Computers with 64-bit processors

 

I have been considering purchasing a new computer and find that the latest technology is 64-bit processors running on windows vista.

Has anyone had experience using any gps related software with these new systems?

I would like to here success stories as well as problems encountered.

--
Oldrivers http://www.oldrivers.blogspot.com

No problems here with 64-bit processors and Vista

I have a desktop and a laptop, both with 64 bit dual core processors running 32 bit Vista Ultimate and Vista Premium.

I have had no trouble on either one with any of the Garmin GPS software, MapSource and utilities. I'm also running a variety of 3rd party GPS and POI related utility programs without any problems.

--
GM Built-in Navigation system - Samsung S6 Edge+ Smartphone with Garmin Viago, Google Maps & HERE Apps

64 bit advise

I am in the IT field currently. (20+ years)
I can tell you the following:
64 bit has been around for a while. (Unix) While it is MUCH better then 32, for the home user you will find little software and drivers that run 64 bit.

Vista itself is junk. Everybody now is waiting for Microsoft 7. (should be out within a year) 64 bit drivers are finally coming out for vista. (stable)
XP runs 32 bit better with less headache. I have Vista on one pc and the HP printer will disappear once a month. Vista will fight with the HP driver and it takes a day or so for me to get it working again.

Games - You will find little to no games on 64 bit windows.
Software - higher end server software for 64 bit, very little lower end consumer software.

If you really want 64 bit, I would go with the dual AMD's for cheapness, dual core intel for standards or if you have the money a quad. Again, keep in mind that software has not made it to the same level as hardware. Hardly anything is taking advantage of 64 bit.

Other advise -
Don't be afraid of Unix. I would highly recommend Ubuntu 8.10 (or 8.04) VERY easy to install and will run 64 bit very fast with true 64 bit software.
I run it and the only downside I found was that Open Office 3.0 is now out and nobody has ported it to a 64 bit version. I run 64 bit, so I am sol and have to run the older 2.3 version.

Also... Get a Nvidia or ATI video card. They are cheap now and will run Vista/Unix/XP faster then a built in video. (vista will crawl or not run most 3d stuff with a built in video)

An alternate view... I have

An alternate view...

I have been in IT for 25 years. I've been using Vista 64 bit version for the past four months. Initially, I was running dual-boot XP and Vista, until I was certain that my software was compatible. All my perifierals are now Vista 64 compatible (it's easy enough to check with the vendors, if they have 64 bit compatible drivers), so I now run Vista 64 exclusively. Zero issues with any of the Garmin or related software. Zero issues in fact, with any of the software I run.

AMD? No credible AMD-Intel comparisons are giving the nod to AMD these days, nor have they for the past year or so. Intel processors out perform AMD by a wide margin, and are in roughly the same price range. Highly recommend you look into not wasting your money on a slower processor on an investment which may have to last you several years.

Vista 64 runs fine on the built-in video, but even better with a dedicated card. Another consideration (if you are a Photoshop user), is the latest Photoshop version will take advantage of a dedicated gpu, where prior versions did not.

It's easy to jump on the anti-Vista bandwagon - but the truth is, there are millions of happy Vista users out here - both 32 and 64 bit. Windows 7 won't be out for a year. XP is years old, and while it is a very stable platform - the new features of Vista are worth a serious look.

Stay with XP

I know there are many diverse opinions out there, and I'm sure there are some that are happy with Vista, but in my experience, Vista is next to worthless. I went back to XP after hundreds of hours wasted nursing Vista along. So far I have successfully killed the movement at my office to "upgrade" to Vista. XP is so much more stable than Vista it's hard to believe. As far as 32 bit v 64 bit, keep in mind that you can only take advantage of up to 3g ram with 32 bit. If you plan to use more, go with the 64 bit. That is probably the biggest thing to keep in mind for most consumers. Good luck.

I also would stay with

I also would stay with XP.....If it ain't broke and XP is pretty stable....MS knows Vista is broke and they want to fix it fast.

Windows 7 is what they wanted for VISTA, but they wanted to release something....

I dumped my Vista for my DELL laptop....Even though there were NO drivers for my inspiron....I manage to find them...

BETTER YET....Try UBUNTU. They have a live version.....Check it out first. I was hesitant at first (I TRIED RED HAT, back in the DAYS)....OMG now it's totally has that GRAPHICAL INTERFACE and improved.

I have so many old computers that I brought back to life because of Ubuntu.

Vista has been no problem for me in 1 1/2 years

I cannot understand the people that have so many problems with Vista. I have been running it since March of 2007 on all three computers in our home. We have a wireless network that all three computers and two printers are connected to plus my Pioneer 94 AV Receiver and Pioneer Blu-ray 95 player are connected to the network and access media data in the computers all the time without problem. We transfer data between the computers all the time and can print to either printer from any computer.

The only thing I have had to do after going to Vista was update a couple of software programs and some drivers but once I configured everything it has been far more stable and faster than XP ever was or is today.

I have been in to computer hardware, software and networking consulting since the earliest days and Vista has been the best operating system I have ever worked with.

I have one drive in my desktop running Vista SP1 and another running XP SP3 that I can boot from selectivly. So with all the hardware being identical I can very easily see that Vista is far nicer to work with. The only problem that I have not been able to solve in Vista is the outgoing voice answer message when using a modem will not be heard correctly.

--
GM Built-in Navigation system - Samsung S6 Edge+ Smartphone with Garmin Viago, Google Maps & HERE Apps

Unix and XP

It is silly to go on with the XP/Vista Unix 'fight'.
As you pointed out in your email, You have only been using Vista 64bit for about four months. It has been out much longer then that. As I pointed out, it has taken a while for drivers..ect to become stable enough. 80+% of the people out there are waiting for Windows 7. Like it or not, that is a fact.
On any platform, Unix will run faster then Windows.

Ubuntu is a nice version for a person starting out.

AMD/Intel thing. AMD is cheaper then Intel. The Athlon X2 chip is faster then Intel's first try a dual core, the Dual Pentium.
A BIG NOTE:
Do not buy the Dual Pentium chip. It has been a proven fact that it is a poor attempt to catch AMD.
It has heat problems and is slower then AMD.
The core 2 chip from Intel is the 'starting point' if you want to stick with Intel. (It also costs more)
Intel did beat AMD with quad chips, but AMD is coming out with their version soon.
Either way.. The average person is not going to number crunch anything, so it really does not make a difference what you buy. You want to play video games faster? Buy a Nvidia card.

|

There will be no Windows 7 for me.

I'm going Mac.

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

Good luck with that now!

kch50428 wrote:

There will be no Windows 7 for me.

I'm going Mac.

Let's know how thats working for you! razz

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

"I'm going Mac"

kch50428 wrote:

There will be no Windows 7 for me.

I'm going Mac.

The only people that I have met that have stuck with Mac's are people that started with a Mac. Every single original PC user that I have met that went to a Mac has gone back to a PC and most all within 12 months and at great expense for the trial run.

They just could not live with the severe lack of third party software and drivers that also support the mac. If you have to run windows on a Mac to do what you need to do why not just save yourself a lot of money and grief and just get a PC in the first place.

--
GM Built-in Navigation system - Samsung S6 Edge+ Smartphone with Garmin Viago, Google Maps & HERE Apps

32 bit windows Vista with a 64 bit processor

slowjazz wrote:

I am in the IT field currently. (20+ years)
I can tell you the following:
64 bit has been around for a while. (Unix) While it is MUCH better then 32, for the home user you will find little software and drivers that run 64 bit.

It appeared from his original question "I have been considering purchasing a new computer and find that the latest technology is 64-bit processors running on windows vista." that he was actually asking about is a computer with a 64 bit processor running 32 bit Vista which is what most available new computers would be. It is very unusual to find a normal consumer available computer that is loaded with 64 bit Vista. He will not have trouble finding software or drivers for any computer running 32 bit Vista with a 64 bit processor.

--
GM Built-in Navigation system - Samsung S6 Edge+ Smartphone with Garmin Viago, Google Maps & HERE Apps

3rd party software

I got all the software I need that does what I need to do on the Mac; and I'll keep an XP machine going for something to play with.

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

Stay with xp32....

My dell laptop has an Amd Turion 64, but came stock with windows XP media center edition.

I wondered why it didnt come stock with a 64bit version of windows... So i "Upgraded" to the 64bit edition.

What i learned is that there are few programs that are actually designed to run 64bit, and there are many compatibility issues.

I went back to using regular old windows xp sp3, and i am very satisfied. Its the best os since windows95 osr3...

Since service pack 1 Vista

Since service pack 1 Vista is what it should have been to begin with finally. I do not want Vista on my PC, but the days of banning it totally are mostly gone. Windows 7 is looking like Vista take 2 to me.

As far as 64 bit versus 32 bit, 64 bit windows will run 32 bit programs. 32 bit windows will not run 64 bit programs. Not a problem now, but for future proofing, 64 bit will be more compatible. 32 bit will be around for some time also. Its a toss up for now.

64 bit can have problems running 32 bit programs when the installer for the program is 16 bit. I have seen that happen.

Intel is currently kicking AMD's heatsink as stated already.

Many places still sell computers with XP if you look around for them. Off the top of my head is this one, http://www.cyberpowerpc.com and http://www.newegg.com

good luck, lots of good deals out there

--
“Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair and all the terrible things that happen to us, come because actually deserve them? So now I take comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the Universe”

win 95?

johnnynormal510 wrote:

I went back to using regular old windows xp sp3, and i am very satisfied. Its the best os since windows95 osr3...

Windows 95 cough cough... Windows 98SE was the best of the FAT systems. Windows 95 never supported USB correctly.. And I believe you meant osr2.1 before IE4 was forced into windows. 2.5 is last version released by OEM if I remember right.

Then of course there was BOB. ROFLMAO http://toastytech.com/guis/bob.html

--
“Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair and all the terrible things that happen to us, come because actually deserve them? So now I take comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the Universe”

32 bit OS only uses 1/2 the processor

If you bought a newer CPU, it has 64 bits to use... A 32 bit operating system is only using 1/2 the processor!

I disagree with the above posters that say things like 'no games will run on Vista X64', or complain you'll have a tough time getting drivers for hardware. This may have been the case in 2006, or maybe you're trying to load something that worked on 95/98/win-me. Suggesting linux may be a good thing for some, but how many games and apps will run on that?

Can you name anything (games included) released in the last few years that will not run on Vista X64? I only found 2, and they are very obscure apps (Dallas one-wire and Geovision 8.2, but I see now that Dallas has X64 drivers).

64 bit vs 32 bit

larry_larry wrote:

If you bought a newer CPU, it has 64 bits to use... A 32 bit operating system is only using 1/2 the processor!

I disagree with the above posters that say things like 'no games will run on Vista X64', or complain you'll have a tough time getting drivers for hardware. This may have been the case in 2006, or maybe you're trying to load something that worked on 95/98/win-me. Suggesting linux may be a good thing for some, but how many games and apps will run on that?

Can you name anything (games included) released in the last few years that will not run on Vista X64? I only found 2, and they are very obscure apps (Dallas one-wire and Geovision 8.2, but I see now that Dallas has X64 drivers).

If you have a true 64 bit processor, then executing a 32 bit instruction still uses all the machine. If you have a processor with 2 32 bit cores to give you 64 bits, then a 32 bit instruction will run in one core and the other is essentially idle. Multi processor operation has been around for better than 20 years. We had a mini-computer where I worked back in 1984 that had 8 80286 processors running in parallel doing multitasking with up to 6 different applications operating concurrently. The peripherals were the biggest bog, the disks couldn't keep up with the read/write requests. We designed an intelligent controller in a separate box to handle the multi-threaded read/write requests and buffer the pre-fetches. The base computer was upgraded to 8 80386 processors in 85 and work was going on to use the 486 and early prototypes of the 586 which became the original Pentium. I left Datapoint after 10 years in 1988.

--
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

Go with Toshiba

When I bought my new laptop I went with Toshiba. They have some models that comes with Windows Vista Business and what they call a downgrade disk that takes it back to XP Professional and while it's running Vista there is a desktop icon that you double click and it burns three DVDs that will take you back to Vista if you ever want to do it.

When the guy at Toshiba called it a downgrade disk I remarked that I didn't consider it a downgrade going back to XP Professional, he replied that he and a lot of other guys at Toshiba didn't either.

--
Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong.

32 bit OS 1/2 cpu?

Uuummm no.. there is no such thing. A 32bit OS will use all of the cpu's the same way a 64 bit will. The major difference is the memory address. (64bit vs 32bit) A 32bit OS just will not take advantage of what the 64bit cpu can do.
It should also be noted that even if you have a 64bit OS, it does not mean any program running will take advantage of it. Some 'old' code can be recompiled for 64 bit, but not recoded to use true 64bit functions.
Games on Unix? ALOT more then Windows and Mac. You forget that Unix has been around over 20 years and is Open source. Some popular games? How about Quake, just to pick it.
There are millions of 'copy' games written for open source. Example of some classic games: pacman, lemmings, space invaders, defender.
Heck.. you can get: Amegia,Atari,Nintendo DS,DOS emulators.
The cost? Free......

Multi-processors (totally off-topic for 99.99% of readers :-)

a_user wrote:

We had a mini-computer where I worked back in 1984 that had 8 80286 processors running in parallel doing multitasking with up to 6 different applications operating concurrently.

This was about the time I was adding multi-processor Dec Vaxen to a Cluster and modifying our in-house Middleware to handle the configuration.

It raised a question in my mind: "How were memory accesses synchronised between those Intel CPUs?" The Dec Vax came complete with half-a-dozen hardware-interlocked instructions, with which to implement spinlocks etc - but the 80286 didn't.

--
------------------------ Phil Hornby, Stockport, England ----------------------               http://GeePeeEx.com - Garmin POI Creation made easy           »      

Multi-processor systems

Hornbyp wrote:
a_user wrote:

We had a mini-computer where I worked back in 1984 that had 8 80286 processors running in parallel doing multitasking with up to 6 different applications operating concurrently.

This was about the time I was adding multi-processor Dec Vaxen to a Cluster and modifying our in-house Middleware to handle the configuration.

It raised a question in my mind: "How were memory accesses synchronised between those Intel CPUs?" The Dec Vax came complete with half-a-dozen hardware-interlocked instructions, with which to implement spinlocks etc - but the 80286 didn't.

I don't remember all the details - just a little of it, but I know they were doing paged memory. If I remember correctly the OS would grab blocks as needed for the applications and use them as if it were dedicated memory. We had one processor dedicated to gatekeeping of the memory blocks. Memory was interleaved and the control program could transfer in and out of a processors blocks to handle the disc I/O. The lower speed peripherals, printers, display tubes etc was managed from the application's blocks.

The systems I was responsible for at that time were some of the early microprocessors we were using to port our programs to. Early XT and AT machines and the Convergent Technologies NGEN which was sold under various names like Burroughs and Unisys.

--
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet