32bit or 64bit

[Ibrad]

32bit or 64bit that is the question.

[YanK33]

if you like to do photo, music and video editing no question you need 64bits

[Boyfriend]

Windows 7 x64 here. I miss some of the great x86 utilities like DefenseWall and some very good antirootkits (diagnostic purpose). Now x64 is also vulnerable to rootkit attack.

[Noob]

Although i'm using x86, i prefer having x64 specially because of the RAM advantage ;D

[TOMxEU]

64-bit - security, stability and pretty good compatibility with 32-bit these days.

[stratoc]

made the jump when i went from vista to win 7. all my programs run fine. i don't regret it all all.

[Kerodo]

Been 64bit for the past 2 years. No problems, no regrets.....

[Woodgiant]

64 bit is my choice, mostly because of the Ram advantage, and with windows 7 there has become a good integration whit 32 bit programs. But sometimes I can have a a hard time finding 64 bit drivers,....... driving me so nuts that I wish me back to a 32 bit version. But you can get it all "Yet" ;)

[dw426]

If you want more than 3Gb of RAM, you don't have a choice.

[Osaban]

Can't tell the difference, except when using demanding applications 64 bit is faster. I can have either system installed within 8 minutes, although I use Vista 64 bit most of the time.

[YanK33]

and gamers want 64bits since the first AMD 64 bit processors came to production

[mrgigabyte]

love my windows 7 64 bit machine :thumb:

[TonyW]

All the new Windows 7 machines I've seen have been 64bit versions. Not seen any 32bit models although I'm sure they must exist.

My Windows XP is 32bit. Not sure if XP does 64bit though.

[YanK33]

-{ Quote: "All the new Windows 7 machines I've seen have been 64bit versions. Not seen any 32bit models although I'm sure they must exist.

My Windows XP is 32bit. Not sure if XP does 64bit though." }-yep XP have a very little known 64bits version but have too many compatibility issues with softwares

[rpsgc]

64-bit all the way (except on my netbook, poor Atom thingie can't handle 64-bit).

[The Hammer]

64 bit is the future and I'm using it.

[SirPeterPan]

32-bit and 64-bit Windows: frequently asked questions (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/32-bit-and-64-bit-Windows-frequently-asked-questions)

[JuanP1000]

32bit....but next system will be 64bit

[ExtremeGamerBR]

64bit for sure! :thumb:

[progress]

-{ Quote: "64bit for sure! :thumb:" }-

32bit for sure! :thumb:

[Boyfriend]

Switched from x64 to x86 for greater compatibility and higher productivity :)

[Rampastein]

I'm currently using a 32-bit system (with 2 GB of RAM) but I'd surely have a 64-bit OS and 4 GB of RAM if I'd just have money for it. I do a lot of image editing, programming etc. RAM runs out pretty quickly when you have Firefox with 10 tabs open, 5 instances of Visual Studio running and also GIMP with a large image.

[Kerodo]

Been on 64 bit for 2 years now and wouldn't go back to 32....

[chrisretusn]

Using both right now. Newer computers I buy will be 64-bit.

[Daveski17]

I like Win 7 64 bit a lot. 64 bit is the future, after all. Pity about some flash compatibility though! >:(

[SIR****TMG]

Using 32 bit here

[tpro]

32bit as well :P

[Hungry Man]

64bit, of course.

[LoneWolf]

Xp 32bit

[Phant0m]

I use 'both', but my desktop PC that I use mostly, is with 64-bit.

[1chaoticadult]

64-bit

[buckshee]

The reality is that if you are using 32bit applications on a 64bit machine you are still limited to them using 4Gb of RAM. In fact I believe that 32bit applications actually run a bit slower on a 64bit machine due to the overhead..
Unless you are running 64bit applications then don't waste your money buying more than 4Gb memory.
Until (and if) I upgrade and get 64 bit applications I'm sticking with 32 bit - I see no point in changing

[cheater87]

32 bit for better sandboxing.

[cm1971]

I have Windows XP 32 bit on both the main PC and laptop.

[Sully]

For x64 to be an advantage, you must be able to utilize the said advantages.

For x32 to be an advantage, you must be able to utilize the said advantages.

Each has an advantage today, use what you need to. Tommorrow is another day, which may well see x64 truly become the "must use" for everyone, but we must wait for tommorrow to come.

I choose x32 for now.

Sul.

[Hungry Man]

32bit does not have an advantage save the slightly smaller memory footprint and slightly better software support. With 32bit emulation in Windows the second point isn't even an issue.

[moontan]

32 bits for now but the next system will be 64 bits.

i can always use more RAM.

[Sully]

-{ Quote: "32bit does not have an advantage save the slightly smaller memory footprint and slightly better software support. With 32bit emulation in Windows the second point isn't even an issue." }-
You just listed two "slight" advantages. Any more?

Sul.

[Hungry Man]

The memory footprint is negligible unless you're using Windows 7 64bit on 1GB of RAM.

Like I said, software support isn't an issue because of 32bit emulation in Windows. All of your 32bit software carries over and most programs have 64bit counterparts.

[J_L]

There's XP Mode (32-bit) for older software as well.

[Rampastein]

-{ Quote: "Like I said, software support isn't an issue because of 32bit emulation in Windows. All of your 32bit software carries over and most programs have 64bit counterparts." }-
16-bit applications (rare, but they do exist) don't run on 64-bit systems without any virtual machines etc. But I agree that it's not a large issue.

And if you don't have more than 3 GB RAM, 64-bit OSs don't usually give large advantages. About x64 Vista/7 Patchguard, it's good for most users but most HIPSes/Sandboxes are stronger on 32-bit systems (so how advantageous it is depends on the user).

[Hungry Man]

64bit OS's have far more advantages than just being able to utilize more than 10^32bits of RAM.

And 16bit programs run just fine in XP virtualization, which is bundled with some Windows 64bit packages. Plus they're so rare these days.

[Sully]

I use x32. I have no issues.

Using x64 brings me nothing I need.

Whether one is better than the other is pointless, as there is no clear winner yet. It is still only an opinion, not a fact. As I stated earlier, the future may well bring about compelling evidence that puts x32 as the "fools choise", but that has not happened yet. Even when that does, if I remain on x32 and do not get infected/compromised/etc, and users of x64 are, what does that really say? Nothing, because it isn't emperical.

I feel I have had this conversation before :blink:

Sometimes I think x64 vs x32 threads should be treated like "which AV is best". This thread wasn't meant for that and isn't out of control, but this debate has no clear winner and likely only leads to bickering.

Sul.

[Hungry Man]

It depends on the person and the situation, of course.

But in general 64bit only brings performance and security benefits. Performance benefits of 64bit are not even close to being limited to the RAM utilization of 10^64bits.

[Sevens]

-{ Quote: "You just listed two "slight" advantages. Any more?

Sul." }-


DefenseWall

[J_L]

You don't need Defensewall with Comodo/Avast auto-sandboxing, Sandboxie/Bufferzone, and Applocker/SRP.

[wat0114]

-{ Quote: "

Using x64 brings me nothing I need.
" }-

Except for better security.

-{ Quote: "64bit OS's have far more advantages than just being able to utilize more than 10^32bits of RAM.
" }-

-{ Quote: "
But in general 64bit only brings performance and security benefits. " }-

These seem to be contradictory statements.

Using 64 bit here.

[Hungry Man]

They aren't contradictory. 9 times out of 10 64bit will only bring you benefits -- those benefits being in both performance and security.

[m00nbl00d]

Whenever I get a new and deserved system (hopefully soon), it will be 64bit, due to the amount of memory I'll need. Heavy stuff.

Otherwise, I'd get 32bit, unless I could actually find a 64bit system cheaper than a 32bit one. ;D

[Hungry Man]

Is there any pricing difference on 32 and 64bit? That's so silly.

I've always gotten it through student deals or other ways.

[Sevens]

-{ Quote: "You don't need Defensewall with Comodo/Avast auto-sandboxing, Sandboxie/Bufferzone, and Applocker/SRP." }-

No, I don't need x64.

[J_L]

For now.

[Hungry Man]

No one "needs" anything.

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "Is there any pricing difference on 32 and 64bit? That's so silly.

I've always gotten it through student deals or other ways." }-

Here, they always take advantage ($$) for CPUs, Windows and Office, and pretty much everything else. :(

Truth be told, most people don't understand a damn thing about this, so they just take advantage. >:(

[Hungry Man]

Figures. It's a shame though, people should be encouraged to move to 64bit... not the other way around.

[J_L]

-{ Quote: "No one "needs" anything." }-
Really? No water, food, air, etc then.

Seriously, there will be a time when 32-bit is obsolete like 16-bit, 8-bit, etc. Same can be said for 64-bit.

[Hungry Man]

I can't see 64bit being phased out the same way 32bit and 16bit will be. If only because 128bit will be difficult to program for.

[noone_particular]

32 bit fills my needs completely. 64 bit would be incompatible with much of what I use. With the stripped down lite operating systems I use, the "RAM limitation" is a non issue. As for security, what I have is more than sufficient and 64 bit isn't as bulletproof as they'd have us believe. I don't trust their kernel level protection to be near as good as they claim and its design doesn't allow the type of classic HIPS I prefer. For me, 64 bit is not an upgrade. Changing to keep up with the times only benefits those who sell "with the times" items. After listening to all the noise MS made about how secure Win-7 is only to see it being compromised as much as anything else, I have little inclination to believe their claims regarding 64 bit security.

[J_L]

Then you should take a look at the amount of 64-bit rootkits.

[Hungry Man]

^^Basically. Only recently have they managed to crop up. Patch Gaurd is an effective security measure.

edit: Incompatible with much of what you use? O_o

how many 16bit programs are you using?

[treehouse786]

-{ Quote: "32bit for sure! :thumb:" }-

just read your name and comment ;D

[sweater]

You don't have to ask this man, whichever is the fastest, the ultimate and the most expensive I'll go for it. :thumb:

[noone_particular]

-{ Quote: "Incompatible with much of what you use? O_o
how many 16bit programs are you using?" }-
Quite a few. Many of the batch files I use will not function on a 64 bit system. It will not permit what these files do.

Regarding 32 bit and RAM, the limitation is artificial and was deliberately added to promote 64 bit. It's limited by the license and can be bypassed. 32 bit server editions don't have this limitation. Microsoft has repeatedly resorted to tactics like these (artificially created hardware limitations and restricting installers to make apps appear to be incompatible with the older systems) in order to promote the newer products. These underhanded games have gone on since the 9X days.

Threads like this always end up the same, with 2 opposing opinions. The first repeats all of the hype that MS and their paid spokespeople spread about the newer or "more advanced" systems. The second group sees it as advertizing and exaggeration, along with many of the lousy tactics used to make the newer systems appear to be superior. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one and leave it there.

[J_L]

The physical limit of 32-bit is 4GB. Don't make up nonsense. The reason Windows Server can use more than that is PAE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension).

Your misguided opinion of course. Newer system are more advanced, try disproving that fact. Of course it's advertising, but the reality can't be ignored.

[Hungry Man]

Calling the benefits of 64bit hype... uh huh... yes because Microsoft invented 64bit technology and they're the sole profiteers...

I can't even argue with that (because you're just so blatantly wrong.) Even if there WEREN'T a limit on RAM usage by 32bit, which there IS... 64bit is useful for other reasons. The performance benefits of 64bit have a lot more to do with other things than an increase in RAM.

[Sully]

There really isn't much left discuss about this topic.

I like pie. You like cake?

Sul.

[Hungry Man]

Completely different. The differences between 32bit and 64bit are documented and objective. The differences between pie and cake are subjective.

Besides, now noone_inparticular knows the difference between PAE and 64bit RAM allocation.

[Sully]

-{ Quote: "Completely different. The differences between 32bit and 64bit are documented and objective. The differences between pie and cake are subjective." }-
I give up, as you clearly know more than I do, about pretty much everything.

You fellow Wilders members should now ignore me, Hungry Man is taking over now.

Sully.

[Hungry Man]

And yet you wanted to stop the discussion -- but you sarcastically (and ironically?) state that I'm taking over...

I'm willing to have a discussion, but saying that two documented and objectively different ways of programming are only subjectively different is just flat out wrong.

[SirPeterPan]

-{ Quote: "The performance benefits of 64bit have a lot more to do with other things than an increase in RAM." }-

I'm curious. Enlighten me on this.

[Hungry Man]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#32-bit_vs_64-bit

I hate to cite wikipedia... but it gets quite technical and there are many performance benefits with only the one inherent issue (slightly larger RAM footprint.)

[SirPeterPan]

-{ Quote: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#32-bit_vs_64-bit

I hate to cite wikipedia... but it gets quite technical and there are many performance benefits with only the one inherent issue (slightly larger RAM footprint.)" }-

Oh yeah, I just remembered discussing this, and the wikipedia article, here: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1694002&postcount=18

Careful! My opinion may be somewhat different from yours. :D

[Hungry Man]

Like I said (responding to that post) I wouldn't suggest 32bit for Windows 7 without at least 2GB of RAM. To take advantage of the double register size you DO have to deal with the slightly larger RAM footprint.

Software/ driver availability has already been discussed. It's not an inherent flaw to 64bit systems IMO, but it's definitely something to consider.

edit: And don't think that I'm close minded... I'm more than willing to hear the other site to arguments. But it's annoying when someone decides to "close" the argument and then say something as ridiculous as "it's all subjective."

[SirPeterPan]

-{ Quote: "Like I said (responding to that post) I wouldn't suggest 32bit for Windows 7 without at least 2GB of RAM. To take advantage of the double register size you DO have to deal with the slightly larger RAM footprint.

Software/ driver availability has already been discussed. It's not an inherent flaw to 64bit systems IMO, but it's definitely something to consider." }-

So, we agree, but I would say that people should go for 64-bit if they have 3GB or more of RAM, not 2GB, on 2GB systems the larger RAM footprint could still play a significant role.

[Hungry Man]

I suppose it depends on usage.

There's also the fact that you can program a 64bit application but it won't necessarily take advantage (or full advantage) of 64bit optimizations.

[SirPeterPan]

-{ Quote: "I suppose it depends on usage.

There's also the fact that you can program a 64bit application but it won't necessarily take advantage (or full advantage) of 64bit optimizations." }-

Which makes discussion on this subject, from this point on, subjective.

;D I like pie. You like cake?

[Hungry Man]

Not really. I mean, in that sense everything is objective. I can make objective statements about the differences between pie and cake too, but in the end it comes down to how I subjectively weigh those things (health benefits vs how much it fills me up, two objective differences that I can subjectively interpret.)

The objective truth is that a 64bit application that's optimized for 64bit processing will run faster than a 32bit application. The objective truth is that a 64bit wide register means that you can sometimes have "wasted" allocation and a larger memory footprint.

Two facts that you can subjectively weight. It doesn't make the argument subjective, just your conclusion.

[noone_particular]

-{ Quote: "I give up, as you clearly know more than I do, about pretty much everything." }-
Likewise. I have better things to do than argue with a sock puppet, like taking a nap and enjoying a vacation.

[safeguy]

32-bit presently but I am open-minded to using a 64-bit system in the future.

[Athletic]

32 bit surely . Compatibillity, and no buggs priority compare with small, ekstra small speed advantage.

[Tyreman]

64 bit here

[J_L]

64-bit is winning (probably because of Windows 7). Who has the uncommon XP 64-bit?

[farmerlee]

I like to play around with virtualization and stuff which usually eats up quite a bit of memory so 64bit is the way to go for me. I currently have 2 systems which run Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit and Ubuntu 11.04 64bit.

[J_L]

Oops, I forgot about other OS. Currently using 32-bit Ubuntu, because of only 1.5 GB RAM and greater compatibility.

[Hungry Man]

Yeah, 64bit Ubuntu is a pain.

[NRProia]

Hello,

I run Windows 7 Ultimate x64. I had to give up a few 32-bit programs, but in most cases I found 64-bit alternatives. These links helped me make the switch:

Software - Free - TechSupportAlert.com - 32 Bit And 64 Bit Explained
http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/32-bit-and-64-bit-explained.htm

Software - Free - TechSupportAlert.com - How Windows 7 - Vista 64 Support 32 Bit Applications
http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/how-windows7-vista64-support-32bit-applications.htm

Software - Freeware - TechSupportAlert.com - Best Free Windows 7 - Vista 64 Bit Software
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-windows7-vista-64-bit-software.htm

Regards,

Nathan

[Sully]

I switched to x64. It might be "better", but it ain't "better" IMHO. I would forgo all the extra this and extra that to get some of my favorite tools back, and to have it be as streamlined as x86 is (meaning it is easy because I've been using it for years, and x64 is so, so, well, so hit and miss on many things).

I suppose in 5 years it will be no big deal, but I am suprised that even today after a good number of years of x64 being around that it is such a pain to truly switch 100% to x64.

Darn that 16gb of ram. If I weren't so tempted to utiilize that for virtual machines, I would not have switched over.

In short, I really dislike x64 in many ways, personally, but am now stuck with it. So be it.

Sul.

[mack_guy911]

on desktop i prefer 64bit where as on laptop i prefer 32bit OS

[chrisretusn]

If it's a 64-bit computer, I will run a 64-bit OS, it that simple. Just bought another desktop, it's running a 64-bit OS.

[Hungry Man]

The speed difference for me in specific 64bit application is great. Even if windows 32bit had PAE I would use 64bit.

Plus I like patchguard.

[Spysnake]

Windows 7 x64 here too.

I haven't noticed any problems with the current installation. The driver problems with x64 platform seem to be long gone. All normal 32-bit applications work as intended. I don't use many security programs, so waiting for them is not an issue either (thank god for Sandboxie supporting 64 though).

But, I personally don't see a reason to stay with a 32-bit Windows. What's not to like with the improved core security, optimizations and support for more RAM you ever even need?

[Sully]

Whats not to like is that 75% of the tools I use are not native x64. What is the point in using x64 if most of my tools are running at x32? I might as well run x32 in that case.

For myself, x64 offers only expanded RAM, and a couple programs that are hefty might perform better, although I haven't tested them yet. Security wise, meh, I did not have an issue with x32, so what will x64 do for me in that area.

Like I said though, it is now what you must use if you want that RAM. Actually, if it were not for vmWare, I would not even need more than 4gb. I have never, ever, even once, seen my ram useage go past 70% of 4gb on x32.

Seems I will have to change my mindset on this. Maybe once I get my images finalized and get over the pain of finding alternate tools I won't be so sour on it. The past week has me wishing x32 supported up to 8gb of ram ;)

Sul.

[Hungry Man]

Which tools?

And the security of 64bit is pretty strong when you consider how few rootkits are made for it (none?)

And even if you don't see your RAM usasge go up you can use Resource Monitor to see that it is in fact all being used. My 8GB is being used right now running only a few programs... 1.6GB private, and 6.4GB cached.

[nikanthpromod]

32bit now..

[marc57]

I like Windows 7 x64 and i like having 8GB of RAM to play with. ;D

[colorado13]

For gaming

[njespo]

64 bit....but, let me ask a dumb question...other than the memory utilization, what is the advantage? speed?

[linuxforall]

64 bit from its early days, dual boot with Windows XPx64 and Ubuntu x64.

[Hungry Man]

-{ Quote: "64 bit....but, let me ask a dumb question...other than the memory utilization, what is the advantage? speed?" }-
Security, performance.

[linuxforall]

-{ Quote: "64 bit....but, let me ask a dumb question...other than the memory utilization, what is the advantage? speed?" }-


The CPU can process more data and thats the biggest advantage when using resource intensive programs.

[cozumel]

64 bit pros & cons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Pros_and_cons)
Of particular interest to many people on this forum may be the increased performance for encryption software

Sorry about the source only being Wikipedia but was the only pace where I could find things listed.

[SirPeterPan]

-{ Quote: "64 bit pros & cons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Pros_and_cons)
Of particular interest to many people on this forum may be the increased performance for encryption software

Sorry about the source only being Wikipedia but was the only pace where I could find things listed." }-

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1694002&postcount=18

[Hungry Man]

64bit does nothing worse than 32bit. 64bit has the potential to be much faster than 32bit. You can see benchmarks with programs that do things like encryptions. You can see benchmarks for OS's like Linux Ubuntu 32bit and 64bit. They will tell you the same thing.

I believe 32bit gives access to 4 registers and 64bit gives access to 11. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong there.

EDIT: Apparently it's 8 and 16.

[Hungry Man]

Oh, and naturally 64bit is more secure than 32bit. Not that 64bit ASLR is everything. Or patchguard.

[SirPeterPan]

-{ Quote: "64bit does nothing worse than 32bit." }-

Consumes more RAM. May be (depending on the usage) a relevant issue in systems with less than 3 GB.

[Hungry Man]

Eh, barely. The RAM usage is caused by Long Bloat (or is it Float Bloat? I can't even remember) and you can optimize for it, which won't reduce the RAM but can at least take advantage of the increased RAM - nearly as good.

I'd also say 2GB is plenty for Windows 7 and certainly Windows 8, which uses ~240MB less on startup (currently) on a 1GB system.

And overall performance should increase because you don't have to swap as much when you can address large amounts of information at once rather than splitting it, addressing it, swapping out, and addressing the next piece and so forth in that manner.

Not to mention the blatant performance increases of having double the register size - something not inherent in 64bit computing but inherent in the architecture. Double registers leads to significant performance improvements and you can utilize them very well with little tricks like hyperthreading.

Looking at applicaitons like emulators, which are often available in 32bit as well as 64bit, you can see major performance improvements moving from 32bit to 64bit. There are also performance benefits when moving large files such as movies.

There are overall beneifts certainly (as mentioned before) with Linux Ubuntu. I don't have the benchmarks right now and I'm kind lazy to search but I'm sure you can find them.

And again, 64bit allows for patchguard and 64bit ASLR as well as a generally more "random" number generator for increasing entropy, which I think we can agree can be fairly important to security.

[Hungry Man]

Actually do you happen to have some kinda RAM usage comparison for 32bit and 64bit on a vanilla Windows 7?

I'd appreciate that a lot.

[cheater87]

32 bit due to improved sandboxing/HIPS/isolation software.

[cozumel]

Why is it better for sandboxing or HIPS pls?

[Hungry Man]

I don't know if there are any actual restraints in 64bit that aren't caused by patchgaurd/ software just not being written for it.

64bit Sandboxie is very nearly as strong as 32bit Sandboxie. That's just one example.

While you may have some 3rd party software unable to provide "full" security (yet) your OS will be more secure if it's 64bit and supports ASLR.

[farmerlee]

Without a doubt 64bit. With ram being cheap these days and the amount of ram required by many different applications and games its a must have for me.

[cozumel]

Can't play games like Crysis without a ton of RAM that's for sure.

[Noob]

Because it's time to move on ;D

[jadinolf]

32 bit

[Hungry Man]

http://www.stanford.edu/~blp/papers/asrandom.pdf

-{ Quote: "
We study the eectiveness of address-space randomization
and nd that its utility on 32-bit architectures is limited by
the number of bits available for address randomization. In
particular, we demonstrate a derandomization attack that
will convert any standard buer-over
ow exploit into an exploit that works against systems protected by address-space
randomization. The resulting exploit is as eective as the
original exploit, although it takes a little longer to compromise a target machine: on average 216 seconds to compromise Apache running on a Linux PaX ASLR system. The
attack does not require running code on the stack" }-

-{ Quote: "Our attack on address-space randomization relied on several characteristics of the implementation of PaX ASLR. In
particular, our attack exploited the low entropy (16 bits) of
PaX ASLR on 32-bit x86 processors, and the feature that
address-space layouts are randomized only at program loading and do not change during the process lifetime. This section explores the consequences of changing either of these
assumptions by moving to a 64-bit architecture or making the randomization more frequent or more fine-grained." }-

-{ Quote: "
In case of Linux on 32-bit x86 machines, 16 of the 32 address bits are available for randomization. As our results
show, 16 bits of address randomization can be defeated by
a brute force attack in a matter of minutes. Any 64-bit
machine, on the other hand, is unlikely to have fewer than
40 address bits available for randomization given that memory pages are usually between 4 kB and 4 MB in size. Online brute force attacks that need to guess at least 40 bits of
randomness can be ruled out as a threat, since an attack of
this magnitude is unlikely to go unnoticed" }-


And one important note:
-{ Quote: "m. Furthermore, applications that run in 32-bit compatibility mode on a 64-bit
machine are no less vulnerable than when running on a 32-
bit machine" }-
Stumbled upon this while learning about Buffer Overflow attacks and Return to LibC

[Hungry Man]

And thaaaaaat's why I want Chrome to hurry up and hit 64bit.

It's basically a guarantee that the Vupen exploit (which is in my opinion likely already gone) would no longer be relevant. You can programatically bruteforce but it would take forever and be way easier to detect.

[atomomega]

day-to-day use. still on x32.
x64 systems are currently not that common in my country plus upgrading gets almost as expensive as getting a brand new system

[Sully]

-{ Quote: "day-to-day use. still on x32.
x64 systems are currently not that common in my country plus upgrading gets almost as expensive as getting a brand new system" }-
IMO you are not missing much except extra headaches. The security might be better with x64, and some programs will actually benefit from it if you use them. However, my experience with x64 is that it is not as streamlined as x32 at all. It isn't really x64 fault, nothing wrong with it, only that the past being x32 does not always move into x64 easily. In 5 years that will be a distant memory most likely, but today, I really wish x32 could utilize more RAM as I would switch back in a moments notice.

Sul.

[Hungry Man]

Most popular applications are ported or are in the process of being ported.

I haven't really run into any issues from running 64bit though. There are security benefits in terms of patchguard as well as significantly more random ASLR/other things that rely on randomization.

And there can be performance benefits from not only basic 64bit coding but also the x64 architecture using twice as many registers.

[Wendi]

I realize that Win7 64-bit can make use of more RAM than Win7 32-bit, but how much more RAM does the 64-bit version actually require to perform as well as the 32-bit version (if that makes any sense)? ???

[Hungry Man]

64bit applications (and OS) will use more RAM. It's not that they need more RAM but when you store variables in RAM they sometimes will end up taking a bit more space than they need.

So depending on the program this can lead to no extra RAM or in some weird impossible case I suppose it could double the RAM usage. I doubt any program is going to be either of those cases, most will use a little bit more. There is no set amount and it's entirely program-specific.

Basically, if I wrote a huge program with only Long variables I'd double RAM usage with 64bit.

[Sully]

-{ Quote: "Most popular applications are ported or are in the process of being ported.

I haven't really run into any issues from running 64bit though. There are security benefits in terms of patchguard as well as significantly more random ASLR/other things that rely on randomization.

And there can be performance benefits from not only basic 64bit coding but also the x64 architecture using twice as many registers." }-
I would say "many" popular applications are now native 64bit, but not most, at least not many of the ones I use.

This doesn't even delve into games, of which most are x32 still to my knowledge (again, at least ones I play, even new ones).

Performance wise, yes, some applications benefit. However, there seems to be some assumption that x64 is faster/better than x32, and that is, again, not really true across the board. For what I do, and most people I know who don't encode videos etc, there is no visual difference. I have 16gb of ram, and running BF3, which is pretty demanding, only 4gb of my memory ever gets used. True, if I had x32, it would be all that I had available (after the video card gets its memory addressed), but there is not appreciable difference that I can tell.

Not saying x64 is crap, it isn't. Just that it isn't seamless yet, whereas x32 with its long use is.

Sul.

[Hungry Man]

Very few games are 64bit. Games are more interested in getting the game out and compatible rather than fast.

-{ Quote: "Performance wise, yes, some applications benefit. However, there seems to be some assumption that x64 is faster/better than x32, and that is, again, not really true across the board. For what I do, and most people I know who don't encode videos etc, there is no visual difference." }-
For certain things (parsing, encrypting, decrypting) there are blatant performance benefits when a program is built properly for 64bit.

These are things we do quite often.

It's not really like "omg we need 64bit for performance" it's more like "64bit can definitely be faster in some situations and can be more secure in some situations."

I agree that it isn't seamless yet. Only recently did we even start seeing 64bit browsers pop up. Many many applications just haven't moved to it yet - but many applications are in the process of moving.

[Wendi]

As I see it, many of us have a substantial investment in 32-bit applications and may not be able to afford upgrading them to their 64-bit counterparts. In that situation I can't help but wonder what's to be be gained with 64-bit Windows? :-\

[Hungry Man]

Like I said, what's to be gained is improved security as well as performance increases. The issue is that you can no longer run 16bit programs and there can be increases in RAM usage.

[moontan]

i'm waiting at least another year to switch to 64 bits.

by that times a whole new bunch of features will have matured; USB 3.0, SSD drives, etc...

i don't do stuff really intensive so i don't have the need for speed atm.

[atomomega]

-{ Quote: "As I see it, many of us have a substantial investment in 32-bit applications and may not be able to afford upgrading them to their 64-bit counterparts. In that situation I can't help but wonder what's to be be gained with 64-bit Windows? :-\" }-
The way I see it at this point is like getting ready for what's to come. There's no real need for me to upgrade at the moment.

[ams963]

using 32bit...like it a lot...no app compatibility prob at all unlike 64bit...

[ProTruckDriver]

Using both now. 2 old computers 32bit and 1 new computer 64bit.

[Chuck57]

32 bit XP pro here. Wanted a new computer with Win 7 32 bit. Called Dell, and they would only ship Win 7 with 64 bit (???). I argued with the representative for 10 minutes and gave up.

I had my old desktop, Win XP Pro with Pentium 4 processor refurbished, adding a Gig of RAM and am good for a few more years I hope. I've got a couple of programs that I absolutely must have that aren't 64 bit compatible, and refuse to spend big bucks to buy new when the old programs do all I need.

[Hungry Man]

What's wrong with XP Mode for your incompatible applications?

[Hungry Man]

It makes sense that Dell isn't encourage 64bit. They should let the user choose but 64bit should definitely be the default.

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: "32 bit XP pro here. Wanted a new computer with Win 7 32 bit. Called Dell, and they would only ship Win 7 with 64 bit (???). I argued with the representative for 10 minutes and gave up.

I had my old desktop, Win XP Pro with Pentium 4 processor refurbished, adding a Gig of RAM and am good for a few more years I hope. I've got a couple of programs that I absolutely must have that aren't 64 bit compatible, and refuse to spend big bucks to buy new when the old programs do all I need." }-
I noticed when ordering my Dell that there was no option for 32 bit at all for their desktops at least. Your 32 bit programs will likely still run anyway.

[Critter2]

just delete the system drive and install 32 bit XP
I bet you can find drivers that will work

I just downgraded a HP machine to XP from Win 7
no XP drivers on HP web site but if you know where to look
and with a little searching or maybe a lot, I bet you can find drivers
that will work

bet you can find them for 32 bit win 7 too

[Chuck57]

-{ Quote: "I noticed when ordering my Dell that there was no option for 32 bit at all for their desktops at least. Your 32 bit programs will likely still run anyway." }-

My old software might have run on 64 bit. I don't know but didn't want to take the chance. Someone mentioned XP mode. Not being that familiar with Win 7, I didn't even know about it.

Regardless, I got the old box refurbished, with more RAM, and I'm happy. I think I just didn't like the idea of being told that I'd be paying my money for something I didn't want. Dell, and all of them, ought to give you the option of 32 or 64 bit, not tell you this is how it is, take it or leave it. I chose to leave it. I like XP anyway. It does all I want and more.

[Hungry Man]

Unfortunately asking them to support 32bit is asking them to create 32bit compatible drivers. It's not always as simple as "We just don't care to give you the option" they would legitimately have to spend time writing new software for an OS that everyone is waiting to die out.

[Chuck57]

-{ Quote: "Unfortunately asking them to support 32bit is asking them to create 32bit compatible drivers. It's not always as simple as "We just don't care to give you the option" they would legitimately have to spend time writing new software for an OS that everyone is waiting to die out." }-

Hmm, good point. I hadn't looked at it from that angle. I guess I'll just keep having this old Pentium 4 (slightly outdated, I know) machine rebuilt until it can't be rebuilt any longer.

[happysunny]

love my windows 7 64 bit machine