64 or 32 bit?

[JDArt]

XP and Vista both have 64 bit versions. What's the advantage of running these versions, if any?

[Worm324]

Get a Mac JD!! I finally made the switch and the difference is worth every bit of effort!!!

To answer your question, The 64-bit version gives you the ability to use more than 3.5 gigs of ram. Nice feature, but windows Vista is awful so it doesn't really matter. I had a 4gig Quad core system with Vista 64 and it worked pretty good, but my Mac Book Pro totally blows it away by far.

Other than the increased ram I think some programs can take advantage of the 64-bit, but I'm not sure which. The downside is windows has to convert everything to 32-bit if the programs aren't 64-bit compatible. So most stuff we use won't take advantage and will have to be converted every time we click the mouse.

Thats all I got

Best,
Jay

[JDArt]

So what's so good about the Mac, specifically? I have a ton of Windows software, so switching is not something I'll be doing on a whim. I used a Mac at my sister's house and was underwhelmed. I don't see what all the fuss is about. It certainly was no easier or more intuitive than Windows.

[tekdiver500ft]

If you have to ask what the benefit of 64-bit is, then you don't need it. Not slamming on you, but the fact of the matter is, if you don't yearn for it, then it won't provide a tangible benefit for you. The Mac, on the other hand, is worth all the hassle of switching.

It is far easier and more intuitive (you have to play with it for a week or two, to quit doing things the Windows way before you notice the difference); it is UNBELIEVABLY more stable; it runs faster; color is more consistent and easier to calibrate; it is the platform of choice for artists; the form factor is better; you can run Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, or machine code on it; you can't get a virus on OS X; the art software is generally better on Mac; the machines have been geared toward artists since inception. I could go on and on, but I think this is enough.

I got my first computer in the '80's, it was an IBM PC XT/AT. I then upgraded to an HP when Windows 3.1 came out, and stayed with Windows until Vista came out. At that time, I was running both an Alienware laptop and desktop. I replaced them both with an iMac 24", and haven't missed the Windows machines at all.

[jfrancho]

That's funny, I am running an Alienware desktop, adn I'll probably go with a Mac as my next editing machine. The Alien ware has held up very well, and its still one of the fastest machines I've used.

[mr_maserati]

I've been using Windows XP x64 for over 3 1/2 years. Only problem is that Canon will not provide a driver for my FS 4000 film scanner. When I need it I boot XP. For my money x64 is a much leaner OS (faster) and is very stable since it's actually the OS that was written as a server OS for Zeon based servers in '03.

If you want 64 bit that's what I would suggest.

[tekdiver500ft]

Of course, Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) is 64 bit, so that is still an option.

[Worm324]

Originally Posted by JDArt

So what's so good about the Mac, specifically? I have a ton of Windows software, so switching is not something I'll be doing on a whim. I used a Mac at my sister's house and was underwhelmed. I don't see what all the fuss is about. It certainly was no easier or more intuitive than Windows.

Well, As stated above you really have to use it for a week or 2 to understand the benefit's other than the speed and stability which is clear right off the bat. The way the you save files, search for files, navigate, print, organize, back-up, connect and disconnect devices, burn dvd's, watch movies, ect.... is all different on the Mac. The whole structure of how thigs work is different which takes a little time to learn and see.

At first I was trying to do things the windows way and either it didn't work, or was just way harder than it needed to be. Once I figured everything out it was just so much better it's hard to explain. As fr as the speed goes, my Mac is very fast! I don't think it's as fast as a RAID'ed Alienware Qaud core or anything, but if you got a desktop Mac I'm sure it blow that away.

I also notice in particular, Photoshop and Ligtroom work a lot better. In photoshop the brushes seem to work smoother and aren't as jittery and laggy. Even whith huge 2 gig files, which my badass desktop couldn't eve do! I don't know how the Mac does it, but the way it allocates recorces is amzing! I think that is the main difference it seem so much smoother and faster in every way.

That being said, the software transition is going to be a huge pain in butt for you!! My Brother just switched over to the Mac Book Pro and he owns a resturant business. He has so much software and it took him a good 2 weeks to get everything straitened out. For me it was pretty easy, but I did have to buy several new programs.

Best,
Jay

[SquirrelDip]

I think if I was running Vista I may be looking into Mac... I installed Vista Business and found it was a waste of resources - too much power going to fluff.

For now I'm sticking with XP and have no complaints - hopefully Windows7 will be better. I may at some point look into a Mac but there's a few apps I need that are not available in Mac.

[tekdiver500ft]

Hope springs eternal. Fortunately, there are no apps that you cannot run on a Mac. You may have to go into the other partition, but you can then run Windows apps. Of course, there are Mac alternatives for nearly every PC app, except some very specialized software. Most of the Mac alternatives will even read/write files made in the PC application.

[SquirrelDip]

The applications I'm referring to are AutoCAD and Microstation - I understand some people have been successful but the performance hit using an emulator is too high. Sure there's BootCamp but then I'm still running Windows...

[MyPerspective]

(Comments appreciated) .... First of all, nothing is impervious to a virus! Not even a MAC! However, as a MAC is less popular (94% of the world uses Windows), therefore, it is less targeted. None the less, like Linux, MAC does a very good job of taking care of vulnerabilities and flaws! Faster? How much of that is due to the fact that they aren't wasting 50% of their system resources with virus-protection?!?

[jfrancho]

Yay! Another Mac vs. PC debate

Anyway, if you really have to ask if you need 64 bit, you probably don't need it.

[dmrowley]

I'll share my $0.02...

I just removed 64bit Vista and went back to 32bit over the last few days. I ran it for about 3-4 months with mostly positive things to say, but at the end of the day I went back. My system is a Athlon X2 4600+ with 4 Gig RAM. Why did I do it:

1. No 64 bit Canon RAW codec without paying for them. Inexcusable by Canon at this point.
2. No TWAIN support - scanning has to be done with WIA (sucks) or external program like Vuescan.
3. My scanner wasn't supported under 64bit by Vuescan, and Ed Hamrick said it was because Vuescan calls 32bit Canon twain functions to work....no work around...
4. Shoddy codec support for additional audio formats. I installed a 64bit codec pack and it required registry hacks to use 32 bit media player, etc...too much of a kludge to me...caused instability and had issues with encoding video after that....
5. Cannot run a sandbox program on Vista 64bit architecture - i.e. Sandboxie

During the time I ran 64bit, it was ok. The only 64bit native apps I used were Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 2. They were fine, but not noticibly better than the 32 bit versions. So now I am back up and running with a nice clean install and everything is good. Maybe I'll cross the 64bit path again for Windows 7, but until then, I'll stick with 32bit. Its a shame that a small chunk of my RAM will be unused, but I prefer a system that runs as I would like it to.

Regards
Darren

[moggi1964]

I have seen a difference since I switched to Vista 64bit and upgraded from 4 to 8 gb of RAM.

CS4 and Lightroom are appreciably faster and even day to day stuff flows more smoothly. Sure, having an extra 4 gb RAM is bound to help but Vista 32 wouldn't give me that option.

I don't have a single piece of hardware or software that is not compatible so that helped in the decision making (as did the $10 upgrade fee).

I cannot comment on the Mac versus PC argument because I never owned a Mac. Those I know who have one, love it. Personally, I am very happy with my overclocked, dual-core, home built PC system.

As with camera brands: each to their own.

[fastpitch17]

Originally Posted by dmrowley

I'll share my $0.02...

I just removed 64bit Vista and went back to 32bit over the last few days. I ran it for about 3-4 months with mostly positive things to say, but at the end of the day I went back. My system is a Athlon X2 4600+ with 4 Gig RAM. Why did I do it:

Regards
Darren

Just how does one switch from 64 to 32 bit. I have Vista 64 bit and it is nothing but a headache with so much of what I need the laptop for in the first place not working. Canons no help. Microsoft's no help. I want to do some shooting tethered and I can't. Canon says no problem, just get a card reader and put my card in it. Excuse me? Canon doesn't even realize that it isn't near the same thing?

[dmrowley]

To "switch" you have to re-install from scratch...I just used my original 32bit retail install disk....I got the 64bit version from Microsoft for around $10. I am not sure you can "downgrade" an OEM install.....sorry