Should you get the 64-bit edition of Windows Vista? Should you buy a 64-bit CPU for your next PC? These questions aren’t really that tough to answer — providing that you (yes you) know the answer to a single, simple question.
Evern since I first wrote about buying computers, the questions people ask always seem to be about hardware. Dell-this, Toshiba-that. Those are good questions, but they miss the point.
Hardware is nothing without the software to drive it.
Remember that. All the hardware power in the world is useless when there’s nothing to take advantage of it. You need software that craves the hardware. Without that software, there’s no point in owning the hardware.
Consider the case of some first-time computer buyer paying way too much for a high-end graphics card. Then the user never installs any video games or graphics software. Sure, expensive graphics make the web and Microsoft Word look just stunning, but what’s the point in buying something you don’t use?
Recently a reader asked me whether it’s worth it to buy a 64-bit PC. She was also concerned whether buying such a PC would affect her current lot of peripherals, such as the printer and scanner. It was a good question.
64-bits refers to the size of information the CPU can manage at one time. A 64-bit chunk is twice as wide as a 32-bit chunk. Even so, a 32-bit processor can work with 64-bit chunks, just not as efficiently. But all that technical mumbo-jumbo isn’t the issue. What’s important is knowing whether your software requires a 64-bit processor.
If you’re using a program that says — right there on the side of the box — I prefer 64-bits, then you get a 64-bit processor and the 64-bit version of Windows. When none of your software meets that criteria, then the 64-bit processor and 64-bit Windows are nice, but not necessary.
The second part of the reader’s question dealt with peripherals. The printer and scanner, and all peripherals, continue to work no matter what bit-breadth the processor lurks inside the console. Internal components must be geared to appreciate the processor, but that’s something done by the manufacturer.
Bottom line: There is no point in buying technology you’ll never use. The best way to learn what you’ll use and what you won’t use is to become educated on the topic. I have a book to suggest: PCs For Dummies. 🙂
The only possible reason I can think of that a consumer (such as moi) would need Vista x64 is to use all of a set of 4GB of RAM. I just simply say get 3GB and be done with it.
Comment by Douglas — September 10, 2008 @ 3:58 am
I assume that 4GB limitation will be addressed with the next version of Windows.
Comment by admin — September 10, 2008 @ 7:32 am
Will they even bother with a 32-bit version as well as a 64-bit version is the next question. Perhaps they’ll just release a 64-bit version and be done with it, which I think would be a smart move.
Comment by Douglas — September 12, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Smart move. Somehow I don’t think in terms of “smart move” with Microsoft and Windows.
Comment by admin — September 12, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Hmm… the problem with Vista x64 is that many apps don’t live happily with WoW (Windows on Windows, Vista’s x86 emulation layer). This means you need the 32-bit editions of said apps to get them to work properly, and that’s a real shame, because the CPU is working very inefficiently. IMHO 32-bit Vista is really slow on my PC, a machine with a 2gHz Core 2 Duo CPU. Sometimes the OS brings it to its knees: surely that can’t be right? Perhaps that’s just Vista, not just the inefficiency of 32 on 64.
Why can’t it be like on Mac OS X or Linux, where an app will just run, regardless?
Comment by Jonathan Rothwell — September 14, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Well….they don’t! With regards to the Mac, Apple dumped thousands of legacy programs during the switch to OSX. They’ll dump thousands more when they move into a pure Intel CPU environment. But unlike PC users, I think Mac owners are more content to upgrade their hardware than PC owners. (I’d love to see stats on that one.)
The biggest problem with Windows is legacy. Vista takes forever because it goes through countless gyrations to ensure that older software remains compatible. That’s horse****. Microsoft needs to move forward and drop the legacy support. The world would thank them for it.
Comment by admin — September 14, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Exactly, but there was still support: OS X had the Classic virtualiser which ran Mac OS 9 in a virtual machine when a Classic app was launched. It still ran perfectly, just in a different OS. It would either be in a little window or run alongside OS X apps, just with the native OS 9 look. That was only removed in Leopard.
Windows, on the other hand, has failed to provide any proper downwards compatibility, and the pointless bits of code cluttering around in Windows that were meant to assist with this are simply weighing the OS down. I say drop downwards compatibility, but also stick in a little bit of code that runs Windows XP or Vista in a virtual machine (á la VMWare or Parallels). MS has the technology (Virtual PC’s been around for ages) so there’s no reason why not.
Comment by Jonathan Rothwell — September 19, 2008 @ 10:14 am