Do you think this RAM works on my comp ?

[Grehy]

If you use vista don't bother buying awesome much RAM,
It only uses a small percentage of it.. So if you play a game or something, it'll only use 1GB MAX of your RAM instead of the 4 you've got which can be used.
Vista sucks..
I have no idea how this works with XP and 7.

Vista does limit it to 1GB used, but you can change it to allow all of it with a simple command in CMD, unless I'm mistaken

 

[Winnerandy]

-.-' If your computer has a mothercard is ddr2, then you can use ddr2, not ddr3 or higher xD.. or lower.. Got it? All models are the same, you have to see the ddr.. your's ddr2, then you have to buy ddr2

 

[Vacez]

Yes, you can run it.

 

[Rexxar]

-.-' If your computer has a mothercard is ddr2, then you can use ddr2, not ddr3 or higher xD.. or lower.. Got it? All models are the same, you have to see the ddr.. your's ddr2, then you have to buy ddr2

Wait, since when are they the same?
All DDR types are physically different, as well as the way in which they function.

 

[Archez]

What's the real difference between a 32bit and a 64bit OS ?

My computer is 8GB RAM, 4 processors (2.33 GHz each one), 1TB hard disk capacity.

That's the difference. eace:

 

[Kiman]

My computer is 8GB RAM, 4 processors (2.33 GHz each one), 1TB hard disk capacity.

That's the difference. eace:

Lol, keep on rubbing it in our faces Archez *jealous*

 

[Archez]

Forgot to mention that the difference is because is a 64 bits OS, sorry.

 

[IMac]

so 64 is better than 32?

 

[Cykotitan]

My computer is 8GB RAM, 4 processors (2.33 GHz each one), 1TB hard disk capacity.

That's the difference. eace:

it's not 4 * 2.33

you probably have 4 cores or something

 

[otlandz]

so 64 is better than 32?

no 64 bit seriously suck. The range of integer values that can be stored in 32 bits is 0 through 4,294,967,295 or −2,147,483,648 through 2,147,483,647 using two's complement encoding. Hence, a processor with 32-bit memory addresses can directly access 4 GB of byte-addressable memory.

 

[Rexxar]

no 64 bit seriously suck. The range of integer values that can be stored in 32 bits is 0 through 4,294,967,295 or −2,147,483,648 through 2,147,483,647 using two's complement encoding. Hence, a processor with 32-bit memory addresses can directly access 4 GB of byte-addressable memory.

Correct, yet incorrect.

It's true that 32-bit systems can technically access up to 4,294,967,295 bytes (4096 Megabytes) of address space, however, some of this address space is used by other components on the motherbord. Graphics card or external soundcards for example.

So all in all you can expect to get around ... 3.5 - 3.8 GB of usable ram out of those 4 GB you stick in, depending on how much shit you stuff into your PCI slots.

Does 64-bit suck? No.
Is 64-bit the new god? Not really.

The only real difference between 32-bit and 64-bit is address and variable space.

This means, as explained by "otlandz", that variables used by programs can store more data, thus they can technically process bigger amount of data. But this is only really good for large scientific programs, like programs used by scientists, astrophysicists and other areas in which large quantities of data is processed.

But it CAN also benefit the average user. 64-bit Operating Systems allows a single program to allocate more RAM. On 32-bit OSes there is a limit on 2 GB RAM per program (3 GB if you change a special boot option), which can be hindering for certain games. 64-bit OSes dissolves this limitation, enabling RAM-heavy games like ... I don't know, Crysis 5 (or something) ... to use more than 3 GB of ram.


As for the second benefit; Address space. This is the major reason why people use 64-bit. While 32-bit is limited to 4096 MB of ram, 64-bit does not only double that, but multiplies it by a rather grand number.

The current limitation of RAM for 64-bit Windows 7 is 192 GB.
However, this is just a limit set in the actual operating system by Microsoft (For example, Windows Server 2008 64-bit supports up to 2TB of ram). It doesn't even begin to scratch the physical limitation of 64-bit.

The physical limitation of ram on 64-bit systems is in fact 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes of ram, this means roughtly:

18,014,398,509,481,984 Kilobytes
17,592,186,044,416 Megabytes
17,179,869,184 Gigabytes (Yes, that is 17 BILLION gigabytes)
16,777,216 Terabytes
16,384 Petabytes
16 Exabytes

16 Exabytes ... 16,7 Million Terabytes of ram.


So to answer the question, yes, 64-bit IS better than 32-bit, but only if you plan on either:

1. Run highly advanced applications dealing with MASSIVE amounts of data.
2. Plan on using more than 4 GB of ram in your PC, or 2 - 3 GB per application running.

 

[otlandz]

3. Plan on not gaming and using 32-bit applications, such applications as blackdtools will most likely not work unless you are lucky.

 

[Rexxar]

3. Plan on not gaming and using 32-bit applications, such applications as blackdtools will most likely not work unless you are lucky.

Um... What?

32-bit applications works on 64-bit operating systems... =/
The same goes for games.

The only things which wont work are 32-bit versions of software which interfaces directly or sits in between OS & Hardware.
This includes Firewalls and Drivers and similar software.

Oh and 16-bit applications wont work either, so if you like to play old games from like... the Windows 3.1 or MsDOS era, you're shit outta luck.