sorry watching this for some time... if you read over the 6 sites of this thread its like reading a story about some cavemen arguing and throwing stones at each other defending old technologie...
The Hardware industrie is producing new stuff so fast that you could build a new  high end top notch PC every week but what does a high end pc do with a overall blocking and slow operation system...therefor ( for me its a logical choice to move on to 64 ) as the industrie will too.
or would you run an I7 extreme on windows 95 as your main OS...
thats like starting windows 7 with an 386 ! ok a bit too much but you get the idea.

Performance will comes from having smarter computer and not from having faster computer !!!

64 bits don't mean faster... if a 32 bits computer is like a car ( 2 row of 2 seat ), 64 bits computer are like bus ( more row and more seat by row )... if both have the same engine, the bus will be slower that the car !!!

What is really needed is a revolution at the engine level... a new way... somehing like the experimental optronic computer, quantum computer, DNA computer, or chemical computer...

As today, I7 are nothing more that glorified 8086 ( from 1976 )...

What make actual processor being fast are mainly due to their multi core and their instruction set architecture ( MMX, SSE, AES, etc )... in some way, modern graphic card are like a car turbo, able to ease the central processor job...

And i repeat, actual 32 bits processor are in fact 36 bits address range capable... actual 64 bits processor are in fact 48 bits address range capable... all is about marketing... in fact, it will not surprise me that tomorrow, somebody speak of 128 bits processor for the same product that we have today... will not be a true lie since the Pentium 3 from 1999 have introduce SSE set with 128 register !!! Well, my graphic card is a 384 bits card... and it is a old one...

The Hardware industrie is producing new stuff so fast that you could build a new  high end top notch PC every week

My computer is more that 4 year old...but in benchmark test, it is around 200 percent more powerful that a recent i7 extreme edition... Of course, it is a workstation computer, not a limited desktop computer... what is called a high end desktop computer is nothing more that a low end when compared that the next class...

but what does a high end pc do with a overall blocking and slow operation system...

Well, the old 32 bits windows 2000 datacenter is able to use 32 gb ram... Windows server R2 2003 datacenter is able to use 128 gb ram... a lot of old Windows OS was better the the actual Windows 7... mainly the professional version ( real one, not these labeled professional/ultimate for marketing reason )...

Majority of actual change are GUI related and not OS related... in linux world, we have a OS ( linux kernel ) and a lot of GUI ( Gnome, KDE, etc )... in fact, actual win7 kernel is always based on the old NT-kernel from 1993...

Industry will never move to  Win7 because it don't add any real value to the OS itself... Industry don't care of a cute 3D desktop with fancy effect who use a lot of resource... they need only a efficient and stable system... and it is what server/datacenter edition of windows give to them...

I think wincustomize should buy me a copy since I have bought almost every master skin they put out since 20003

I think wincustomize should buy me a copy since I have bought almost every master skin they put out since 20003"

Have I been here THAT long? ....

@Thoumisin:  Your computer is 4 years old and is 200% more powerfull than a good system of the I7 series...i realy doubt that ! show me those benchs !
Its not possible unless you have a server that you want to compare but for a personal pc ? sorry !

To that part :

I never said NT, 2000 NO i did not i sayd windows 95 if you want to use that as a server system mhh go for it
Also i wasnt talking about Servers what i meant with " the industrie will move with it" I meant Hardware that is published, and also the personal computing OS systems like windows 7, with those fancy ugly unusefull industrial visiual effects like you would say is that they will produce more and more for x64 until we get to the next step and leave the 32 behind.

but i like your explaintation of 64bits to 32bits

maybee i should have added ( personal computers ) at my first post

64bit has been around for ages and if it weren't for a few very stubborn companies, it'd taken off years ago. but what good is a 64bit os when adobe doesn't seem to be able to create a stable 64bit version of flash. it's better now (still not very stable), but I'm convinced adobes refusal to upgrade their widely used flash has been one of the strongest anti-64bit decisionpoints - I know it was for me, when I first tried using a 64bit linux about 7 years ago and had to go back to 32 because of it.

harpo

This is completely and utterly wrong. your car analogy fails.

And 64bit IS faster than 32bit, up to a theoretical 4 to 5 times faster.

examples:

h264 encode: 0% speedup

divx encode: ~60% speedup

7z compression: 23% speedup

hash calculations: 3x to 4x the speed.

taltamir, the ACTUAL differences in performance between '32 bit' and '64 bit'  programs ARE due to the 32 bit register size vs the 64 bit register size, with the 32 bit needing HALF the ram to store data AND half the memory accesses to get the data it needs, but 64 bit can work directly on the 64 bits of data and sequencel ram reading is quicker by approx 10% than non sequencel ram reading which is where the differing APPLICATIONS performances that you quote..

harpo

Win7.

Sorry but unless someone gives me a copy for free, no way. I have no need for shiny windows and 1000 annoying popups.

What we need is to be able to properly play games on Linux!

You guys should just stop replying when Thoumsin speaks.  I can only roll my eyes so much before they fall out of my head.

Agreed the car analogy vs a bus is a bad example. It is obvious that Thoumsin only has a shallow understanding of CPU architecture. 

Its funny how history repeats I remember similar arguments from ludites who argued that 8bit was the way to go and that 16bit wasn't what it was cracked up to be, and then again 16 vs 32 bit. 

If you are putting together a new computer and you want windows you would obviously install Windows 7 64 Bit. The only exception is if you had some expensive hardware that you can't get drivers for - but in that case why not holdonto your old 32 bit windows xp box?

32 vs 64 what a non-issue to be arguing about

savyg, so you have lost your eyes, perhaps you should get some more potato's as they each have several 'eyes'

harpo

Actually the vast majority of changes in vista and windows 7 were under the hood changes. altering the way things work in a fundamental manner (to be much better).

for example, windows 7 can have both an AMD and an nVidia and an intel GPU, each one with its driver installer, each one working properly (and driving an individual montior/s).

this is simply not possible in winXP and required major architectural changes. (the specific purpose was not that of course, it was to improve the way video is handled overall, this is just one of the results of the new method). Networking has never been more stable and smooth, rebooting due to installation of program or driver are now extremely rare, a driver crash does not cause windows to crash (it can power cycle just the GPU and reload its driver), and so on and so forth.

but then I'd have to get a potato gun, and then I'd be without eyes again