My comp crashed today

Most copies of XP are 32-bit, but there was a 64-bit flavour (only of Pro, I think) made.

A computer running a 32-bit operating system can only use the first ~3GB of the memory you have installed. So installing more than 3GB of RAM in a computer with a 32-bit OS is a waste of money, although it shouldn't actually hurt anything.

(Firefox really does balloon up if you have enough tabs/windows open for long enough, but I notice it a lot less since I upper the RAM in this thing to 16GB. Now I can run a week-old Firefox session and multiple virtual machines without processes getting unexpectedly terminated on me.)

Mark Moore said:

...and lots and LOTS of YouTube videos and other misc. things to re-download.

Click to expand...

Wait... what? Why would you download a video from youtube (I didn't even know you could do that) and waste harddrive space when it's always available ON YOUTUBE?

Shadow_Ferret said:

Wait... what? Why would you download a video from youtube (I didn't even know you could do that) and waste harddrive space when it's always available ON YOUTUBE?

Click to expand...

Because it's doesn't always stay on YouTube.

I've saved videos I liked and then later discovered they had been removed or taken down and not just by any take down order but because the account was deleted or closed.

And for someone like me, I have limited bandwidth per day. If I want to watch a video more than once (at different times), that's bandwidth I could save if I downloaded it to my harddrive.

Case in point, I pulled the Neil Gaiman Commencement speech (20 minutes) so I can watch it whenever I want and not use ~60MB of my 500MB total for the day. In just my usual surfing, and the usual software updates, I can end up with quite a chunk gone by the end of the day if I don't plan it carefully.

SianaBlackwood said:

Hate to be a downer, but you can only use 8GB of memory if you're running a 64 bit OS. The 32 bit version can only address a total of 4GB of physical memory.

Click to expand...

Nope.

Microsoft says it depends on the version of Windows you're using.

Windows 7 Professional, 64-bit, which includes Enterprise and Ultimate, is capable of up to 192GB of memory. Good luck finding a motherboard that can install that much RAM, but Windows will let you do it. I think most of the major Linux distributions are the same, or very close. Some of the server versions of Windows go even higher. Windows 8 will go to 512GB.

A 64-bit operating system, theoretically, can handle 2 to the 64th power of memory. About 64 exabytes, if my math is close. Wikipedia says I am. That's a bucketload of zeros after the 64.

I don't think we're seeing a motherboard capable of 64 EB of RAM anytime soon. Not in the consumer market, anyway.

GrayLensman said:

Nope.

Microsoft says it depends on the version of Windows you're using.

Click to expand...

Hi Gray! I think SianaBlackwood meant that if Mark was running 32-bit Windows (X86) there'd be no point getting 8GB, because they can only utilize 4GB max (as confirmed by your link). Not that there was an 8GB limit on 64-bit.

Alexys said:

Most copies of XP are 32-bit, but there was a 64-bit flavour (only of Pro, I think) made.

Click to expand...

People still use XP?

I guess that's like people still using Flash.

Mark Moore said:

Go here.



What if it's taken down?
!

Click to expand...

Cool. But I guess I never thought about them being taken down.

kuwisdelu said:

People still use XP?

I guess that's like people still using Flash.

Click to expand...

Many businesses still use XP. Mine, for instance.

Not understanding the Flash comment. Isn't that used by the majority of websites?

Shadow_Ferret said:

Many businesses still use XP. Mine, for instance.

Not understanding the Flash comment. Isn't that used by the majority of websites?

Click to expand...

No anymore, thankfully. A few still use them for video, which sucks. But Flash finally started going away when Apple refuse to ship iOS with Flash ever.

The joke was 32-bit operating systems and CPUs, 8-bit H.264, Windows XP, and Flash are all outdated technology now that for some reason people still use.

But man, I guess some people still even use Xvid and DivX, and even mp3...

Some businesses still use XP because they haven't been convinced the newer versions are as stable, I guess. Or maybe they can't customize them the way they need them. Or they're still doing Beta testing to see if they fit in their network.

kuwisdelu said:

...and even mp3...

Click to expand...

Oh stop it. Now you're just trying to make me feel stupid. There's nothing beyond MP3...

...is there?

iTunes rips my CDs in .m4a (I think) - It's mpeg4, as opposed to mpeg3. Can't quite recall the extension, but I think it's .m4a.

Honestly, I haven't noticed any real difference between them. Both file formats play on my iPod and in Winamp, which is all that matters to me.

Lossless is where it's at, baby.

Cliff Face said:

iTunes rips my CDs in .m4a (I think) - It's mpeg4, as opposed to mpeg3. Can't quite recall the extension, but I think it's .m4a.

Click to expand...

Oh. OK. I went and looked and mine all say WMA, whatever that is. I still call them MP3, but then I still call them records, too.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Oh stop it. Now you're just trying to make me feel stupid. There's nothing beyond MP3...

...is there?

Click to expand...

Most music is ripped to AAC these days, which is part of the MPEG-4 standard. It was introduced as the successor of mp3 over a decade ago. Everything on iTunes is AAC, for example.

Cliff Face said:

iTunes rips my CDs in .m4a (I think) - It's mpeg4, as opposed to mpeg3. Can't quite recall the extension, but I think it's .m4a.

Click to expand...

Yes, .m4a is one of multiple file extensions used for AAC, and mp3 is actually part of the MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 standards. MPEG-4 is a standard for various algorithms for compressing visual and audio data, and AAC is one such algorithm used for audio data.

A major competitor is Vorbis, which is a free audio codec provided by the Xiph.Org Foundation, often wrapped in the Ogg container. It's mostly used by Linux users and other people who are into free and open-source software.

Honestly, I haven't noticed any real difference between them. Both file formats play on my iPod and in Winamp, which is all that matters to me.

Click to expand...

Both AAC and Vorbic provide better audio quality per bitrate than mp3 does. A 256 kbps AAC audio file will sound much better than a 256 kbps mp3 file. Alternatively, you can use a lower bitrate AAC file to get similar quality to a higher bitrate mp3, but with a smaller file size.

All of the above are lossy.

It's a similar idea with 8-bit H.264 versus 10-bit H.264, which are video codecs that are MPEG-4 standard, where 10-bit H.264 results in better quality per bitrate, or smaller filesizes for comparable video quality. The greater compression makes it more processor-intensive to decode, though.

benbradley said:

Lossless is where it's at, baby.

Click to expand...

Meh, FLAC takes up too much space. Ordinary 320 kbps AAC is fine for me, and supported by more media players.

Unfortunately, I have tons of old music that I ripped at, like, 128 kbps mp3 back in the 90s when that's what everyone was doing.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Oh. OK. I went and looked and mine all say WMA, whatever that is. I still call them MP3, but then I still call them records, too.

Click to expand...

WMA? Eww. WMA is Windows Media Audio. It's a proprietary Microsoft audio codec.

EMaree said:

Hi Gray! I think SianaBlackwood meant that if Mark was running 32-bit Windows (X86) there'd be no point getting 8GB, because they can only utilize 4GB max (as confirmed by your link). Not that there was an 8GB limit on 64-bit.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's pretty clear now. Can't figure out why I saw it as a claimed limit on 64-bit. Not now, I can't.

Oh well, hope the information was useful to someone.

And sorry.

kuwisdelu said:

WMA? Eww. WMA is Windows Media Audio. It's a proprietary Microsoft audio codec.

Click to expand...

Well, that makes no sense. I use iTunes.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Well, that makes no sense. I use iTunes.

Click to expand...

You're right. That doesn't make any sense.

kuwisdelu said:

A major competitor is Vorbis, which is a free audio codec provided by the Xiph.Org Foundation, often wrapped in the Ogg container. It's mostly used by Linux users and other people who are into free and open-source software.

Click to expand...

I really wish more MP3 player manufacturers had supported Ogg Vorbis. But no. Some did. Not enough, IMO.

kuwisdelu said:

WMA? Eww. WMA is Windows Media Audio. It's a proprietary Microsoft audio codec.

Click to expand...

It's proprietary, but it's lossless, and also smaller than MP3 for the quality. And more MP3 players support WMA than support Vorbis.

As an audio codec, it's not bad. As a DRM-enabled codec, it's utterly awful... for consumers.

I didn't read all the answers, but something that will help installing things on your new pc is Ninite go to the website, you basically check the boxes of the programs there that you want to install, download a little file, then connected to the internet, you run it on the new pc, it will automatically install the up to date versions of all that software.

I'm an IT Technician, believe me, it works wonders