Windows 32 bit vs 64 bit.

My new laptop gives me the option of Vista 32 bit or 64 bit followed by upgrade to Windows 7.
What difference to Second Life does 32 bit and 64 bit make please?
Googleling the question in general useage seems to say better the devil you know and stick with 32 bit.
Thanks
West

64 bit. Several advantages but the most relevant for Second Life is the amount of system RAM you can install and use.......32 bit operatins sytems are limited to about 3.5 gigs max.

And 64 bit is the future.......just like about 15 years ago when 32 bit took over the 16 bit systems. SL runs fine on 64 bit Win7. Drivers used to be an issue but that's pretty much resolved now. Sooner or later we all are going to be running 64 bit systems.....even old die hards like me.

If you have less than 4GB of RAM, and you are not intending to get more or you are comfortable upgrading to 64 bit after you DO get more, then go with a 32-bit version of Windows.

If you have more than 4GB of RAM, or you plan on getting more than 4GB of RAM in the near future and do not want to reinstall Windows when you do, go with 64 bit.

If you have exactly 4GB of RAM and that effectively maxes out your computer, it depends on your motherboard and video card which one will give you more available RAM... but I would be inclined to go with 64 bit.

Yes 4GB is where it is, as it is a laptop and I have never been inside one I do not know if it will take more, I know it easy with desktops just to plug in more. Medion MD 97760.
Card is Nvidia GT220M, which I believe borders at bottom of sort of medium price range of laptops above bottom price ranges. It runs SL Ok on Emerald with lots of fps.
Thanks
West

OK, that could go either way. I would probably stick with whatever's on it now, as far as SL goes, because it's so on-the-edge. I am 99.44% sure you won't see any performance improvement in SL from upgrading. SL itself is a 32-bit program, so won't benefit from the 64-bit instruction set no matter what the underlying OS.

I run SL in both 32 and 64. While 64 *in general* is the future and various OS people have done successful 64-bit migrations, there's every chance that MS will get it wrong. Support for add-on bits in 64 is patchy, so the benefit of lots of system RAM can easily be wiped out by 3rd parties lagging in supplying 64 bit graphics drivers.

I think people worrying about SL's capcaity for eating system RAM are reacting to past builds, not the current build, or future trends. Displays are very likely to plateau around the Full HD resolution and price point, for instance... so don't hold your breath for 3,000 pixel wide OLED displays needing 16GB of buffer!

The other thing to think about alongside the 64/32 cutoff, is multi-threading. It's very noticeable that quad core machines (that is, four cores on one processor carrier) are much more expensive than the equivalent duals, and with good reason: my *eight* core 2.5Ghz machine is way quicker in real use, than my dual-core 3.33Ghz beside it,. depsite the 3.33 being a heavyweight workstation spec system (HP xw8600).

So for this year at least, I'd stick with 32 and just keep watching 64. If you see things going slow with maxed-out RAM on a 32 bit OS machine then it's not the RAm that's the problem, it's soemthing else.

64 bit, unless you are running legacy 16-bit code. No worries about video drivers: Nvidia has excellent 64-bit support.

You get more memory and better security (hardware DEP). Windows 64 bit version can run 32-bit code on 64-bit systems (on a few occasions you have to set comparability mode, but that's not common). You will get about the same performance on 32-bit applications (more system memory but slightly more overhead) and much better performance running 64-bit code (ability to run full 64-bit processes plus more system memory).

Hardware DEP is nice, but we're talking about Vista... I'm more inclined to say stick with the 32 considering your memory size... although if you have or a looking at acquiring programs that are written for 64 bit, I'd swing the other way personally

I'm running Vista x64 at work and it's not *quite* seamless. Almost, and you are likely to have no problems, but not quite.

Yes question is Vista because I have coupon for Windows 7 upgrade and I have to specify if I want 32 bit or 64 bit version before the end of this month.
Thanks, West

64 bit here, and aside from a very few very old legacy applications, all is going swimmingly.

I put Vista 64 bit on the computer I built last year. I've got 6 gig memory, so it was a requirement.

The only regret I have is I have a really great game that came out of the W3/W95 days that simply won't install because of the 16 bit installer. Runs on Vista 32 bit computers tho.

*Turns away to deal with Mendari atomizer tanks attacking the smelters.*

Won't 16-bit games run in the Windows XP subsystem in Windows 7?

And if it's that old... you could probably run it in a plain old VM anyway.

If you have to make a decision this month, I think you're probably best off getting the 64 bit Windows 7 just to give you maximum flexibility for the future.

I'd get the 64-bit version unless I had some piece of hardware or software that was incompatible and couldn't be upgraded or easily replaced.

Most of the incompatibilities I've run into involve old hardware, and they don't work under 32-bit Windows 7 or Vista either.

I took the question as which version of Windows 7 should the OP order...and I would definitely say 64 bit. It's a rock-solid OS.

The XP subsystem is in the Pro or Ultimate versions of Windows 7. Home Premium does not have the seamless XP VM (but it does have a limited compatibility mode). I do have some DOS games that I run on a VM quite nicely in Windows 7.

Another often overlooked advantage to 64-bit is that in 64-bit mode, the CPU has more general-purpose registers. When an application is compiled to run in 64-bit mode, the compiler can generate more efficient code as a result.

I don't know whether this applies to SL, though.

Hey, if someone can tell me how to get it to work. . .My wife is getting tired of me commandeering her computer when I get tired of SL.

Anyway, the game I payed $40 for 10 years ago is free now. If anyone cares to try.

http://www.enemynations.com/

Not yet it doesn't But I'm hoping.

Try DOSbox http://www.dosbox.com/

It's a VM with an installed DOS that works well with older games.

It doesn't, it only applies to programs compiled for 64 bit.

Right -- what I didn't know was whether there's an SL viewer compiled for 64 bit.

Not for Windows.

Does dosbox run Windows 95? This is a Windows game. Even uses directx.

64 bit vista is not very compatible with making videos. No public domain codecs that are compatible with the usual tools.

Virtual Box http://www.virtualbox.org/ will if you have the install discs for 95.