Funny x64bit Windows

[Joe D]

So i installed windows 8.1 x64bit version and it even says on "about this pc" that i have the x64 bit version 

but when i look down my list of downloaded programs it says they are all x32bit 
B, B, B.... BUTWHYOUDODIS :'(

[Raffy98]

So i installed windows 8.1 x64bit version and it even says on "about this pc" that i have the x64 bit version 

but when i look down my list of downloaded programs it says they are all x32bit 

B, B, B.... BUTWHYOUDODIS :'(

Maybe you downloaded 32 bit versions of the programs.

Don't worry though, it's not a big problem!

Just check for 64 bit download availability next time.

[Ahaber]

So i installed windows 8.1 x64bit version and it even says on "about this pc" that i have the x64 bit version 

but when i look down my list of downloaded programs it says they are all x32bit 

B, B, B.... BUTWHYOUDODIS :'(

 

It is possible to run 32 bit programs on a 64 bit os but not vice versa, so you should be fine.

[byalexandr]

It's just 64 bit, or x64. Not x64bit.

[Heizu]

Youll be fine. 32 bit programs run perfectly on 64 bit systems. Try getting 64 bit versions of installs if available tho as they are a little bit better.

[Joe D]

It's just 64 bit, or x64. Not x64bit.

Chill dude 

[dalekphalm]

So i installed windows 8.1 x64bit version and it even says on "about this pc" that i have the x64 bit version 

but when i look down my list of downloaded programs it says they are all x32bit 

B, B, B.... BUTWHYOUDODIS :'(

Lots of Win32 programs are still written in 32-bit - even Microsoft ones. It's a slow process to migrate programs to native 64-bit. Also, there's generally not a problem with 32-bit programs, since 64-bit Windows is basically fully backwards compatible.

[byalexandr]

Chill dude 

I am chill yo. Just got under my skin when you said it that way for some reason. 

[DXMember]

Youll be fine. 32 bit programs run perfectly on 64 bit systems. Try getting 64 bit versions of installs if available tho as they are a little bit better.

in no tangible way at all, unless it's a programm that absolutely requires to access more than 3GB of RAM at a time

[Heizu]

in no tangible way at all, unless it's a programm that absolutely requires to access more than 3GB of RAM at a time

Hence me saying a LITTLE bit better. Aha ram availbility going to be the only difference

[DXMember]

Hence me saying a LITTLE bit better. Aha ram availbility going to be the only difference

64-bit Logitech Gaming Framework is in no way better than 32-bit version.

[Heizu]

64-bit Logitech Gaming Framework is in no way better than 32-bit version.

Ok i really fail to see what point your making here-.- if 64 bit programs did not have any benefit they would not be made period

[dalekphalm]

Ok i really fail to see what point your making here-.- if 64 bit programs did not have any benefit they would not be made period

The point he is making is that many Programs that have 32-bit and 64-bit versions are functionally identical. Literally no difference in performance or features or speed.

 

The biggest reason for the 64-bit switch was the OS itself, not the programs. There are some programs that do benefit from 64-bit code - programs that use more than 3GB of RAM (Video and Photo editing programs come to mind) - programs that deal with encryption as well as encoding and decoding/compression, etc.

 

Windows has backwards compatibility though, enabling 64-bit Windows to run 32-bit programs - which makes the benefits of coding in 64-bit for most programs very minimal.

[Heizu]

The point he is making is that many Programs that have 32-bit and 64-bit versions are functionally identical. Literally no difference in performance or features or speed.

 

The biggest reason for the 64-bit switch was the OS itself, not the programs. There are some programs that do benefit from 64-bit code - programs that use more than 3GB of RAM (Video and Photo editing programs come to mind) - programs that deal with encryption as well as encoding and decoding/compression, etc.

 

Windows has backwards compatibility though, enabling 64-bit Windows to run 32-bit programs - which makes the benefits of coding in 64-bit for most programs very minimal.

Ok did i miss something in my post? Did i say they where extreme performance boost? Please quote me if i did. Like u said and was mentioned before RAM is only difference. If a program has a 32 bit version and a 64 bit version, you will choose the 64 bit version every time as perhaps the program need more than 3gb of ram or might benefit from it in future versions. The only thing i said was that programs are a little bit better, did not mean performance wise but more future proof wise. Why are you even posting on a thread that's solved?

[dalekphalm]

Ok did i miss something in my post? Did i say they where extreme performance boost? Please quote me if i did. Like u said and was mentioned before RAM is only difference. If a program has a 32 bit version and a 64 bit version, you will choose the 64 bit version every time as perhaps the program need more than 3gb of ram or might benefit from it in future versions. The only thing i said was that programs are a little bit better, did not mean performance wise but more future proof wise. Why are you even posting on a thread that's solved?

I'm posting because you're completely missing his point.

 

In probably 99% of programs, there is absolutely, literally, completely no difference between the 32-bit and 64-bit programs. Not "a little bit better", but rather "no better at all".

 

Certainly, eventually, one program may start to use more than 3GB of RAM - but in the vast majority of cases, that will be in many years from now.

 

Obviously if a program is available in both, you would choose the 64-bit version, simply because why not? But I'm explaining why most programs are still 32-bit, and why that isn't likely to change for another 5+ years.

 

By the time a program needs to be 64-bit, they'll likely have gone through multiple version revisions.

 

I'm not talking about extreme performance differences (Although, frankly, in cases where it matters, the performance difference is often extreme). I'm saying that in most cases there is no difference.

 

Why do you seem to be getting upset by me and other users clarifying a statement so that correct information is shared with everyone?

[Heizu]

I'm posting because you're completely missing his point.

 

In probably 99% of programs, there is absolutely, literally, completely no difference between the 32-bit and 64-bit programs. Not "a little bit better", but rather "no better at all".

 

Certainly, eventually, one program may start to use more than 3GB of RAM - but in the vast majority of cases, that will be in many years from now.

 

Obviously if a program is available in both, you would choose the 64-bit version, simply because why not? But I'm explaining why most programs are still 32-bit, and why that isn't likely to change for another 5+ years.

 

By the time a program needs to be 64-bit, they'll likely have gone through multiple version revisions.

 

I'm not talking about extreme performance differences (Although, frankly, in cases where it matters, the performance difference is often extreme). I'm saying that in most cases there is no difference.

 

Why do you seem to be getting upset by me and other users clarifying a statement so that correct information is shared with everyone?

Your missing my point it seems. By better i do not mean performance wise (at least not in the general sense). Not upset im trying to understand why this debate is even occurring. Like u just mentioned there are cases where it will effect performance so therefore always go 64 bit... The poster i quoted said there was "no tangible way at all" for improvements, you just agreed with me saying some programs there is. Im just trying to inform people so they dont think oh look all 32 bit programs offer same performance as 64 bit. I have not stated anywhere performance is improved in every program. And you really haven't clarified anything just restating stuff that's already been posted-.- 

[dalekphalm]

Your missing my point it seems. By better i do not mean performance wise (at least not in the general sense). Not upset im trying to understand why this debate is even occurring. Like u just mentioned there are cases where it will effect performance so therefore always go 64 bit... The poster i quoted said there was "no tangible way at all" for improvements, you just agreed with me saying some programs there is. Im just trying to inform people so they dont think oh look all 32 bit programs offer same performance as 64 bit. I have not stated anywhere performance is improved in every program. And you really haven't clarified anything just restating stuff that's already been posted-.- 

Well to be fair, the person you quoted, @DXMember, did in fact say:

 

no tangible difference unless it's a programm that absolutely requires to access more than 3GB of RAM at a time

So he did acknowledge that there were some cases where 64-bit is better. Albeit, he did overlook things like encryption, encoding, and compression, which can directly impact performance (as I stated earlier), but those are fairly niche use-cases for programs.

 

Always go 64-bit if a 64-bit version exists. But many many programs don't have 64-bit versions - because the software developer sees no need to make one. This is my main point. People often wonder why so many of our programs are 32-bit - because there's no point in making many of them 64-bit. Eventually, this may change - but we're not talking about "futureproof" here. We're talking years if not decades away for many programs.

 

Then, of course, there are specific examples where the developer creates a 64-bit version that is inferior or buggier than their original 32-bit version - but that has nothing to do with 64-bit itself - rather just shoddy programming.

 

Anyway, I've explained my posts quite thoroughly - which did indeed clarify much of the information in this thread - if you're still confused by my comments, then I guess we're at an impasse Good day sir.

[Neil]

It's just 64 bit, or x64. Not x64bit.

If you want to get technical, it's x86_64, as that's the instruction set used.

[DXMember]

Well to be fair, the person you quoted, @DXMember, did in fact say:

So he did acknowledge that there were some cases where 64-bit is better. Albeit, he did overlook things like encryption, encoding, and compression, which can directly impact performance (as I stated earlier), but those are fairly niche use-cases for programs.

Not sure how my post was interpreted, but to clear any confusion what I meant was - in cases where 64-bit is better, 32-bit just won't work. If 32-bit works and you still require 64-bit, then you probably don't need the 64-bit version or have a bug.

 

 

If you want to get technical, it's x86_64, as that's the instruction set used.

when we say '32-bit' or '64-bit' we refer to the size of general purose registers - at least I do

when we say x86 or x86_64 we refer to instruction sets