[rtfire1]

I get what your talking about but you seen to be missing my point.

[WinTard]

rtfire1 said:

I get what your talking about but you seen to be missing my point.

I must be missing your point; sorry, I'm on a one track mind mode at the moment. Please excuse my professional deformation. ;)

Perhaps if you could rephrase your point in a different light or perspective, I might grasp it better?

PS: My apologies, I went and read the whole thread again, and now I see why you would have both 32-and-64 bit versions... My posts were not to conflict with you at all, they were a mere attempt to help a new user with 64-bit software. I can see where that would be useful to load both. Now, my methodology is slightly different, I would have loaded two, or three browsers. I actually use three browsers. IE 7 in x86 or 8 in x64, and FF 3.06 and Chrome all in 32-bit. Usually on all possible platforms, x86, x64 Linux and otherwise... IE isn't portable by virtue of Microsoft's attitude which gets to my nerves... But not anymore than Apple's attitude either. Actually Apple's worse. I can't even load any other browser than Safari on my iPhone 3G! Now that gets me going! But I digress... Pssst, Ahhh... Peace again.

~~~~~~~~~~
Anyway, what can you expect from a WinTard? :^0
~ Jo King

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
~ Albert Einstein

Assert your right to make a few mistakes. If people can't accept your imperfections, that's their fault.
~Dr. David M. Burns ;

[squishie]

Hello Win Tard

I think I understand what your saying. But I did not install 2 IE browsers on this system (vista home premium), that is the way it came out of the box. I just got this computer last week (HP a6642p). I like your idea of changing the 32-bit IE browser to a different one. You mentioned "Firefox" Is that a good one? How would one change it and be sure it doesn't change the one in 64-bit? Maybe I should wait until I understand this system better. As for the Adobe flash player, Adobe them self told me that the 64-bit version will be available in it's next version which will be in a few weeks. Anyway, seems these two browsers are independent and insist on processing it's own programs(64or32). I think 64 may send programs over to 32 program files, But 32 is in rebellion and won't return the favor and won't send 64's stuff to it.

[WinTard]

Well I am confused then??? Usually there is only one IE icon pointing to the right IE for a system...

I never even realized there were no Flash / ShockWave for 64-bit from Adobe? Gosh, it shows you I don't use these things very often.

My main concern for work is to deal with IBM WebSphere, Oracle's BEA WebLogic, and Apache's Tomcat / JBoss as J2EE Containers Application Servers. And everything is generated within these boxes, with no need for any plugin Flash / ShockWave I guess...

My three favorite browsers are IE, FireFox and Chrome and I hear lots of good things about Apple's Safari 4 from some of my Apple aficionado friends here but have no experience with it yet. I wouldn't doubt their good word though thus am recommending Safari as well.

Anyway, for additional browsers, you can try:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
http://www.google.com/chrome
http://www.apple.com/safari/

You can also attempt to to perform a reset in IE:

If interested, please go to Tools > Internet Options > Advanced Tab > Reset Button to reinitialize IE to its factory defaults. You can try that in both versions, 32 and 64 bit.



It is always good to start from a known reference state.

Good luck!

~~~~~~~~~~
The more, the merrier!

[rgreen4]

Firefox is heavily used by many members of this community. I resisted for a while, but started using it about a year or so ago. The current community system has a small problem with Firefox 3 in that it can only upload one image per session. For that reason some of us have stayed with Firefox 2 until the new community software is rolled out.

[snorg]

Like I sez, 64 bit just aint necessary rite now.

[WinTard]

snorg said:

Like I sez, 64 bit just aint necessary rite now.

Unless your CPU is 64-bit capable, and you want full use of your RAM memory. In addition, 64-bit transfers twice the amount of data in the same clock cycle used by the CPU, thus is potentially capable of twice the speed on a same clock CPU running 32-bit software, in a 64-bit CPU. You could say you effectively double your internal memory bandwidth by using 64-bit over 32-bit accesses.

Perhaps explaining some of the higher performance as measured 'by the seat of the pants' feelings subjectively reported and experienced users of Windows 7 x64?

Alas, the best I could ever get out of my 4GB Dell Latitude D830 Intel Core2 Duo T9300 @ 2.50GHz under 32-bit x86 operating systems was 3.5G of RAM usage. Why waste speed and RAM when your hardware is capable of such a feat?

Yes, all Intel Core2 chips are 64-bits internally. Thus would gain efficiency and speed from using a true 64-bit OS. 32-bit hardware support in the 64-bit CPUs are there only for mere compatibility with older existing software...

A 100% speed increase is nothing to sneer at. Especially when considering the similar prices for 32-bit and 64-bit OSes.

Now that's in theory. In reality, the increase will be somewhat less than 100%. I'm not exactly sure why but will eventually find out, and then, will also truly understand.

So I will completely agree with your statement that "Like I sez, 64 bit just aint necessary rite now" while amplifying your statement with: on 32-bit hardware only.

Now you wouldn't have an Intel Core2 type CPU would you?

[piyushsingh]

WinTard said:

Quote

Alas, the best I could ever get out of my 4GB Dell Latitude D830 Intel Core2 Duo T9300 @ 2.50GHz under 32-bit x86 operating systems was 3.5G of RAM usage. Why waste speed and RAM when your hardware is capable of such a feat?

That was 3.2 gigs in my case when i had upgraded to 4 gigs a month ago. 800MBs waste..... no way. I am now running vista x64 for past 2 weeks , smooth and fast. All my games run fine and better than on 32 bit. No problem with drivers , nvidia, intel, logitech,realtek, netgear. All had separate 64 bit versions.

[techie4fun]

How much memory have you got now Piyush?

[WinTard]

[quote name='piyushsingh']
>

WinTard said:

> Alas, the best I could ever get out of my 4GB Dell Latitude D830 Intel Core2 Duo T9300 @ 2.50GHz under 32-bit x86 operating systems was 3.5G of RAM usage. Why waste speed and RAM when your hardware is capable of such a feat?
That was 3.2 gigs in my case when i had upgraded to 4 gigs a month ago. 800MBs waste..... no way. I am now running vista x64 for past 2 weeks , smooth and fast. All my games run fine and better than on 32 bit. No problem with drivers , nvidia, intel, logitech,realtek, netgear. All had separate 64 bit versions.

I am happy piyushsingh that both you and I (and obviously many others) seem to agree, that 64-bit OS is the way of the future (obviously!) with all new 64-bit CPU hardware out there. Anything less is a pure waste of resources, money and performance.

64-bit OS are the single most cost-effective and simply-purely-effective performance enhancement one can 'upgrade' to in terms of software. As for hardware, you can simply max out your system with inexpensive RAM. Alas, the maximum under 32-bits is 4GB {2^32}. Whereas in theory, with any 64-bit OS, the max is: 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes of RAM {2^64}, or about:18,446,744,073 GB of RAM ! Reality is another thing... But suffice to say: Unlimited?

Now I would sincerely and highly recommend looking into Windows 7 x64 (beta for now) as it is significantly more efficient in terms of resources, and higher performance than Vista x64. And I speak from almost two years experience with Vista x64, which happens to be our Kick-4$$ gaming system at home.

PS: Oh, does anyone have 18,446,744,073 GB of excruciatingly slow HDD space at home? ;)

PPS: Just try the scientific view of calc in Windows to obtain these numbers... [2][x^y][6][4][=]

[piyushsingh]

[quote name='WinTard']
> [quote name='piyushsingh']
> >

WinTard said:

> > Alas, the best I could ever get out of my 4GB Dell Latitude D830 Intel Core2 Duo T9300 @ 2.50GHz under 32-bit x86 operating systems was 3.5G of RAM usage. Why waste speed and RAM when your hardware is capable of such a feat?
> That was 3.2 gigs in my case when i had upgraded to 4 gigs a month ago. 800MBs waste..... no way. I am now running vista x64 for past 2 weeks , smooth and fast. All my games run fine and better than on 32 bit. No problem with drivers , nvidia, intel, logitech,realtek, netgear. All had separate 64 bit versions.
I am happy piyushsingh that both you and I (and obviously many others) seem to agree, that 64-bit OS is the way of the future (obviously!) with all new 64-bit CPU hardware out there. Anything less is a pure waste of resources, money and performance.

64-bit OS are the single most cost-effective and simply-purely-effective performance enhancement one can 'upgrade' to in terms of software. As for hardware, you can simply max out your system with inexpensive RAM. Alas, the maximum under 32-bits is 4GB {2^32}. Whereas in theory, with any 64-bit OS, the max is: 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes of RAM {2^64}, or about:18,446,744,073 GB of RAM ! Reality is another thing... But suffice to say: Unlimited?

Now I would sincerely and highly recommend looking into Windows 7 x64 (beta for now) as it is significantly more efficient in terms of resources, and higher performance than Vista x64. And I speak from almost two years experience with Vista x64, which happens to be our Kick-4$$ gaming system at home.

PS: Oh, does anyone have 18,446,744,073 GB of excruciatingly slow HDD space at home? ;)

PPS: Just try the scientific view of calc in Windows to obtain these numbers... [2][x^y][6][4][=]

Hey. The exact limit will be 17,179,869,184 GBs. Bytes are fine in ur results, I know you approximated the bytes to gigs conversion , thats fine but i need to show you my calculator. ;-)
So here's mine.

[WinTard]

That's what I like about you, I always learn something new. For instance your calculator. I like mine, because it's everywhere by default (in the Windows world). A bit like the ubiquitous visual interactive vi text editor in all Unix...

For the record, I was too lazy to turn GB into real GB, since 2^10 = 1024 in binary whereas in the decimal system 10^3 = 1000.

Thus would have had to divide 18446744073709551616 / 1073741824 = 17179869184
or (2^64) / (2^(101010)) to obtain the accurate result in decimal bytes...

In the Windows calculator the buttons to press would be:
(] [2] [x^y] [)] [/] [(] [2] [x^y] [(] [1] [0] [] [1] [0] [] [1] [0] [+] [1] [0] [)] [)] [=] or 23 buttons! Phew!

Precisely in decimal bytes:
|1KB =|1024 =|1024 bytes|
|1MB =|1024² =|1,048,576 bytes|
|1GB =|1024³ =|1,073,741,824 bytes|
|Thus 2^64 =|18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes =|17,179,869,184 GigaBytes exactly|

I must confess, I am an extraordinary lazy geek, and take perhaps too many shortcuts... Which is generally the root causes of most bugs in programming.

You and I are real nerds... Who really cares about an insignificant difference of a few billions TeraBytes? Mere zeroes! And the significance is..

I bet you and I would dream to have 1TB RAM in any personal system... A reality which may not be that unreasonable in the near future with 64-bit systems. Wouldn't you say? Whereas, 4GB seems so entry-level nowadays (to some).

The highest density RAM commercially available today in a compact systems in my knowledge is:
> !http://wintard.freehost10.com/image/sunblade-t6340.jpg!
It supports 256GB RAM with 32 8GB DIMM modules, and two sockets for CPU totalling 16 cores. Wow! And runs OpenSolaris or Solaris 10. It is the Sun Microsystems Blade Server T6430. A bit too rich for my diet at the present moment, alas. But observing the current state-of-the-art pattern trend it runs a 64-bit OS.

PS: I am also too lazy to figure out how to put superscripts numbers on this forum... 8D and also figure out why emoticons appear to be recalcitrant here?

I love discovering and understanding pretty patterns!

Oh speaking of patterns, one of the early posts I did here, as a hilarious response to "Non Knowledge, and Collective Butts" in reference to the thread: [Re: The PC World Challenge: 72 Hours of Windows 7! shows a funny side of my disturbed or perhaps brain damaged eccentric psyche... LOL!

Hey here is a fun pattern to try with the calculator: (in scientific mode, you could use the [x^2] button, but it's not as fun!)
[1] [1] [*] [=]
[1] [1] [1] [=]
[1] [1] [1] [1] [=]
etc...

or

keep going with any series of [1] from 1 to 9
[1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [*] [=]

Shortcuts are cool! Especially for kids!

~~~~~~~~~~~
Laziness is the mother of all inventions!
~ Another WinTarded pattern observation

RAM is like money in the bank account. You never have enough...
~ Yet another WinTarded pattern observation

[squishie]

Then there is the 128-bit OS. Do you dare go there? Why not, always wanted to run the world from my desktop....

[WinTard]

Lol well put my friend! Me I just want to have fun... And I already am!

I certainly wish you all the best experience and discovery with your new 64-bit OS.

Enjoy!

PS: You can bet I will be one of the early adopters and evangelist of 128-bit OSes! Soon...

~~~~~~~~~~
You and I possess within ourselves, at every moment of our lives, under all circumstances, the power to transform the quality of our lives.
~ Jerry Jerome

All we are is in the moment.
~ Just another wintarded observation

Whenever I hear, 'It can't be done,' I know I'm close to success.
~ Michael Flatley

You are always a valuable, worthwhile human being -- not because anybody says so, not because you're successful, not because you make a lot of money -- but because you decide to believe it and for no other reason.
~ Wayne Dyer

Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning.
~ Benjamin Franklin

Real success is finding your lifework in the work that you love.
~ David McCullough

Success isn't how far you got, but the distance you traveled from where you started.
~ Anonymous

Successful people are always looking for opportunities to help others. Unsuccessful people are always asking, 'What's in it for me?'
~ Brian Tracy

What's money? A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do.
~ Bob Dylan

[piyushsingh]

WinTard said:

Lol well put my friend! Me I just want to have fun... And I already am!

I certainly wish you all the best experience and discovery with your new 64-bit OS.

Enjoy!

PS: You can bet I will be one of the early adopters and evangelist of 128-bit OSes! Soon...

128 bit OSes . Will they be needed ? Is the theoritical limit of 64-bit computing reliazable in near future OR to be more precise "efficiently realizable" in practice ?

[WinTard]

While I agree with your statement about practicality, I believe human intelligence and the brains empowering that faculty probably utilize more than 128 bit parallel processing... Thus I do not see why man made computers should restrict themselves to anything... Conceptually, why any artificial limitations?



~~~~~~~~~~
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.
~ Sci

[Cosmo]

IMO, the current main difference is the speed and RAM useage.
32 bit processes can only utilize a max of 4GiB of RAM. The Intel x86 processor does support a max of 64GiB physical RAM, but to get that with Windows, you need to enable PAE. Certain versions of Windows, such as XP 32bit, cannot use over 4GiB of ram even with PAE enabled though.
The virtual address space will remain unchanged, being stuck at 4GiB max (meaning the 4GiB usage limit), simply because the size of the variable pointer hasn't changed (it's still 32bit). So you can stick 16Gib of RAM in your computer, and it will recognize it, but there won't be any addressing space available to map it.
With 64bit operating systems, that variable pointer is changed to 64bit meaning it can address up to 256 TiB of virtual space. So if you have a 64bit processor, and you have applications that are RAM greedy and would run better with 4GiB+ of RAM, then it would be beneficial to use a 64bit operating system.
So it comes down to the "sweet spot" of ram, 32bit = 4GiB and 64bit = 256TiB (if you ever find a motherboard that can support 256 Tibibytes, please let me know XD. I haven't found one that can go over 16GiB).

[WinTard]

Ahh, what a nice suffix TiB.

You may want to check this out:
>http://www.supermicr...100/X7DCA-L.cfm
>
>Up to 48GB 667/533MHZ DDR2 ECC Register SDRAM on six DIMM sockets (8GB modules)
>
>

It's a micro ATX 10"x10" around $250 ~ $350 range.

I've used Supermicro mobos before, and never had any problems with them. Rock solid. But performance is ho-hum. I've used Gigabyte and Asus with issues... But still am using Asus overall. I suppose ho-hum performance, means stability and dependability?

Back in the days, IBM AT's were running at 6MHz but you could simply swap the plug-in crystal for 8MHz! Back then, it was something... LOL!

I'm basically waiting to see Intel's announcement sometimes this month about dual socket i7.
http://www.atomicmpc....au/News/138365,dual-cpu-nehalem-on-the-way.aspx
>Dual-CPU Nehalem on the way

Quote

>Related Articles
>Core i7 CPU
>Intel denies Core i7 TLB bug
>IDF wrap-up: Nehalem Turbo Boost
>Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770
>By The Inquirer
>Feb 27, 2009 | 1 Comment
>Tags: nehalem | core | i7 | intel
>Intel's Gainestown platform is looking beefy!
>
>A month from now, Intel will officially introduce the dual processor Nehalem-EP, aka Gainestown.
>
>Essentially, it keeps the same format and LGA1366 socket as the uni-processor Core i7, just dual CPU support and two QPI links per chip this time - one to talk to the Tylersburg chipset, another for high speed whispering to its twin Nehalem brother.
>
>Even the workstation flavour of the Tylersburg is identical to the desktop one (X58) plus of course an extra QPI link to talk to that second CPU - or the second Tylersburg in dual North Bridge configuration for, say, quad PCIe x16 monster boards. Just count the PCIe lanes on the diagram.
>
>What's so interesting about this machine is not so much the CPU core itself - everyone knows all about the Nehalem microarchitecture now and the core itself is more of an incremental improvement over Core 2 - but probably the most balanced core vs uncore system platform design of any DP machine we can recall.
>
>The 25.6GB/s bidirectional bandwidth on each QPI link is twice the fastest FSB1600 bandwidth previously. And then you add up to 32 GB/s memory bandwidth per processor if simply sticking to the three-channel standard DDR3-1333 on each CPU. Should take care of both workstation and server tasks well, whether cache or memory-dependent. And then we add that scalable I/O bandwidth of one or two Tylersburgs...
>
>Well, we all remember the Skulltrail - it may have been far more successful if the chipset was not limited by expensive, hot, high latency FB-DIMMs not exactly suited for desktop or even workstation apps, where latency is just important as bandwidth.
> ...

[Cosmo]

One fantastic looking motherboard....

If only it didn't have ECC RAM :(

[WinTard]

Yes I agree, high-end systems like the Sun T6340 going to 256GB, these kinds of motherboards, going all the way to 48GB with six DIMM sockets, or the maxed out Apple MacPro at 32GB all use expensive error-corrected ECC RAM... It would be nice if we had the choice, of using either type, the common inexpensive as well as the esoteric high-price RAM. Sigh. I think it has to do with the Intel chipset used to support the Xeon processors.

The good news is the dual processor Nehalem-EP, aka Gainestown i7 chipset soon to be released. Couple that with the new 8 core Intel, using cost-effective 8GB non-ECC DIMM's and we're up and running, the likes we've never seen before! I hope all within one year from now, at the street-level.

Well, it is a nice thought anyways.

~~~~~~~~~~
Hope for the best. Be prepared for the worst.

Intel's Gainestown platform is looking beefy!

(Well it can't get any worse than it is now, so it's all good from here on up!)

Where's the beef?

-----
>WinTard wrote:
>PS: I am also too lazy to figure out how to put superscripts numbers on this forum... 8D and also figure out why emoticons appear to be recalcitrant here?

Follow-up: I found the simple fix to all the emoticon issues on these forums. simply use: forums.pcworld.com/images/emoticons/whatever.gif
and replace whatever.gif with:
alert.gif angry.gif blush.gif confused.gif cool.gif cry.gif devil.gif grin.gif happy.gif info.gif laugh.gif love.gif minus.gif mischief.gif plain.gif plus.gif sad.gif shocked.gif silly.gif wink.gif

And to do superscripts, I use Word 2007 then simply insert symbol, cut-and-paste et voila. Simple eh?

Yes some emoticons go through weird convoluted crappy code like:

Quote

<img class="emoticon" src="http://forums.pcworld.com/message/195161/images/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" alt="" />

and it don't work... PCWorld, please fix that? (or remove the broken emoticon facility popup but then I'll put my own)

example? that's supposed to be the wink:

Bugs, bugs here, there anyware, everyware, underware...

Mods: what do I have to do to report a technical problem? I pointed in another post, a reproducible serious bug in PC World Community powered by Jive Software's Clearspace ? -1.10.1 (Version: {3}) - with step-by-step so your programmers can fix it... We have TWO bugs in the queue, as reported by a wintarded enthusiast. Hope somebody is reading this. But also does something about it.

Never press on any of the two buttons appearing in this:
>


Good nite all, it's a palindromic time...