved to 64 bit as well, and in their latest OS (snow leopard) they totally dropped 32 bit support all together.
I think you striking a couple nerves with posters here... your saying ALL peeps should go to 64 bit if their processors allow... and that if they dont read yur signature, then they should go to Mac, and turn into a paragram to utilizing an overly managed 64 bit OS anywayz.
While great for conversation, these ALWAYS statments just aren't true.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by antalgebra I think you striking a couple nerves with posters here... your saying ALL peeps should go to 64 bit if their processors allow... and that if they dont read yur signature, then they should go to Mac, and turn into a paragram to utilizing an overly managed 64 bit OS anywayz.
While great for conversation, these ALWAYS statments just aren't true.
While great for conversation, these ALWAYS statments just aren't true.
I don't get how you can say "always yes" in your signature but then argue that that's not at all what your article is claiming. Does "always" mean something that I'm not aware of?
But what do I know, I'm one of those crazy OS X fans with no brain on my own.
But what do I know, I'm one of those crazy OS X fans with no brain on my own.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by fakeasdf Proof that another person read the signature and not the article... Please read the article before you post responses. And I would never recommend going to a Mac, they've never been able to create an OS, proof when they bought a unix flavor and just stuck a GUI on top of it (Hello Mac OS X). My statement was that people who follow a signature just from looking at it, are probably just as willing to just watch one of the BS Mac commercials and switch over cause they said so, not cause they did any research on it.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by fakeasdf Check out my signature. It is true that it's difficult to do clean comparisons of 32 bit versus 64 bit when using 64 bit CPU's. Intel 64 (formerly EMT64) and AMD64. If you have a 64 bit CPU, both 64 bit and 32 bit software generally run better on a 64 bit OS than on a 32 bit OS.
.
.
Quite the contrary, I did read your posts, very thoroughly as a matter of fact. I would've ignored your signature, had you not referenced it specifcally as part of your posts, and used it to strengthen a... um... point, I suppose?
Alright, this got way off topic, way too fast.
Time to stop.
This is NOT an OS war, and we certainly should not be arguing about x86 and x64.
Just stop the argument now, or this thread is going to be locked.
~Lordbob
Time to stop.
This is NOT an OS war, and we certainly should not be arguing about x86 and x64.
Just stop the argument now, or this thread is going to be locked.
~Lordbob
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Lordbob75 Alright, this got way off topic, way too fast.
Time to stop.
This is NOT an OS war, and we certainly should not be arguing about x86 and x64.
Just stop the argument now, or this thread is going to be locked.
~Lordbob
Time to stop.
This is NOT an OS war, and we certainly should not be arguing about x86 and x64.
Just stop the argument now, or this thread is going to be locked.
~Lordbob
Unix-For-Appliances aside (just kidding ), every person's situation is different. What works for some may "almost" work for others, and often "almost" doersn't cut it.
Sure most systems sold in the past three years have x64-friendly CPUs, but the CPU is only part of the equation. There are no absolutes in this business.
Take it from somebody whose first "PC" had 10 DPDT relays, 10 DPDT switches, and 10 red lamps (I do mean lamps - LEDs were not yet born), 10 bits in 7x10" and thought "Man, this is the stuff!" ...
), every person's situation is different. What works for some may "almost" work for others, and often "almost" doersn't cut it.Sure most systems sold in the past three years have x64-friendly CPUs, but the CPU is only part of the equation. There are no absolutes in this business.
Take it from somebody whose first "PC" had 10 DPDT relays, 10 DPDT switches, and 10 red lamps (I do mean lamps - LEDs were not yet born), 10 bits in 7x10" and thought "Man, this is the stuff!" ...
�� Quote: Originally Posted by jw12345 No offense, but the entire thread is about 32-bit vs 64-bit. Sure, there's a bit of bickering of opinions, but I don't really agree that it's become off topic (other than 2-3 lines about OS X). It seems to be a valid discussion of some of the issues and quirks that arise from switching to 64-bit that are often ignored.
~Lordbob
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Lordbob75 Alright, this got way off topic, way too fast.
Time to stop.
This is NOT an OS war, and we certainly should not be arguing about x86 and x64.
Just stop the argument now, or this thread is going to be locked.
~Lordbob
Time to stop.
This is NOT an OS war, and we certainly should not be arguing about x86 and x64.
Just stop the argument now, or this thread is going to be locked.
~Lordbob
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Fizban Did you mistake yourself for a moderator when you woke up this morning? I assure you, you are not one.
~Lordbob
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét