[The Real Slim Shady]

first i must say 64bit is of course more hungry source than 32bit comparing the (~350mb ram usage to almost the double on 64bit) so its normal for your computer (with 2gb ram) to lag...i cant see a reason why to use 64 bit but if you still want a 64bit system

By your logic we should still be using the Intel 4004 (4 bit) processor.

The reason you use 64 bit processors is because it is more efficient. You can provide the CPU with larger instruction sets, which means it can essentially process more data at the same time. If you want to process 64 bits of data on a 32 bit processor, you must split the operation into 2 instructions, as opposed to running a single instruction.

RAM has nothing to do with the CPU architecture really. RAM is merely the final destination for the output of the CPU operations.

If a system is using more ram, its because something is using it. Its not because you have a 64 bit processor.

[AncheL]

By your logic we should still be using the Intel 4004 (4 bit) processor.

The reason you use 64 bit processors is because it is more efficient. You can provide the CPU with larger instruction sets, which means it can essentially process more data at the same time. If you want to process 64 bits of data on a 32 bit processor, you must split the operation into 2 instructions, as opposed to running a single instruction.

RAM has nothing to do with the CPU architecture really. RAM is merely the final destination for the output of the CPU operations.

If a system is using more ram, its because something is using it. Its not because you have a 64 bit processor.

I agree with you...i just want to say 64bit systems use more Ram and Cpu than a 32 bit,of course it is more efficient but for the above reason it doesnt run corectly on 32bit processor

[The Real Slim Shady]

I agree with you...i just want to say 64bit systems use more Ram and Cpu than a 32 bit,of course it is more efficient but for the above reason it doesnt run corectly on 32bit processor

But thats just it - they dont. They use the same amount of ram and less CPU. The resultset of the ALU operations will be exactly the same, and the ALU can do half as many operations to get the same result.

== Same RAM && < CPU

And I dont think a 64bit OS would run at all on a 32 bit processor.It just wouldnt work afaik.

[AncheL]

But thats just it - they dont. They use the same amount of ram and less CPU. The resultset of the ALU operations will be exactly the same, and the ALU can do half as many operations to get the same result.

== Same RAM && < CPU

And I dont think a 64bit OS would run at all on a 32 bit processor.It just wouldnt work afaik.

64bit OS running on 32bit processor (tested), simply will lead to overheating and malfunction. I thing u did not get my point.We talk about a 64bit OS on a 32bit processor.
A 32 & 64bit OS of course has the same used of ram and cpu if you think in percentages to reallocate processors,but if it uses 64bit OS on a 32bit processor the will use a larger amount of ram and processor

[The Real Slim Shady]

But thats just it - they dont. They use the same amount of ram and less CPU. The resultset of the ALU operations will be exactly the same, and the ALU can do half as many operations to get the same result.

== Same RAM && < CPU

And I dont think a 64bit OS would run at all on a 32 bit processor.It just wouldnt work afaik.

64bit OS running on 32bit processor (tested), simply will lead to overheating and malfunction. I thing u did not get my point.We talk about a 64bit OS on a 32bit processor.
A 32 & 64bit OS of course has the same used of ram and cpu if you think in percentages to reallocate processors,but if it uses 64bit OS on a 32bit processor the will use a larger amount of ram and processor

What OS did you test that with? Ive never heard of a 64bit OS letting you install it on a 32bit architecture. In fact it would require significant changes to the kernel and any device drivers just to function afaik. Theres just no need to code backwards compatibility into the kernel for this purpose.

I am pretty sure Ubuntu (the topic of this thread) displays an error

[AncheL]

What OS did you test that with? Ive never heard of a 64bit OS letting you install it on a 32bit architecture. In fact it would require significant changes to the kernel and any device drivers just to function afaik. Theres just no need to code backwards compatibility into the kernel for this purpose.

I am pretty sure Ubuntu (the topic of this thread) displays an error

I test it on Ubuntu 12.04 and windows xp both with a compile kernel,and i agree theres no need to code into the kernel for this purpose. I just say it works with some tweaks

[Vataj]

If you actually managed to run a 64 bit OS on a 32 bit architecture and it lagged severely. A 32 bit OS would certainly be a better choice.

[chapp]

What OS did you test that with? Ive never heard of a 64bit OS letting you install it on a 32bit architecture. In fact it would require significant changes to the kernel and any device drivers just to function afaik. Theres just no need to code backwards compatibility into the kernel for this purpose.

I am pretty sure Ubuntu (the topic of this thread) displays an error

I test it on Ubuntu 12.04 and windows xp both with a compile kernel,and i agree theres no need to code into the kernel for this purpose. I just say it works with some tweaks

Great story bro'

[The 7th Sage]

32 bit = highway with 2 lanes, 64 bit = high way with 4 lanes. While that may be the difference you need atleast 4gigs of RAM to run a 64bit OS.

[AncheL]

32 bit = highway with 2 lanes, 64 bit = high way with 4 lanes. While that may be the difference you need atleast 4gigs of RAM to run a 64bit OS.

Yes 64 bit OS needs atleast 4gb RAM but with some tweaks on a kernel 64 bit OS can run on 32 bit system