32 or 64 bit version

Which version should I install...64 or 32 bit??
Thanks

"Indyron" <Indyron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4BA0538C-132B-4928-A386-3DE73B1BA273@microsoft.com...

> Which version should I install...64 or 32 bit??
> Thanks

Depends on your CPU, basically 32 bit is what most people have, 64 bit are
newer processors, like Athlon 64. I am not sure, but 32 bit Vista 'should'
work with a 64 bit CPU, but you wont get the advantages that a 64 bit
version offers.

It is true that Vista x86 will run fine on a 64-bit processor. It is not
true that it will not benefit from the more advanced cpu. The 64-bit
processors have more "headroom" and 32-bit programs can benefit from this
even if the extended instruction set is not used.

"MCR" <mcrstudent@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
news:6369711A-B0E4-426E-835C-2C1A275549F1@microsoft.com...

>
> "Indyron" <Indyron@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4BA0538C-132B-4928-A386-3DE73B1BA273@microsoft.com...

>
> Depends on your CPU, basically 32 bit is what most people have, 64 bit are
> newer processors, like Athlon 64. I am not sure, but 32 bit Vista
> 'should' work with a 64 bit CPU, but you wont get the advantages that a 64
> bit version offers.

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 15:16:01 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst"
<colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote:

>It is true that Vista x86 will run fine on a 64-bit processor. It is not
>true that it will not benefit from the more advanced cpu.

Yes it is.

> The 64-bit
>processors have more "headroom" and 32-bit programs can benefit from this
>even if the extended instruction set is not used.

That's silly, 32bit code isn't going to run any faster or better on a
64bit processor than it would on a 32bit processor. Any "headroom"
WhateverTF that is, doesn't make any difference at all. The 32bit code
doesn't know that it exists, and it's not accessed or used in any way
at all.

--
Regards,
Bob Young
San Jose, CA.

>"MCR" <mcrstudent@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
>news:6369711A-B0E4-426E-835C-2C1A275549F1@microsoft.com...

>

--

T.G. Reaper
Gentoo & Windows user..The right OS for the right job.
************************************************** ****

Yes it does. The 64-bit processors provide greater headroom (more and wider
registers etc).

"Bob Young" <BobYoung@127.0.0.1.Com> wrote in message
news:0ki89217u51th0lu63jcc8ap9tpatfajj4@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 15:16:01 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst"
> <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote:
>

>
> Yes it is.
>

>
> That's silly, 32bit code isn't going to run any faster or better on a
> 64bit processor than it would on a 32bit processor. Any "headroom"
> WhateverTF that is, doesn't make any difference at all. The 32bit code
> doesn't know that it exists, and it's not accessed or used in any way
> at all.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Bob Young
> San Jose, CA.
>

> --
>
> T.G. Reaper
> Gentoo & Windows user..The right OS for the right job.
> ************************************************** ****

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:50:37 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst"
<colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote:

>Yes it does. The 64-bit processors provide greater headroom (more and wider
>registers etc).
>

Wrt the width of registers, 32bit code, by definition, does not know
that registers can be wider than 32bits, and so it will *never* access
more than 32bits of a register. If the code knew how to use general
purpose registers that were wider than 32bits, then it wouldn't be
32bit code.

As far as there being more registers, that doesn't make any difference
either, if the software does not know that these additional registers
exist they will not be used... period.

I can beleive you're really trying to sell this "headroom" mumbo
jumbo.

--
Regards,
Bob Young
Software Engineer
San Jose, CA.

>"Bob Young" <BobYoung@127.0.0.1.Com> wrote in message
>news:0ki89217u51th0lu63jcc8ap9tpatfajj4@4ax.com.. .