Is using 32-bit appz on x64 better than on x86?

[Guest Robin]

Hi,

 

I went x64 because of the benefits found in one of the major programs I was

using. As it turns out, problems with plugins means I will be using the

32-bit version of this program on my x64 installation.

 

In fact, most everything installed on my computer is 32-bits, because of

various conflicts and problems. Am I better off switching back to XP x86, or

sticking with with x64 and continuing to use 32-bits appz on it?

 

Am I doing more harm than good hanging on to x64 when I'm not really using

anything 64-bits?

[Guest R. C. White]

Re: Is using 32-bit appz on x64 better than on x86?

 

Hi, Robin.

 

At this point in time, x64 is more about the future than the present.

Sooner or later we will all be running 64-bits. We can make the conversion

now and live with a few missing drivers, or put it off until some point in

the future. The choice probably depends mostly on WHICH hardware and

applications you will be running between now and when YOU decide to convert.

 

Personally, ALL my software now runs on Vista Ultimate x64, which I

installed (finally, after running beta builds for over a year) about a year

ago. The last holdouts were Nero and Photoshop Elements, but they were

finally compatible just before Vista "went Gold". I had installed WinXP x64

as soon as it was available about 3 years ago, but lack of drivers,

especially for my ATI All-In-Wonder card, was a much bigger problem then. I

still have WinXP x64 installed as a dual-boot, but almost never boot it.

 

My hardware all works with Vista x64, and has from early in the beta period.

Well, I did have a SoundBlaster card installed for several years, but

Creative was very late in producing x64 drivers, so I retired the card

completely early in the beta period. The Realtek onboard audio on my

motherboard is fully supported and does all that I want a sound card to do.

I'm not an audiophile and have only 2.1 speakers, but the Realtek would

support much more if I wanted it to.

 

One remaining hassle: TV tuners. I have two now, a Hauppauge HVR-1600

(PCI) and a Pinnacle PCTV HD Pro Stick (USB). The drivers work and I can

use them with Vista Ultimate's built-in Media Center, both x64 and x86. But

the TV applications from both Hauppauge and Pinnacle do not yet work in x64.

Since I seldom boot into x86 at all, I haven't tested those apps very much..

 

I don't know if x64 runs 32-bit apps better than x86, because I haven't run

x86 very much for the past year. I don't yet have any 64-bit apps, but all

my 32-bit apps are running just fine. ;<)

 

RC

--

R. C. White, CPA

San Marcos, TX

rc@grandecom.net

Microsoft Windows MVP

(Running Windows Live Mail beta 2 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 beta v.275)

 

"Robin" <no@spam.com> wrote in message

news:uqHV4ulEIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Hi,

>

> I went x64 because of the benefits found in one of the major programs I

> was using. As it turns out, problems with plugins means I will be using

> the 32-bit version of this program on my x64 installation.

>

> In fact, most everything installed on my computer is 32-bits, because of

> various conflicts and problems. Am I better off switching back to XP x86,

> or sticking with with x64 and continuing to use 32-bits appz on it?

>

> Am I doing more harm than good hanging on to x64 when I'm not really using

> anything 64-bits?

[Guest John John]

Re: Is using 32-bit appz on x64 better than on x86?

 

Because of "thunking" your 32-bit applications will (most likely) run

slower. 32-bit applications have to be "thunked up" to 64-bit, in

essence the the 32-bit functions and pointers are converted (thunked) to

64-bit, so that means that there is an extra operation needed to run the

applications, this extra operations slows them down. It is much the

same running 16-bit applications on 32-bit NT, they have to be thunked

up to 32-bit and this makes them run a bit slower on NT than in their

native 16-bit OS. You have to remember that the 64-bit operating system

does not use 32-bit functions and the 32-bit NT does not use 16-bit

functions, they do not "thunk down". The applications run inside

emulators, the NTVDM (on NT 32-bit) or WOW64 (on NT 64-bit) where they

are thunked up to run on the operating system.

 

John

 

Robin wrote:

> Hi,

>

> I went x64 because of the benefits found in one of the major programs I was

> using. As it turns out, problems with plugins means I will be using the

> 32-bit version of this program on my x64 installation.

>

> In fact, most everything installed on my computer is 32-bits, because of

> various conflicts and problems. Am I better off switching back to XP x86, or

> sticking with with x64 and continuing to use 32-bits appz on it?

>

> Am I doing more harm than good hanging on to x64 when I'm not really using

> anything 64-bits?

>

>

[Guest Tony Sperling]

Re: Is using 32-bit appz on x64 better than on x86?

 

There may be a minor slow-down, but I don't notice any at all. If there is

one, it shouldn't be because of 'thunking', which is what you get from

Emulators when they translate 'calls' from 32 to 64 bit or vice versa - or

when translating long filenames to short ones, which happened when you ran

Unicode on Win98, if I'm not mistaken.

 

But the AMD64 processor is built to execute both internally, so you

shouldn't need to make this translation, what they did was to include both

API's in the OS that has a complex way of living together in the same

appartment without bothering each other - so there probably are some issues.

Counter this, however, with the much improved Virtual Memory Management that

you really do notice. The end result is - there is no difference. Some say

some things run slower, other thinks it runs quicker, but most people here

are of the opinion that x86 code runs on a par with the x86 machine.

 

If you see a difference it is something else, like some hardware benefitting

more from the improved Virtual Memory Management and others considerably

less.

 

 

Tony. . .

 

 

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message

news:uRibRAnEIHA.3880@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Because of "thunking" your 32-bit applications will (most likely) run

> slower. 32-bit applications have to be "thunked up" to 64-bit, in essence

> the the 32-bit functions and pointers are converted (thunked) to 64-bit,

> so that means that there is an extra operation needed to run the

> applications, this extra operations slows them down. It is much the same

> running 16-bit applications on 32-bit NT, they have to be thunked up to

> 32-bit and this makes them run a bit slower on NT than in their native

> 16-bit OS. You have to remember that the 64-bit operating system does not

> use 32-bit functions and the 32-bit NT does not use 16-bit functions, they

> do not "thunk down". The applications run inside emulators, the NTVDM (on

> NT 32-bit) or WOW64 (on NT 64-bit) where they are thunked up to run on the

> operating system.

>

> John

>

> Robin wrote:

>

>> Hi,

>>

>> I went x64 because of the benefits found in one of the major programs I

>> was using. As it turns out, problems with plugins means I will be using

>> the 32-bit version of this program on my x64 installation.

>>

>> In fact, most everything installed on my computer is 32-bits, because of

>> various conflicts and problems. Am I better off switching back to XP x86,

>> or sticking with with x64 and continuing to use 32-bits appz on it?

>>

>> Am I doing more harm than good hanging on to x64 when I'm not really

>> using anything 64-bits?

>

[Guest Robin]

Re: Is using 32-bit appz on x64 better than on x86?

 

"R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message

news:C5F658BA-D1FC-4EB5-B1BF-2E9992ECDF6B@microsoft.com...

>

> I don't know if x64 runs 32-bit apps better than x86, because I haven't

> run x86 very much for the past year.

 

Well, that was really the question, so if anyone can answer it, I'd be most

happy. ;-)

[Guest Robin]

Re: Is using 32-bit appz on x64 better than on x86?

 

Exactly what I wanted to know. So if I'm going to use 32-bit applications

for the next year, I'm better off running them on x86 than x64. Am I

interpreting that right?

 

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message

news:uRibRAnEIHA.3880@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Because of "thunking" your 32-bit applications will (most likely) run

> slower. 32-bit applications have to be "thunked up" to 64-bit, in essence

> the the 32-bit functions and pointers are converted (thunked) to 64-bit,

> so that means that there is an extra operation needed to run the

> applications, this extra operations slows them down. It is much the same

> running 16-bit applications on 32-bit NT, they have to be thunked up to

> 32-bit and this makes them run a bit slower on NT than in their native

> 16-bit OS. You have to remember that the 64-bit operating system does not

> use 32-bit functions and the 32-bit NT does not use 16-bit functions, they

> do not "thunk down". The applications run inside emulators, the NTVDM (on

> NT 32-bit) or WOW64 (on NT 64-bit) where they are thunked up to run on the

> operating system.

>

> John

[Guest John John]

Re: Is using 32-bit appz on x64 better than on x86?

 

Well... My post was not completely correct. As Tony said, x64

processors execute x86-32 instructions so the thunking will not be quite

the same as it is on 32-bit Windows versions. There will be thunks for

Ntoskrnl.exe functions, but most users here say that they don't notice

much, if any, difference when running 32-bit applications on x64. That

there is an extra emulation layer and some thunking that much is known,

how it may (or may not) slow things down is difficult to say, you would

have to run benchmark tests on identical machines to say for sure how

different applications are affected. If you are strictly running 32-bit

applications then I would think that you would probably be better

running 32-bit Windows.

 

John

 

Robin wrote:

> Exactly what I wanted to know. So if I'm going to use 32-bit applications

> for the next year, I'm better off running them on x86 than x64. Am I

> interpreting that right?

>

> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message

> news:uRibRAnEIHA.3880@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>

>>Because of "thunking" your 32-bit applications will (most likely) run

>>slower. 32-bit applications have to be "thunked up" to 64-bit, in essence

>>the the 32-bit functions and pointers are converted (thunked) to 64-bit,

>>so that means that there is an extra operation needed to run the

>>applications, this extra operations slows them down. It is much the same

>>running 16-bit applications on 32-bit NT, they have to be thunked up to

>>32-bit and this makes them run a bit slower on NT than in their native

>>16-bit OS. You have to remember that the 64-bit operating system does not

>>use 32-bit functions and the 32-bit NT does not use 16-bit functions, they

>>do not "thunk down". The applications run inside emulators, the NTVDM (on

>>NT 32-bit) or WOW64 (on NT 64-bit) where they are thunked up to run on the

>>operating system.

>>

>>John

>

>

>