[stettybet0]

I've seen it said a few times in this topic that 64-bit Vista has problems running 32-bit programs. This is absolutely untrue. 64-bit Vista runs 32-bit programs just as well as 32-bit Vista does. The only exception to this is some 32-bit antivirus programs, hardware drivers, and other programs which operate at a very low level (meaning that they communicate directly, or almost directly, with the hardware) will not work, but the vast majority of these types of programs have specific 64-bit versions. Also, all 16-bit programs (MS-DOS era programs) will not work at all, but there is no real reason for people to be running these programs to begin with.

The benefits of 64-bit Vista are the ability to use more than ~3.25GB of RAM and the ability to run 64-bit applications. While it is true that neither things are especially necessary today, it is better to be prepared for the future than to have to buy a new operating system in a few years.

[Advertisements]

The 537 has been phased out... it's done... they are not going to sell it anymore... however I can still get this deal that I posted with the 537... $590 one
The 537 has been replaced with the 546... and it uses AMD
Should I still get this deal?
Thoughts?
Should I get the 546 instead? or Studio?

[hospitaldoctor]

The 537 has been phased out... it's done... they are not going to sell it anymore... however I can still get this deal that I posted with the 537... $590 one
The 537 has been replaced with the 546... and it uses AMD
Should I still get this deal?
Thoughts?
Should I get the 546 instead? or Studio?

[Ferrari]

64-bit Vista runs 32-bit programs just as well as 32-bit Vista does.

As long as they don't have any remaining 16bit code in them.
Source

However, before I close, let me also quote that many times, a 64 bit software will contain bits of 32 bit code. Similarly 32 bit software (usually very old ones) can have some code in 16 bit. Please be aware that 16 bit code will NOT run on 64 bit OS. This is one reason behind some 32 bit programs not working on 64 bit OSes.

It is quite possible he feels comfortable using the programs he is used to which may still have that old 16bit code mixed in. Never-the-less, like I stated before, he doesn't NEED 64bit.

And please read these quotes by me... (pay attention to the bold text)

More than likely, you shouldn't experience problems if you go the 64bit route, but some 32bit programs (which is mostly what is out there) don't work so well on a 64bit Operating System.

And yes, some programs struggle with performing well on a 64bit structure.

And your quote suggests that I meant ALL 32bit programs...

I've seen it said a few times in this topic that 64-bit Vista has problems running 32-bit programs.

However, I agree that it is a good idea to look to the future, so like I said earlier, 32 or 64, its up to hospitaldoctor.

[Ferrari]

I already said two posts ago...

The last post is the one I think fits you best. The $590 one.

With stettybet0's suggestion, if you plan to just use this computer for a couple years, 32bit will do you fine, if you plan to use it longer than that(just giving rough estimates here) then look towards the future and get it with 64bit Vista.

Should I get the 546 instead? or Studio?

I don't know much about AMD. The little I do know that it is a cheaper alternative in comparison to Intel when some builders are building a "budget" system. (trying to save some money)

[stettybet0]

Argh. That's one thing I hate about the internet. Anyone can just put out whatever random information they want, and then honest people like yourself may find it and mistake it for reputable information.

A 32-bit program is simply a program that uses a 32-bit address space. There is no "16-bit code", per se. The program is compiled to use a certain address space, be it 16-bit, 32-bit, or 64-bit (though most modern compilers only give options for 32-bit and 64-bit). Theoretically, it may be possible to implement both 16-bit and 32-bit code when using an assembly language, but I've never heard of it being done. Also, no program meant for public use is written in assembly, as an assembly language only works on one type of CPU.

To reiterate, your statements,

some 32bit programs (which is mostly what is out there) don't work so well on a 64bit Operating System.

some programs struggle with performing well on a 64bit structure.

are largely inaccurate, with the exception of the few exceptions I provided in my last post.

My point is that, while I agree that either 32-bit or 64-bit Vista would suit this particular user fine, there is no reason he/she should try to get 32-bit Vista over 64-bit Vista.

To answer hospitaldoctor's original question, for basic use, pretty much any computer would be fine. An AMD CPU would also be fine. I would just get what ever is cheapest.

Edited by stettybet0, 01 July 2009 - 01:14 AM.

[Ferrari]

Thanks stettybet0,

You know as well as I do that I'm still learning. And you couldn't be any more right, it is sooo hard for me to learn even when I try to study and learn from reputable sites. If you notice, the article I linked to was updated just a few days ago. Anyways, its good to know I have some people around here to help out like you just did.

Hospitaldoctor,

To answer hospitaldoctor's original question, for basic use, pretty much any computer would be fine. An AMD CPU would also be fine. I would just get what ever is cheapest.

100% correct. For what you are using the computer for, just about anything will do and you will be very happy with. Your original budget was for $500. The $590 one is pretty close to that, so that sounds good. If you find a comparable computer with AMD that is cheaper, go that route.