"cogs06" wrote in message
...

I decided to operate 64 bit due to it being more secure when online,
especially as I do all of my banking and other personally sensitive
things with my PC. When Intel released a statement a couple of years ago
stating that the PC was never designed for such things, surely evrything
that is available to make it safer should be used?

cogs


--
cogs06

You may be confusing the length of encryption keys (where longer is
definitely more secure) with the length of the codes used to program the OS.

64-bit OS's are not inherently any more (or less) secure than their 32-bit
counterparts, when configured identically.

Thank you for your kind words cw17454.

It is people like you who stop those like me from learning.

This forum appears to be no different to any other, there are some good
people out there, then there are ones like you who wreck it for eveyone.

This will be my last post as I can't be bothered with your type any
more.

Go and buse someone else.

cogs


--
cogs06

The next time you are running the standard applications you use, bring
up the task manager (CRL-ALT-DEL). Click on Advanced (I think that is
what the selection is) and you will get a very useful display of what
the system load is. You should get a CPU loading display, a Memory Usage
Display, Network Usage, Hard Drive, etc.

Take a look at the Memory Usage and if it is over 50% then you MIGHT
get an improvement in performance if you ever start to do more on your
computer. The way Windows works is that it will use the available memory
until it starts to run out and then create a memory Paging File ( a temp
file to store what is in memory while the processor is doing other
operations, this slows things down). Vista also has a new feature that
allows you to use a thumb drive as a memory increase to reduce paging. I
think it is called Ready Boost or something close.

I hope this helps.


--
Battman540

This isn't exactly true.

While 32bit processors do have DEP support
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Execution_Prevention), it isn't as robust
as 64 bit (at least last time I checked, which was about 3 years ago).
Also, the Windows kernel is different in 64bit with how drivers are
trusted - making it *more* difficult to get malware in the kernel. It is
another layer of protection, but won't prevent all bad things happening.

With regards to memory amounts - I am actually surprised to see only 70%
utlization of the memory, since prefetch is pretty good at eating up memory
not in use. You can read more about it here
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefetcher], but the short summary is that
prefetch will load commonly used files into memory before you need them so
that when you access them they will open very quickly. If you need the
memory instead, the memory is still available to you, and whatever is cached
in memory will be dumped so your application can have this memory.

Because of prefetch, it can be beneficial to have more memory than your
applications use, as Windows will find a use for it.

On my x64 laptop I have 4 GB of memory, and almost never have to wait for
things to launch or page in memory.


"Patrick Keenan" wrote in message
...
"cogs06" wrote in message
...

I decided to operate 64 bit due to it being more secure when online,
especially as I do all of my banking and other personally sensitive
things with my PC. When Intel released a statement a couple of years ago
stating that the PC was never designed for such things, surely evrything
that is available to make it safer should be used?

cogs


--
cogs06

You may be confusing the length of encryption keys (where longer is
definitely more secure) with the length of the codes used to program the
OS.

64-bit OS's are not inherently any more (or less) secure than their 32-bit
counterparts, when configured identically.

cogs06;1051586 Wrote:
Thank you for your kind words cw17454.

It is people like you who stop those like me from learning.

This forum appears to be no different to any other, there are some good
people out there, then there are ones like you who wreck it for eveyone.

This will be my last post as I can't be bothered with your type any
more.

Go and buse someone else.

cogs

Excuse me, I can't seem to find a reply where I had insulted you. My
direct reply to you was in the beginning of this thread and was an
answer to your question.

However "Curious" was a different matter.


--
cwl7454

I thought I missed somthing too


--
venom762

As much memory as you can stuff onto the motherboard, but law of diminishing
return applies.

So, you should have at least 2GB, 4GB is nice and 8 - 16GB, if you want to
spend the money.



"cogs06" wrote in message
...

I have recently installed Vista 64 bit. I am wondering how much RAM I
should have without having RAM for the sake of it?

The PC is not used for extreme gaming, video editing etc, just the
ususal that most home PCs do.

My PC.s specs a

Intel BLKDP965ATCK (800MHz limit) MoBo
Intel Pentium D processor
2Gb DDR2 667MHz RAM

I have another 2 x 1Gb of the same ram I can take from my second PC
which is only used for web surfing, school work and some games.

I am wondering if putting 2 Gb (2 x1) or 4Gb of 800MHz would be the
better option, either in 2x2 or 4x1 cards.

I have noticed that regularly the RAM is running 70% someties more when
certain games or programmes are running.

Regards

cogs


--
cogs06