Hold on, hold on...


I never said that any one said that I said that.

... You're quite wrong. 'Hate to tell you. Go read about it, if you wanna talk about it.

Look, when I bought my copy of Vista Ultimate, it came with two installation DVDs. One is the 32-bit version of the OS. The other is the 64-bit version. I knew that my CPU was capable of taking advantage of 64-bit operating systems, and that 64-bit applications have the potential to be faster than 32-bit ones. So why would I not want to install the 64-bit OS? As far as I'm concerned, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Many compatibility issues have workarounds, such as this one concerning JK.

You're talking as though I paid an extravagant amount of money to be able to use 64-bit technology because I'm a "power-user" or something. I didn't. I still would have bought this CPU even if I had wanted to install the 32-bit version of Vista, and I still would have bought this same operating system even if it had only been available with 32-bit architecture. I didn't pay a penny more for the 64-bit version -- when you buy any FULL version of Vista, you have the option of installing either one.

Also, I DO use enough software applications besides video games that I can get a performance increase with 64-bit technology. I actively use programs such as Adobe Photoshop (2D pixel art editing), Adobe Flash (2D line art editing and animation), CorelDRAW (2D line art editing), Propellerheads Reason (audio creation suite), Sony SoundForge (audio editing), and Autodesk 3ds Max (3D imagery editing, animation, and rendering suite), among others.

Lastly, there's the simple fact that 64-bit technology will only get more and more useful as time goes by -- video games are going to start using it more as well, especially with the new wave of DX10 games that are coming out. When I built this PC, I did so with the intention that it would last a good, long time, and that it would have to have minimal upgrades in the future. All technology gets outdated eventually, of course, but you might as well try to minimize it, if you can.

Oh, and thanks, Sarn_Cadrill, for being one of the few people that didn't try to jump down my throat concerning my preference toward 64-bit operating systems.

You should follow your own advice.

64-bit computing has many advantages, but speed is not often one of them. Unless you're doing real, big number crunching that deals with very, very, very big numbers, you won't see much of a speed increase, if any at all. None of the applications you listed are any that would have much of a benefit from 64-bit computing. Any speed increases you've noticed are almost certainly placebo, especially considering that you're almost certainly using 32-bit builds of all those applications.

I'm not criticizing your choice to use Vista 64-bit, I'm criticizing everyone who thinks 64-bit is so much faster but can't really explain why.

The reason you saw ANY speed increase is because the Conroes are ****ing blazingly fast. By switching to a 64-bit OS and apps you probably cut down a lot of the speed increase. Honestly, you're the one who has no idea what he's talking about--64-bit as opposed to 32-bit requires double the memory to perform the same tasks. With our current bandwidth limitations and low amounts of memory, that can in fact cause slowdowns rather than any speed increase like you think.

You're just another semi-educated kid who thinks he knows everything about computers when in fact he knows ****-all about jack-****. Listen to people who have been, at the very least, following the news and industry that you're talking about for a few years now, if not more.

And Photoshop/Flash are not 64-bit programs, so there goes that whole argument of yours.

64-bit has it's place. It's place is not the average desktop, not right now. Later? Absolutely. But it's a horrible waste right now which is why 32-bit Vista is reigning supreme.

Nerdowned.

You're oversimplifying things to the point of silliness.

Will running a 64 bit build of a program with a 64 bit os run a lot faster than a 32 bit build of a program with a 32 bit os?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/x86-64-rc1_10.html

Those benchmarks are very old, so there is a lot more and better support now. You are wrong. 64 bit != 64bit RAM addressing. That's only part of it. Listen to Jon'C.



Theoretically, yes. But, it depends on the application, and weather enough effort has been put in to the port for a performance increase to exist. The transition is going slowly. For most users, 64bit just isn't worth it. too many incompatibility issues, and too many programs that don't like wow64 emulation. Most people are more likely to see a speed decrease than an increase.

I bought XP64bit ages ago when I was young and foolish and I thought it had something to do with color depth. :p It's been a bit of a pain, but it's not too bad. Knowing what I know now I'd never have bought it, but it's not a big enough pain that I'm not going to pay 90$ for XP.

I know I am, but he obviously doesn't understand the basic concepts behind most of it anyways, and I'm at least trying to get SOMETHING through to him.

Oh and nice try at an insult jon--it's just too bad it failed. Tissue?

Since you feel secure enough in your knowledge to belittle him and call him a "semi-educated kid who thinks he knows everything about computers when in fact he knows ****-all about jack-****" perhaps you would be willing to provide a more specific explanation for the rest of us?

This is a common newbie myth about 64bit computing. But because you're using it as a platform for this:



The irony alone makes you more of an idiot than SF_Gold and imsoshort combined.

Well, it's true that storing smaller numbers in 64-bit registers is wasteful, but I don't know enough about AMD64 and EM64T addressing to say how it works nowadays.

I think it doubles the size of "short" variable in C language and some other variables in other languages, so I can end up wasting some memory, but not so that it becomes a real issue. I'm really fuzzy on the details, I just remember it from my C teacher in 11th grade, and I haven't done any programing sense. Jon'C would know more about that.

Wasn't your C teacher your mother?

It depends on the compiler. Visual C++, by default, uses a 32-bit integer. This greatly simplifies porting existing code to 64-bit (usually the only code that gets broken makes heavy use of pointer arithmetic, since pointers are still 64 bits). Win64's retention of 32-bit data types throughout its APIs also greatly simplifies and accelerates thunking.

Registers can be addressed as 8, 16, 32 or 64 bits and there are also instructions which operate on data truncated to those sizes. Memory is addressed in 8 bit increments. 64-bit applications will always use more memory, but the difference is entirely dependent upon the specific application, the target platform, the quality of the compiler and the skill of the programmer.

I'm sure Dj Yoshi would like to elaborate upon my explanation, so I will leave the rest to him.

I never said I knew everything. I know you know more than me--you've been through what now, 4? 5? years of college. I did oversimplify, I know it doesn't take up exactly double the memory, but it does take up more, and that's part of the reason AMD created HyperTransport, to deal with the extra memory bandwidth issues.

The most IRONIC thing in this thread is that you all probably would agree with me if I weren't me.

Woah. Calm down, man. You call me a "semi-educated kid," but you're the one resorting to juvenile name-calling. It's nothing to get so riled up over. Sheeesh... And you're calling me a nerd, Rob? You're the ones acting like kids and nerds by getting so worked up over a 64-bit-VS-32-bit discussion and down-right flaming me about it. Honestly, what's with all the hate? Especially when I've given you no reason to do act this way. Somehow I don't recall ever saying anything like, "OMG 64-BIT PCS R SOOO MUCH FASTAR DAN 32-BIT 1S U ALL SUK LOOZRZ LOL!1!!1" All I said was that I'd prefer to be running 64-bit over 32-bit, and I said why. Allow me to reiterate why I am using 64-bit right now...

You might say I'm being stupid by using 64-bit technology early on, because it won't run 32-bit apps as well. Like you pointed out, however, my 32-bit apps run just fine anyway (I certainly haven't seen a speed decrease when using them), thanks to the blazingly-fast speed of my CPU. My 64-bit apps, however, will take advantage of the 64-bit OS I'm using. And guess what? Many new applications being developed are taking advantage of 64-bit. So whoop-dee-doo, I get to use my 32-bit apps at good enough speeds, and my 64-bit apps at the best possible speeds. I'm happy.

I can understand if you don't think it's necessary to use 64-bit right now. I don't think it's necessary, either. But I certainly don't think it's silly to do so. It still has advantages, and the disadvantages aren't as drastic as you make them out to be. I've just decided to get on the boat early. So what? We'll all be on it before you know it. This just means I don't have to upgrade to 64-bit later.


Yeah, I know that some of those software applications I listed don't take advantage of 64-bit tech. But some of them do, which means the point I made was not invalidated. The newest version of 3ds Max does, for example. As for it being a "horrible waste" to use 32-bit applications in a 64-bit environment, I believe that to be a gross exaggeration. From my experiences with them they run perfectly fine on 64-bit applications, as long as you have a powerful enough PC.


That's no big deal. Seriously, a lot of people agree with me on this. Here's an example:

A common misconception is that 64-bit architectures are no better than 32-bit architectures unless the computer has more than 4 GiB of memory. This is not entirely true:

- Some operating systems reserve portions of process address space for OS use, effectively reducing the total address space available for mapping memory for user programs. For instance, Windows XP DLLs and userland OS components are mapped into each process's address space, leaving only 2 to 3.8 GB (depending on the settings) address space available, even if the computer has 4 GiB of RAM. This restriction is not present in 64-bit Windows.
- Memory mapping of files is becoming less useful with 32-bit architectures, especially with the introduction of relatively cheap recordable DVD technology. A 4 GiB file is no longer uncommon, and such large files cannot be memory mapped easily to 32-bit architectures; only a region of the file can be mapped into the address space, and to access such a file by memory mapping, those regions will have to be mapped into and out of the address space as needed. This is an issue, as memory mapping remains one of the most efficient disk-to-memory methods, when properly implemented by the OS.

Besides, 64-bit Vista can support up to 128GB of RAM (versus an incomplete 4GB), last time I checked. Who cares if it uses a little more when you can HAVE so much more? Of course, I don't have anywhere near 128GB of RAM. But you don't need that much, yet. I'm using 2GB of PC2 8500 DDR2 SDRAM (operating @ 1066MHz) right now, which runs 32-bit applications extremely well. I plan to buy another dual channel kit and upgrade that to 4GB, if I ever need to.

As for keeping up with the industry, I enjoy reading tech articles and such when I can, and I've been doing so for many years. But I certainly don't consider myself a complete expert on the subject. I somehow doubt you are, either, Yoshi-guy, otherwise you'd be doing something more useful with your time rather than flaming someone like myself on a gaming message board. You're probably just pissed that I've actually got a Quad-Core QX6700, and want to believe that I don't deserve it or something.


You don't have to have gone to college to be knowledgeable about something. You can teach yourself nearly anything you can learn at college, as long as you discipline yourself. If you go through your entire life treating everyone that hasn't been to college as though they're complete imbeciles, then you may end up regretting it someday.

You know, I used to look up to Massassi and envision it as a place inhabited by a more mature audience of individuals. The immediate and on-going absolute hostility presented to me by many members in this thread leads me to conclude that my previous assumptions were rather inaccurate. I have many fond memories of coming to this site (excluding the forums) over the years that I've played and edited the JK series, so coming on here and getting flamed over such a trivial matter is quite a slap in the face.

It doesn't take significantly more in any 64bit app I have seen. You are wrong. Our problem with you is not that you got your facts wrong, that would be completely understandable, especially given the subject at hand. It's that you are so arrogant and obnoxious about things that you now admit to not understanding well.



I was reading up on Photoshop, and apparently the 32bit version can use some work arounds to use 3GB of RAM on x64 system where it would be limited to 2GB on 32bit. Not a huge help, but it's there.

PE has a special bit field that allows a program to address 3 GB of process memory rather than 2. Ordinarily NT uses the highest-order bit(s) to differentiate between kernel reserved memory and application memory; that flag alters the kernel's behavior.

This flag is effective on ordinary x86 processors. Additionally, since it affects the virtual address space, you can take advantage of it even if you do not have 3 GB of RAM available to you.

Modern operating systems divide memory up into 4 KB-2 MB blocks called pages. Those pages can exist basically anywhere on the computer, like RAM or the CPU cache or the hard drive. Operating systems use a special part of the CPU called a MMU to convert virtual addresses into physical addresses. A computer can utilize an arbitrarily large amount of memory, but a single program can only access 4 GB of it (with 1-2 GB reserved for OS use). For instance, a virtual address on x86 is 32 bits but a physical memory address with PAE is effectively 36 bits.

Hahaha...Jon`C has yet to go to college.

joncy was born with knowledge

I get what you're saying, Emon. I never said that I actually calculated any speed difference when I switched from 32-bit to 64-bit -- after all, the new computer I built is a million times faster than my old one, 64-bit or not. I know I don't really need the speed difference right now, and that I would be hard-pressed to ever see one. But, one can exist, and all the new applications are going to be taking advantage of 64-bit, so I just want to have the capability of using them to their fullest potential. I don't care if I see a decrease in speed in older apps -- I can run them well enough anyway. That's the reason I'm using 64-bit. Other than that, as well as the other advantages (such as a larger amount of possible RAM for use in the future), I'm using it just for the hell of it. End of story.

What was pointed out however, is that "just for the hell of it" is still a retarded reason.

In case you didn't notice, that's not the only reason I said I was using it.


It's also retarded to not put spaces between words, just for the hell of it.

SorryIdon'tknowwhatyou'retalkingabout.Ithinkitsawesome.
Likecake.Cake'sawesomewhenyou'reabletoeatit.Especiallywithsomeicecream.

... Marvelous. I feel like committing seppuku now.

If there are any responsible moderators or administrators on this forum, I'd appreciate it if they closed this thread. It has strayed from it's original topic, which was concerning JK's compatibility with Vista 64-bit. It turns out it is compatible. That's all that came of this topic, and all that will. Besides spam and meaningless bickering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau

My work here is done. Beam me up, Scotty. \m/

That's nice. Your point?


Yes, Jep, my entrails are lying upon the floor now, thanks to you. I'm undead.

I believe his point was that he used a portmanteau, which explains the lack of a space in between the words.

It was a portmanteau.

Which you didn't know.

So I enlightened you.

Awesome. Seems to me it was still just for the hell of it. Using a space between the words would have conveyed the same meanings, no?

Besides, judging from that page it seems that most "portmanteaus" aren't just two words stuck together without a space, but rather two words fused together... "Smog," for instance. Smoke and fog, but the "portmanteau" isn't smokefog. It's smog.

Wow, now this really is off-topic.

It depends on what sounds better.

Nerdowned sounded more like a real word than nerwend.