What, you can't have the cache and all that with true 64-bit apps? You have
to choose between one or the other? My 32-bit Windows on this Core2Duo
machine is plenty fast as it is. I've don't generally have to wait more than
a heartbeat for apps to open, so I don't see any advantage in storing them
in RAM to make them open more quickly.
I know all that about the RAM, wasted space, etc. I guess my <g> (grin) at
the end of the paragraph didn't make it clear enough that I consider those
"free-RAM believers to be nuts.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com
"rasmasyean" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message
news:512efd0c9790dc508f6a41af1dc77ed0@xxxxxx-gateway.com...
Quote:
>
> Gary S. Terhune;822848 Wrote: Quote:
>> 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!' (http://grystmill.com)
>> >
> 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).
>
>
> --
> rasmasyean