Thanks, nomore,
It looks like I'm stuck with 32bit for now,
Jerry
"nomore" <fac_187@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0474715D-ED11-4745-9485-A93DF4047919@xxxxxx
Quote:
> Presuming 4gbs of RAM:
> The 64 bit OS gives the OS and all applications, including 32 bit apps,
> easier access to an extra gigabyte of RAM than the 32 bit OS. In fact the
> OS can occupy whatever it wants above 3 gbs, and Vista wants all it can
> get. Win7 ain't too much different.
> You can achieve nearly the same thing on a 32 bit OS with arcane command
> switches: almost but not the same.
> Because Vista is such a bloated, hog butt of an OS that extra gigabyte of
> RAM makes a significant difference in overall operation.
> That is why Vista 64 is now preloaded on even low-end laptops.
> All things being equal, meaning you have 64 bit drivers and 4gbs of RAM,
> the 64 bit OS is the better choice for everyone for all purposes without
> any doubt whatever. Your head is buried in cowpies if you do not grasp
> this.
> Unless you have 64 bit apps that need and can use massive amounts of RAM
> then there is no real world gain from having more than 4gbs of RAM. This
> generally means specialized high def video processing or a server running
> in virtualized mode. Textbased apps will never benefit from 64 bit OSes
> but games and multimedia will do so increasingly. In fact if developers
> can tap the massive parallel processing power of modern graphics cards .
> . .
> 64 bit Photoshop is kind of pointless because it would be the very rare
> user with multiple open, multi-layered multi hundred megabite files that
> ever bumps up against the ram limits of 32 bit Photoshop. That is one
> reason why plug-in publishers are not rushing to build compatible 64 bit
> plug-ins.
> This be the truth and is why Microsoft is making noise about no longer
> making 32 bit OSes: you can hide a lot of bloat behind 64 bits.
> Appleunix has finally learned this and is trying to catch up to Microsoft
> in 64 bit OSes with snowkitty, or whatever they call it.