Open Discussion on the Choice of 64-bit & 32-bit OS

[DKT27]

After the entire Ramayana is over, somebody or the other invariably queries, "Who was Sita?"

It's very rarely that - somebody queries, "Who was Draupadi?" :lol: :rofl: :lmao:

Incase, incase, you are aiming this at someone, I suggest you re-read the thread title, and the bold letters in the first post.

[Roger D]

:blink: :mellow: :doh: Aag!!! Iam sticking to XP. Pro for know :rolleyes:

It will be really better to switch to at least Windows 7..

you'll surely feel the freshness..

:yes: :yes: :yes:

[calguyhunk]

Ok..If I'm using 32 bit OS and want to switch to 64 bit OS then will I have to activate it with new Key? or the old Installation ID will work? :think: :think:

Only RETAIL keys allow for switching between 32 and 64 bit OS. Not the system builder/OEM version ;) If yours is KMS activated, then NO it won't work 'cuz it's volume licensed which is not treated as retail ;)

And Plz elaborate the benefits of 64 bit OS over 32 bit OS.. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No benefits whatsoever unless you're into heavy RAM eating jobs like photo/video editing, 3D rendering or gaming. In that case, you'll need 64 bit OS as it supports more than 3.5 GB. 32 bit OS only reads upto ~3.5 GB or thereabouts ;)

If you're gonna be surfing the net for Facebook, youtube etc. and D/L and watch movies and listen to music, check E-Mails, you'll NEVER EVER feel the difference between 32 and 64 bit OS's with 2GB RAM :)

a x64-bit installs fine but does not run optimally on less than 4 GB of RAM (especially true of new adoptions in Windows 8.)

Absolutely unequivocally wrong. 2GB runs 64 bit OS just fine depending on your usage. If you're not going to be using RAM heavy applications, 64 bit Win 7/8 on a 2GB system is more than enough for smooth running. Even 1Gb runs just fine, although multitasking may face a bottleneck.

My work lappy has 2GB and I'm running 64 bit Windows on it and it runs smooth as silk. Hardly ever uses more than 75% RAM even with over a hundred browser windows open along with utorrent, VLC and Outlook running in the background ;)

I repeat for one and all concerned - there are no benefits whatsoever to be accrued from extra RAM unless you want to be gaming or running Photoshop/3ds Max/Maya etc. or you really want to be multitasking with a vengeance. Mail Client + Media Player + web surfing with 100 tabs open + movie downloading + Skyping + bit coin minting + Folding @ Home + Matlab/R running in the background whilst playing BF3 :lol:

In that case, your first bottleneck is going to be the processor. You should actually look to get a fast quad/octa core processor in that case (if you don't have one already) along with upgrading your RAM ;)

Otherwise 2GB is more than enough you'll need with 64 bit Win7/8 and Ubuntu 13 ;)

[calguyhunk]

I have heard that in 64 bit systems, processing happens faster than in a 32 bit system.

That's true but just a mere technicality for 99% of PC users. The regular FB/YouTube/Netflix/Gmail user won't even know the difference in the real world. On the other hand, a lot of complex mathematical calculations etc. definitely gets a boost from 64 bit OS because it can address a larger number of locations than a 32 bit OS ;)

The thing is, as of today, if ALL your hardware is new and you don't need to run legacy 16 bit software (or even some really old 32 bit code that doesn't have support for 64 bit systems) you're better off installing 64 bit Windows. Driver compatibility for 64 bit OS is no longer an issue for newer hardware. :)

[dcs18]

After the entire Ramayana is over, somebody or the other invariably queries, "Who was Sita?"

It's very rarely that - somebody queries, "Who was Draupadi?" :lol: :rofl: :lmao:

Incase, incase, you are aiming this at someone, I suggest you re-read the thread title, and the bold letters in the first post.

I don't think it gets any more clear and lucid than this - I suggest you check out the intellectual part (the one who made those bold letters has himself appreciated my post.)

Do you have any personal problem with that?

[Roger D]

After the entire Ramayana is over, somebody or the other invariably queries, "Who was Sita?"

It's very rarely that - somebody queries, "Who was Draupadi?" :lol: :rofl: :lmao:

Incase, incase, you are aiming this at someone, I suggest you re-read the thread title, and the bold letters in the first post.

I don't think it gets any more clear and lucid than this - I suggest you check out the intellectual part (the one who made those bold letters has himself appreciated my post.)

Do you have any personal problem with that?

ok ok ok..just cool down and chill bro.. :badmood: :badmood: :badmood:

I just appreciated ur humor..and of course everyone can share their opinion if they find themselves Intellectual.. :yes: :yes: :yes:

[dcs18]

a x64-bit installs fine but does not run optimally on less than 4 GB of RAM (especially true of new adoptions in Windows 8.)

Absolutely unequivocally wrong. 2GB runs 64 bit OS just fine depending on your usage.

2 GBs suck big time for my usage. :thumbsdown:

Here's a hands-on comparative study of what I experience on a daily basis on a x64-bit (Windows 8 + Windows 7) - a 16 GB system opens and runs applications & programs instantly, a 4 GB system immediately, a 2 GB system constipatedly, whereas a 1 GB system allows you sufficient time to take a leak.

The 2 GB RAM is a minimum requirement whereas, check out what I've highlighted in the quote - it's about running optimally (not merely running - we all know those applications & programs will run.)

My work lappy has 2GB and I'm running 64 bit Windows on it and it runs smooth as silk. Hardly ever uses more than 75% RAM even with over a hundred browser windows open along with VLC and Outlook running in the background ;)

If I'm not mistaken you own the lenovo G570 - the same as one of my Customers (that, I believe shipped with 4 GBs - not 2 GBs.) Anyway that's besides the point - so, I'm striking it out.

The point is not merely about how much RAM is being consumed. BTW, 2 GBs will run as silk - it has to (using VLC and Outlook with a 100+ browser windows is not about computing.) There is much much more to it as you yourself, described - (quoted below.)

I repeat for one and all concerned - there are no benefits whatsoever to be accrued from extra RAM unless you want to be gaming or running Photoshop/3ds Max/Maya etc. or you really want to be multitasking with a vengeance. Mail client + media Player + web surfing with 100 tabs open + movie downloading + Skyping + bit coin minting + Folding @ Home + Matlab/R running in the background whilst playing BF3 :lol:

In that case, your first bottleneck is going to be the processor. You should actually look to get a fast quad/octa core processor in that case (if you don't have one already) along with upgrading your RAM ;)

What really makes you presume that I and others don't / won't sin into all of those tempestuous things and more?

BTW, you'll be surprised that my processor is a QuadCore Sandy Bridge core i7 (that's all the more reason for allocating more RAM to it - otherwise it would have been like grafting a Ferrari's engine to a bullock-cart.)

FWIW, most :pirate: folks find it more cost-efficient to upgrade the bullock cart - rather than the Ferrari.

Otherwise 2GB is more than enough you'll need with Win7/8 and Ubuntu 13 ;)

I would've hated my x64-bit Windows 8 vehemently, had I made the blunder of contenting myself obediently with the measly 2 GBs of RAM that Microsoft mandated as a base minimum.

Most of the Windows 7 systems of my Customers, which I reformat into Windows 8 are generally endowed with 2 GBs of RAM (sometimes even less.) Little wonder those poor fellas rush out to upgrade their 2 GBs into 4 GBs or more. :lmao:

[dcs18]

After the entire Ramayana is over, somebody or the other invariably queries, "Who was Sita?"

It's very rarely that - somebody queries, "Who was Draupadi?" :lol: :rofl: :lmao:

Incase, incase, you are aiming this at someone, I suggest you re-read the thread title, and the bold letters in the first post.

I don't think it gets any more clear and lucid than this - I suggest you check out the intellectual part (the one who made those bold letters has himself appreciated my post.)

Do you have any personal problem with that?

ok ok ok..just cool down and chill bro.. :badmood: :badmood: :badmood:

I just appreciated ur humor..and of course everyone can share their opinion if they find themselves Intellectual.. :yes: :yes: :yes:

As a thumb-rule, I don't take things personally - I'm a totally different & new guy, each morning (unless, someone insists on tickling my testicles.)

[dcs18]

there were some Issues which i couldn't get rid of( I don't remember all) So I ditched Windows 8.

one of them was Thumbnail Issue.(As i have a collection of hollywood & Bollywood Movies and so many Videos)

This implementation seems to be identical - is a known issue on Windows 8, Windows 7 and very likely on Vista, too.

But in Windows 7(and also in Vista) there is working solution for the issue. :yes: :yes: :yes:

I know it's too late for you, now - however, if any other Windows 8 User(s) would like to solve the thumbnail issue, it's just a matter of disabling the following:-

• Thumbnail Previews
• Image file thumbnail previews
• Thumbnail on network folders
• Disable thumbnail cache

JFTR, I prefer to enable my thumbnails as my system is quite powerful. :)