Firefox - Resource Hungry
in [Computers]
|
From: Marts on 14 Feb 2010 03:05 annily wrote... > OK 3.5 GB usable, or whatever it is on 32-bit Windows 7. I did run > 64-bit Win 7 for a while, but went back to 32-bit, as I couldn't see any > real advantage. OK, going off topic here as I'm interested in Win7 and a new computer. Why did you go back to 32b? If there was no obvious advantage, was there any obvious disadvantages? Otherwise, why not stay with 64b?
From: Rob on 14 Feb 2010 04:26 On 14/02/2010 7:05 PM, Marts wrote: > annily wrote... > >> OK 3.5 GB usable, or whatever it is on 32-bit Windows 7. I did run >> 64-bit Win 7 for a while, but went back to 32-bit, as I couldn't see any >> real advantage. > > OK, going off topic here as I'm interested in Win7 and a new computer. Why did > you go back to 32b? If there was no obvious advantage, was there any obvious > disadvantages? Otherwise, why not stay with 64b? > As for myself there are not many programmes that use 64 bit and only one that I would like to use is Photoshop to extend the memory. From the Adobe Master collection most programmes within are 32 bit. Haven't tried Premiere but that's another to use the more menory option. r
From: annily on 14 Feb 2010 05:03
Marts wrote: > annily wrote... > >> OK 3.5 GB usable, or whatever it is on 32-bit Windows 7. I did run >> 64-bit Win 7 for a while, but went back to 32-bit, as I couldn't see any >> real advantage. > > OK, going off topic here as I'm interested in Win7 and a new computer. Why did > you go back to 32b? If there was no obvious advantage, was there any obvious > disadvantages? Otherwise, why not stay with 64b? > Good question, but it's so long ago I'm not really sure. I think I remember reading somewhere that 64b may actually run slower because the 32-bit apps run in some sort of emulation mode. And the programs use more memory. -- Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. |