Difference between 32 and 64 bits

You're pretty off the mark. And in any case, you're not addressing the question.
Let's summarize:
A 64-bit OS runs on a 64-bit processor (AMD or Intel) regardless of the number of cores (one, two, three, or four for the time being).
A 64-bit OS is used in the same way as a 32-bit one; you can run it with 128MB of RAM if you want and any graphics card (even an old Hercules if the drivers exist).
Rapheaven's P4 being a 32-bit processor, it will never understand a 64-bit OS (the CD won't even boot).

The Linux kernel allows addressing more than 4GB of RAM, even in 32-bit.
Stop saying that 4GB will never be utilized; it reminds me of a certain Bill Gates who told IBM during the development of DOS: "64KB of RAM will be more than enough for everyone and for a long time."

Hello,

Just so you know, 64-bit has nothing to do with multi-core.
All recent kernels are automatically multi-core.

It is possible to access more than 4GB of RAM even in 32-bit (with special kernels).

64-bit is more efficient in coding/encryption applications.
But since there are still a few rare office applications that only work in 32-bit, it is recommended for standard usage (easier).
In my opinion, those who encode a lot of DivX/MP3 or work in 3D should definitely try 64-bit if possible.

Best regards,

Config: P4, 3 GHz, 512 MB of RAM
There you go!!

Well, thank you very much!! :D
I didn’t know there was such a big difference, quite surprising...

Here it's funny, it's like you're speaking Chinese but in French lol anyway, you seem to be getting...

it depends on your computer.

give me your specs.

Markitaust >
Rapheaven is talking about Mandriva, not a buffalo! X)
Wouldn't you be a reseller yourself? :þ

dubcek >
I thought we could address up to 4GB in 32 bits (2 to the power of 32 = 4294967296, which is exactly 4GB)... ;-)

dubcek >
It seemed to me that you could address up to 4GB in 32 bits (2 to the power of 32 = 4294967296, or exactly 4GB)... ;-)
Yes, that's what I wrote :-), you need 64 bits to access MORE than 4GB.

and another 4 GB will never be used...

It's true, you need a minimum of 4GB of RAM..
No, there is no minimum. The 64-bit architecture is required to address more than 4GB.

Hi everyone, I have a little question?
I'm running on XP Pro Ladybug 3.5 and friends are telling me to switch to Vista 64
My configuration is as follows: Intel Dual Core 6300 1.87 GHZ processor with 2 GB of RAM; an Asus P5B Deluxe motherboard and a GeForce 7300 GS graphics card.
What is your opinion?
Thanks in advance, the Trucker

Je tiens à dire pour vous informer que présentement la majorité des nouveaux ordinateurs de bureau ou portables vendus sur le marché fonctionnent tous sur des processeurs et systèmes d'exploitation 64 bits.

once again...

It's a story about big money... Otherwise, how do you expect Mr. Gates to sell his 64-bit Vista on the market?

64 bits is good, as mentioned above, for encryption/encoding...

And today, about 75% of Windows users don't know how to use that (MSN, blogs, and so on).

All recent processors support 64-bit instructions. The only real advantage of having a 64-bit OS is the ability to address more than 4 GB of RAM. On a 32-bit OS, the limit is 4 GB, but since a portion is used to address hardware, we end up with something like 3.2 GB usable (which is still sufficient for the vast majority of common uses).

In summary: no need for 4 GB of RAM? => 32-bit OS / need more (video/3D processing.. huge) => 64-bit OS

A 32-bit processor is actually characterized by the size of its registers, meaning it has 32-bit registers and can therefore address 2^32 different addresses (and yes, addresses are in binary ;) )

On the other hand, a 64-bit processor has 64-bit registers, allowing it to access 2^64 different addresses.

But the big problem between the two is that if you run a 64-bit program on a 32-bit processor, it will only read half of the instruction and will never understand what you mean;

Conversely, the 64-bit processor will read two instructions of code written for 32-bit as a single one and will not understand that either.

A 64-bit OS (Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc.) is essential to access more than 4GB of memory.

Hello, Markitaust, saying such c******* is pointless, it’s just a matter of architecture.
In the case of Rapheaven, he has a single-core processor so he will need to install a 32-bit version.
64-bit systems are intended for processors with 2, 3, 4... cores. But nothing prevents a dual-core owner from using a 32-bit version; however, I don’t know if the EMT64 execution set allows for running a 64-bit system.

Lol William, he doesn't say ONLY nonsense...
The 64-bit version, as someone has already said, is not reserved for multi-core processors...
It's true, you need a minimum of 4GB of RAM...
After that, I find it hard to believe that a minimum of 8800 GT is required... I don't think so at all.
The problem with 64-bit is that it doesn't really benefit individuals for now, as almost all programs are developed in 32-bit... Apart from those using XSI 64-bit version for 3D, that’s worth it... but it requires a big budget...

After that, I don't really know yet if I should go for a 64-bit version under Linux, I have only one gig of RAM, anyway old PC, but I don't know at all if the applications are coded in 64-bit too... but I think it won't be useful for me right now...

ok.
forget about 64bits. :)

to have it you need:
(for vista at least)

a quadro or octo core of 2.66 x4/x8
8giga of ram or 16giga (recommended)
a high-end graphics card starting with the 8800gts.

install the 32-bit version

actually, the 64-bit version is meant to speed up the computer, if it's a crazy machine.
and plus you need a 64-bit processor to take advantage of it.

So definitely 32-bit