On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > I thought the verdict was stay on 32 because there are hardly any 64 bit > progs out there and 32 bit progs run slower on 64 bit o/s's --------------------------
That is so anti what I have found. If I take FLACK and have it decode from .flack to .wav the time it takes to convert a 1 gig concert < end product of 3 cds > between similar RAM / speed of machine with 32 cs 64 bit CPU is night and day. the example above may take just under 5 min on 32 bit and maybe a min tops on 64 bit. Same exe off of web download installed on both machines. Both are laptops. Both running either Vista or W7 depending on when I did the upgrade(s), same results. I have changed over to Search as my audio conversion tool with the same time results, but that does web installing and it may pull the proper codebase needed. 64 bit rocks when you have processor intensive activity. Crunching #s in, compressing files, editing and or conversion of audio and or video. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer SQL Server DBA Web and Winform Development Independent Contractor Memphis TN 901.246-0159 _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
