i have question about the windows xp 32 bit and 64 bit wats the different between them and which one is better and how can i know if am using 32 or 64 and is there any ways to convert from 32 bit to 64 bit without formatting my pc

you are most likely using x32. when windows xp starts up, it will clearly say it is 64bit version under the logo if u are using x64.

and no, u can't convert from 32 to 64. it will take a fresh install.

need to buy new windows cd?
or dl from microsoft (free)?

This post has been edited by vaires: Nov 1 2008, 12:19 PM

windows x64 was never free. can't download it from msoft site.

so what are the pros and cons of win xp 64bit?
and minimum requirement?

er ... you definitely need a 64-bit capable processor.

the advantage is that you will be able to use more than 4gb ram. some, but not many apps, run faster on 64-bit with more RAM.

xp pro issit 64-bit? how to c whether is 32/64 bit?
noob ere.. =p

I fail your sentence as I'm a computer engineer

To run 64 bit OS, you need 64 bit processor and 64 bit motherboard
Core 2 Duo and above is 64bit. Dual-Core is 32.


Maximum addressable memory in 32 bit BUS line is 2^32 = 4,29,4967,296 bit or 4Gb
Maximum addressable memory in 64 bit BUS line is 2^64 = 18446744073709551616 bit


Applications run faster NOT because of more RAM.. my gosh
On 32 bit OS, adding two 64-bit numbers requires 2 cycles
On 64 bit OS, adding two 64-bit numbers requires only 1 cycle

So theoretically, the instructions would run twice faster
You could do everything up to twice faster "theoretically"


The only disadvantage is driver support for old 32-bit hardware and 32-bit PCI cards.
But nowdays, more and more devices are 64-bit compliant

And by next year, everything will be 64bit
32-bit will extinct just like dinosaurs


Many people are already running 64-bit with no driver clashes.




Edit: For TS
Of course, XP and Vista both have 32-bit and 64-bit versions


We faced the same problem when we were using windows 95, didn't we?
Windows 95 had 16-bit and 32-bit versions. Later no more 16-bit..
32 bit runs up to to times faster than 16 bit
16-bit supports only up to 65536 bit of addressable memory

This post has been edited by prolog: Nov 1 2008, 05:12 PM

oh ... but you fail as a computer engineer.

there is no need to look for a "64-bit" motheboard. have you seen any motherboard certified as 64-bit? just get a motherboard compatible with the processor.

even some Pentium 4s support 64-bit, not just Core 2 Duo.

and pls tell me what is "Duo Core"? your homemade processor?

isn't that what i said? do I have to give mathematical proof too next time?

yes, I am aware of the other advantages but it is all theoratical at the moment. most apps till don't run twice as fast or close to that on 64-bit.

thx every one for all the info

---

Added on November 1, 2008, 9:02 pmthx for for all the info. so do u think that there os no need to use 64 bit ?
caz i thought 64 is more better ?
and ist true that not all the program can run in the win xp 64 bit

This post has been edited by CoolZeero: Nov 1 2008, 09:02 PM

Most software that are available is not 64-bit yet. So there's not much benefit migrating to a 64-bit OS.

Just because some technology is released, and it's better, doesn't mean that everybody will go ga-ga and straightaway use it.

Software makers won't release 64-bit softwares yet since the demand is less from 32-bit ones, and most people are still using 32-bit.

Hardware device makers might release 64-bit drivers for their new and upcoming hardware, but they won't spend the resources porting the 32-bit drivers for their old and obsolete hardware to 64-bit. And people still are using old and obsolete hardware. Believe me.

As far as Windows is concerned, it might not support as many devices in 64-bit than in 32-bit, so this alone discouraged many to move on to 64-bit.

But 32-bit to 64-bit move _WILL_ happen. It's all in the matter of time. And as history shows, it will be progressively slow for economical reasons.

Like it happened from our 16-bit, segmented memory model (286 and below) to 32-bit, protected mode, flat memory model (386 and above)

The 32-bit technology we use now began in the 1980s. It might predate some of us here

---

Added on November 1, 2008, 10:03 pmCalculation performance has nothing to do with the OS, but the processor itself. And adding two 64-bit numbers will take more than 2 cycles, in any present processor.

The main difference is the size of the pointers. In 32-bit, pointers are 4 bytes, whereas in 64-bit, 8 bytes.
Another thing is, the general-purpose registers will have an extended 64-bit versions (RAX, RBX, RCX, RDX, ...)

What does this mean?

In a flat memory model, you could address 4,294,967,296 (2 ^ 32, or 4GB) memory locations in bytes, in 32-bit mode. That's why you hear things about 32-bit OS only supports up to 3GB ram, etc, etc. (3GB because your video card RAM has its place there, too. Not to mention your peripherals, USB, PCI cards, all will have its section of memory) It's not that you can't use your 2x2GB sticks in your computer running 32-bit OS, it's just that the remainder RAM can't be used by the OS.

For a 64-bit, (2 ^ 64, calculate it yourself) you could just imagine how much memory will it be able to "see." Windows XP 64-bit for instance, supports up to 128GB of RAM.

However, the pointers will take double the size in RAM (8 bytes instead of 4 bytes in 32-bit.) So the same application in 32-bit, when recompiled for 64-bit will take a bit more memory, and I have reasons to believe that it'll take a bit more disk space. But this is compensated by other 64-bit features (more general-purpose registers, etc.)

DOS was a 16-bit OS, but it supports up to 640KB of memory. It does this by using segmented memory model (10 pages of 64KB.)

But I feel we won't be using the segmentation model to enable access to more than 4GB RAM since 64-bit processors are available and they are affordable (in contrast to computers during the 1980-90s)



This post has been edited by Deslack: Nov 1 2008, 10:03 PM

thx again bro my i have question about the rams can i run 2gb 1066 rams with 2gb 667 in windows xp 32 bit??

If your motherboard supports it, I can't see why not.

also, i hope you have good, overclockable rams to do that. cause it is a BIG jump from 667 to 1066.

Well, the system will run at the lowest speed available, anyway. So the 1066 will run at 667 max.

so u think there is no need to connect the 2gb 667 rit caz this ganna effect the 2 gb1066

yes, assuming the motherboard supports 1066, I would stick to just the 1066 RAM for faster speed.

Hm, there's this factor called the Frontal Side Bus. Your RAM might be able to support higher speed but it's quite useless if the speed of the processor's access to RAM is not that high. If the processor's FSB is running at 667MHz, I think even using only 1066MHz RAM would gain no benefit over 667MHz RAM.

Unless... you're thinking of overclocking the processor and raise its FSB.

am using E6320 i oc the proc. to 2.8 and down clock the ram to 800 thats y i thought of puting my 2 gb 667

---

Added on November 5, 2008, 8:59 pmso how??

This post has been edited by CoolZeero: Nov 5 2008, 08:59 PM

DDR667 supports up to 1333MHz quad-pumped Intel FSB.

I don't think you need to downclock the RAM. Leave it at 1066MHz.

But do stress-test your system, just in case. I could be wrong.