Vista Forums - View Single Post - 64-bit Vista adoption skyrocketing...

**rasmasyean** · 08-28-2008

Quote: Originally Posted by Gary S. Terhune

Yo, dude... What you quoted in no way addresses the 64-bit *applications*
issue. Until the applications are there that truly are 64-bit, the problems
with 64-bit Windows (and there are plenty) are not worth the risk for so
little return, and no matter how many cute tricks the programmers and
Microsoft pull to make what are essentially 32-bit apps run faster under
64-bit architecture, that is not at all the same as having true 64-bit
applications.

Not only that, but SuperFetch would drive the RAM worry warts, the ones who
insist that there must be as much free memory as possible, absolutely
bonkers, <g>.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
Welcome to the GrystMill!

That's not exactly how it works. Having a large disk cache makes overall performance faster since it doesn't have to access the HD as much since a HD is a lot slower than RAM.

And what you are talking about regarding 64-bit application performance only applies to things that involve a lot of math calculations. Many of these "special" users already use 64-bit XP. In reality, the "average user" would reap more benefit from cache (even as it uses all "free" RAM) than to run true 64-bit applications. The future 64-bit apps is just icing on the cake.

See most free RAM is wasted, so Vista salvages that wasted RAM intelligently to make the computer faster. It's not just the CPU and FLOPS or whatever that affects performance.

At least that's what that article is indicating as the reason for grater adoption of 64-bit Vista (vs. 32-bit Vista).

08-28-2008	#8 (permalink)
rasmasyean Vista Ultimate x64 210 posts	Re: 64-bit Vista adoption skyrocketing... Quote: Originally Posted by Gary S. Terhune Yo, dude... What you quoted in no way addresses the 64-bit applications issue. Until the applications are there that truly are 64-bit, the problems with 64-bit Windows (and there are plenty) are not worth the risk for so little return, and no matter how many cute tricks the programmers and Microsoft pull to make what are essentially 32-bit apps run faster under 64-bit architecture, that is not at all the same as having true 64-bit applications. Not only that, but SuperFetch would drive the RAM worry warts, the ones who insist that there must be as much free memory as possible, absolutely bonkers, <g>. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User Welcome to the GrystMill! That's not exactly how it works. Having a large disk cache makes overall performance faster since it doesn't have to access the HD as much since a HD is a lot slower than RAM. And what you are talking about regarding 64-bit application performance only applies to things that involve a lot of math calculations. Many of these "special" users already use 64-bit XP. In reality, the "average user" would reap more benefit from cache (even as it uses all "free" RAM) than to run true 64-bit applications. The future 64-bit apps is just icing on the cake. See most free RAM is wasted, so Vista salvages that wasted RAM intelligently to make the computer faster. It's not just the CPU and FLOPS or whatever that affects performance. At least that's what that article is indicating as the reason for grater adoption of 64-bit Vista (vs. 32-bit Vista).
My System Specs