I’ve long been an advocate of migrating to a 64-bit OS and then getting as much memory as you can reasonably afford. If you have a choice between a solid state hard drive (SSD) or lots of RAM on a 64-bit machine, get the RAM. But if you can do both, even both.
My beloved ThinkPad T400 is outrageously fast with the combination. It’s been a long time since I’ve used a PC that felt this fast. It reminds me of the days when I’ve gone back and used Windows 3.1 on modern hardware where everything is so snappy. I highly recommend it.
Yup, video editing at a pro level takes a top line machine in every respect.
But that is still best done with an array of HDD's. SSD's are not big enough, by far, for storing a lot of video content.
Give it another 5 years or so, though, and SSD sizes and prices will probably make them the mainstream storage devices.
Yep someone did, on page 1 even.
And that word "all" kind of is the key word in your post. Not all software needs to be 64 bit, Windows has an excellent emulator layer for that. What remains is a 64 bit OS, 64 bit drivers and probably about 50%/50% 64 bit applications. 32 bit games will run fine on your machine, except it can't use >2 gb ram yet. Your system and OS can though, for 64 bit software. So there's plenty of reason to use 64 bit OSs. In fact, you are going to switch to it eventually anyway, so why wait?
I do hope they will start making games that support 64 bit though. It's just the way of the future and IMO developers should have learnt the skills to program 64 bit ages ago. I myself am guilty of not doing that too though.. :$
You are right, video editing on SSDs will cost you atleast over $1000 if you want any decent hard drivce space to play with.
However, if I would regularly encode video I'd probably just get a low consumption platform PC and put it in my closet and remote desktop the video editing tasks to that PC and let it run at night. You'd save some power by doing it on a low consumption machine (assuming you switch your main PC off at night), and you can just use your main PC for gaming, whatever. If you need video edited quick then yes, you need a monster PC, but people that do that 1) have atleast a quadcore with loads of ram and a workstation videocard and 2) couldn't care less about doing other stuff in the meantime.
I'm not switching to 64 bit until they outlaw using XP or Linux or this rig. No need to waste money.
Is that true? I have a Core 2 Duo that has 32bit XP and Vista on it. Are you saying I can wipe that and put XP or Vista 64bit on it?
From the Wiki on Core 2 Duo's it says the chip is 32 bit only.
dernit!
Kona see this page at intel - All Core 2 Duo's have the Intel 64 Architecture.
Link
Yes Messiah you can upgrade to a 64 bit OS with the chip you have. One thing is though... OEM boards are usually designed for just a certain amount of memory. As such without using like 6 or 8 gigs of ram in a 64 bit system you are really not going to see much better performance from the 32bit you now have.
Would be better to think about buying another board and/or as such for performance.
Shelby, thanks for the info. What's involved in an upgrade to SSD HD? Do they seat like a sata HD?
Shelby - in that link it says NOTHING about Core 2 Duo chips.
The main problem with SSD's that none of you have talked about is that blocks have a write limite before they start degrading. You only want to put data that wont need to be updated that often on them. For instance putting an OS on one is smart putting a windows swap file on one is not. Configured correctly they are blazing fast, the technology however is new and there have been issues thats the main reason there not for prime time.
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2duo/index.htm?iid=tech_64+body_core2duo
Big deal. So you can have a 64 bit OS.
Messiah try the specs tab there - it will show all Core 2 Duo's are 64 bit here at this link
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2duo/specifications.htm?iid=prod_core2duo+tab_spec
Yer a big ball of aren't you kona? I just wanted to know if it was possible to upgrade to 64 bit. Although the comment about motherboard support of RAM shows that it wouldn't be beneficial since I think I'm maxed at 4 gig, which is fine with me because I've never had any issues.
Yeah, I checked it out. Thanks for the info shelby. Although, like I said, motherboard limitations and all...I'm fine with 32bit for now. Just wanted to know is all. Any info on ssd upgrade?
And I've asked before. Why does anyone need more than 4 GB of RAM? I only have 512 MB of RAM yet I have 8 tabs open in Firefox and 5 other programs running and my system isn't crapping out on me at all.
The world really does not need 64 bit.
(Messiah - sorry - wasn't really trying to pick on you...)
The most SSD HD are Sata II/I - mostly Sata II and that would be a regular sata power connector and a sata II data connection on the board for high speed data transfer. The sata I is not as fast and is really a down grade for any SSD HD.
But to answer your question - you only need sata power connection or a molex to sata adapter and a sata II data connection.
To try and answer your question there Kona. Some people use a lot of things besides browsers and/or the such now days. For the most part 64bit was really started in the server for more available performance at working with heavy loads. Then people started building games that needed lots of graphics and memory. Along with lots of speed to have all that work well together for a better gaming experience as such.
Lots of people want to think that more ram is better and such with a better speed for the cpu. But with these things goes the thing that the programs have to be designed to work correctly with such. There is nothing wrong with 32 bit and as for 64 bit... it is not what you or just everyone should be considering. Like you say "Why do I need it?" Well I can not answer that without knowing what you want from a computer. Like do you play games, have lots of data which needs room to be processed or even running a virtual OS. More than likely you do not and 64 bit would be a big step in a lot of stuff you do not need at the moment.
The point is Kona... it is there if you need it. Most of the new computers come 32 bit. But if you look at some... they are offering 64 bit OS. It really depends on you and what you need.
Myself I like having both for many reasons here. One my 32 bit runs fine for what I need it for. Then my 64 bit runs just about the same for what I use it for too. I really have very little to say as to what I preferr except that I use them both for what I have need for.
And yes my next computer I'm building is to be a 64 bit for a lot of reasons it will be used for.
Glad I'm not a gamer. I will be stepping into 64 bit if I can get enough saved up to buy a new Mac.
They have some really nice ones Kona. Myself I would agree with you there... so would some other people I know here at WC.
Actually Stardock is currently working on a game called Elemental which will have a 64-bit version. The main reason for using a 64bit version is the 32bit version has a 4GB memory limit. As described in the developer journals the game Elemental will have an advantage unlike previous TBS games because map sizes will be able to be massively much larger. There have been so many games I would still be playing if the largest map sizes weren't so small.
I completely agree with Frogboy and have also been a long time advocate of migrating people to a 64-bit OS. If the vast majority of people continue to remain on 32-bit Operating Systems then developers will be forced by financial reasons to only develop for the 32-bit Operating Systems and thus binded by its limitations.
Well Windows COULD be rewritten to work with RAM better like a Mac therefore elimanting the need for more than 4 GB of RAM. However it seems as time goes on Windows - or more precisely - Windows apps need more and more memory.
You guys are arguing a chicken and egg issue. True the only benefit of 64 bit is larger addressing ergo support for more RAM. But arguing whether or not you need more RAM doesnt really take into account that once 64 bit becomes a standard people might find more uses to use more RAM and whether that is because its practical or simply because more RAM will be available is a pointless argument. I can remember people saying the same thing at 32 mb 64 mb etc etc. SO yes in todays paradigm more than 4 gb is kinda pointless but arguing that tommorrows paradigm wont need/use >4GB is well, no one can see the future.
"True the only benefit of 64 bit is larger addressing ergo support for more RAM."
Aye but you wouldn't need more RAM if Windows was rewritten to handle RAM a bit better like Linux and Mac do. Think about it.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
