Win7 - 32 or 64 bit? That is the question...

[Amit]

I would choose 32bit over 64 bit any day.

[AMIGA500]

I think personally within the next 5 years it simply will not be an option.
The vast majority of laptops sold will be 64bit as standard.
I think maybe a future question will be 64 or 128bit.
This is something which will go on and on as technology advances.

[arsenaloyal]

I have not used 32 bit OS for around 4 years now, 64 bit is the way to go.

[mattbiernat]

Originally Posted by Sully

Therefore, if you are looking at it from a memory resource viewpoint, 4gb should be fine for most people, whether the OS is x86 or x64.

Sul.

The problem these days is that developers keep on pushing more RAM hungry applications. A browser can eat 250mg-500mb of RAM with multiple windows opened. Skype eats another 70-100mb of RAM, MS Office quite a bit as well.

So just for RAM, I would go with 64bit OS.

[roger_m]

Originally Posted by mattbiernat

The problem these days is that developers keep on pushing more RAM hungry applications. A browser can eat 250mg-500mb of RAM with multiple windows opened. Skype eats another 70-100mb of RAM, MS Office quite a bit as well.

So just for RAM, I would go with 64bit OS.

Definately. That is why I've just swtiched to 64 bit, and why the standard for new PCs these days is having 64 bit Win 7 installed.

I haven't had any compatibility problems since making the switch a week ago. All my old apps are working find under 64 bit. I used Laplink's PCmover image assistant to transfer all my files and 99% of my installed software (I didn't transfer security software) from my 32 bit install to a clean 64 bit install, and everything is working fine - with the excpetion being that for some reason the shortcuts were not updated, and a lot of shortcuts have not been upated to point to the 32 bit Program Files folder.

Unless there is software you need to run which is not 64 bit compatible, I would definately go for 64 bit Windows.

[ComputerSaysNo]

Same here, 32bit is gone and dusted. 64bit & 8GB of RAM are now the norm in computers. If a program doesn't work on 64BIT then it's way behind in today terms. For what possible reason is there to stay with 32Bit? I don't know but these days you should really be 64Bit. If budget is a concern then yes 32bit is an option but with 16GB of DDR going to $90 it's cheap and easy to upgrade.

[mattbiernat]

The only problem I see with 64 is lack of native security applications. I only see compatible apps such as OA, PFW, etc. Makes me wonder how secure they are...

[arsenaloyal]

Originally Posted by mattbiernat

The only problem I see with 64 is lack of native security applications. I only see compatible apps such as OA, PFW, etc. Makes me wonder how secure they are...

well i dont know what security apps are you talking about,most of the apps that i use have native 64bit support for years now !

[Sully]

Originally Posted by ComputerSaysNo

For what possible reason is there to stay with 32Bit?.

Well, if I can make x32 be safe for me, and use my programs I bought that are all x32, and x32 does everything I need it to, what possible reason is there to switch to x64?

Sul.

[roger_m]

Originally Posted by Sully

Well, if I can make x32 be safe for me, and use my programs I bought that are all x32, and x32 does everything I need it to, what possible reason is there to switch to x64?

Sul.

A very compelling reason (that has been mentioned here) is that 64 bit Windows versions can use more RAM. On a 32 bit system you are limited to about 3 gigs of RAM. You can installed more, but it won't be recognised by Windows.

[mattbiernat]

Originally Posted by arsenaloyal

well i dont know what security apps are you talking about,most of the apps that i use have native 64bit support for years now !

OA, PFW, MBAM, SS - all of them install inside Program Files 86, they are only compatible with 64 bit systems so I don't see them as true 64 bit apps.

SAS, ERP are the only ones that I am aware of that were build for 64bit from scratch. If you know for years more apps than that then please share it with everyone.

[roger_m]

Originally Posted by mattbiernat

The only problem I see with 64 is lack of native security applications. I only see compatible apps such as OA, PFW, etc. Makes me wonder how secure they are...

I can see no reason why 32 bit security software would be any less secure than 64 bit software.

[Sully]

Originally Posted by roger_m

A very compelling reason (that has been mentioned here) is that 64 bit Windows versions can use more RAM. On a 32 bit system you are limited to about 3 gigs of RAM. You can installed more, but it won't be recognised by Windows.

32bit is capable of addressing around 4gb of memory, not 3.

A typical vista/win7 system consumes roughly 1.5 to 2gb of memory, doing nothing. Trim things down if you wish, and you can approach the 1gb mark.

In order for more memory to be the compelling reason to use x64, first you actually have to NEED that extra memory. I am not convinced most average users need it. I am convinced that eventually a version of windows will exist that requires that much, but then again, I think the OS is bloated anyway, not optimized at all.

Sul.

[roger_m]

Originally Posted by Sully

32bit is capable of addressing around 4gb of memory, not 3.

My understanding is that you won't be able to use all 4gn under 32 bit windows.

A typical vista/win7 system consumes roughly 1.5 to 2gb of memory, doing nothing. Trim things down if you wish, and you can approach the 1gb mark.

In order for more memory to be the compelling reason to use x64, first you actually have to NEED that extra memory. I am not convinced most average users need it. I am convinced that eventually a version of windows will exist that requires that much, but then again, I think the OS is bloated anyway, not optimized at all.

With memory usage of applications slowly increasing, to me it makes sense to be to have a system which is ready for more RAM at a later date. However, I must point out that part of my reasoning for that is that I never do a clean install of Windows and start afresh, I prefer to stick with the same Windows install for years. Technically, I just did do a clean install of 64 bit Windows to replace my existing 32 bit, however I migrated 99% of my software across.

Anyhow, I can't see any particular reason not to use 64 bit, unless you have an exisitng 32 bit install and don't want to have to start with a clean install of Windows.

[Sully]

32bit is capable of addressing 4gb of memory. If you have video memory, that constitutes part of the overall. So a 1gb video memory plus 4gb of ram is actually 5gb of total memory, of which only 3gb of ram will be used. Maybe this is what you are seeing or thinking. If you have a puny little video card, then you get most of your ram to use.

Memory useage is increasing, why so much is the question. Doesn't matter, as we have no control over it anyway.

The reasons to use 32 bit are numerous. There are benefits, but not for everyone. But then neither is 64bit really that much better for many either. They will get infected the same as on 32bit. They will use the same applications as 32bit. The only real difference to many, IMO, is that some older programs won't work, or they have to figure out how to run in "compatability mode". If you have need for more ram then sure, x64 is the way to go. And with memory prices like they are, it is very enticing. But 64bit is not the one and only answer is all I am pointing out. And certainly for a "normal user" there is no benefit of all that extra ram that x64 can address because they don't use what they got now. Like I said though, microsoft will fix that soon enough with thier overly large memory footprints of this day and age, and thats just the OS and Office.

Sul.

[roger_m]

Originally Posted by Sully

32bit is capable of addressing 4gb of memory. If you have video memory, that constitutes part of the overall. So a 1gb video memory plus 4gb of ram is actually 5gb of total memory, of which only 3gb of ram will be used. Maybe this is what you are seeing or thinking.

Yes, that explains it very well.

[Meriadoc]

Some manufactures will supply you with a 32bit Windows version with your 64bit machine so maybe that is smart way to go while you work it out through use.

nice post sully.

[luciddream]

Well it seems to me the only reason to use 64 is if your setup makes use of a lot of RAM. I do not run a memory intensive setup at all. Quite to the contrary, in fact. I'm not even using half of the 1 GB of RAM I have here on XP Pro. I'd be just fine with 512 MB. I'll trim 7 down as much as possible as well. That's what I do. And I'll probably be using about 1.5 of my 4 gigs of available RAM when it's all said & done.

I feel with a 32 bit OS there's less potential for compatibility issues, and more potential for the programs I want to use to function properly. Since I don't know what I'd even do with 12 gigs of RAM if I had it, that trumps any benefit for using 64 bit for me. To each his/her own though...

[luciddream]

Originally Posted by Sully

Memory useage is increasing, why so much is the question.

Just so people have to BUY more RAM, new computers, and 64-bit OS's

The programs/OS's themselves don't do anything I couldn't do on the old versions that ran on half the RAM. There's nothing on Windows 7 I need that I can't already do on XP Pro. So I wonder... where do all of those resources go exactly? Toward what? A few new mitigation techniques, outbound FW, and a UAC? That accounts for needing 4 gigs of RAM instead of 1?

More likely... poorly coded/bloated, and leaking memory out the wazoo.

[roger_m]

Originally Posted by luciddream

Well it seems to me the only reason to use 64 is if your setup makes use of a lot of RAM. I do not run a memory intensive setup at all. Quite to the contrary, in fact. I'm not even using half of the 1 GB of RAM I have here on XP Pro.

XP uses less memory than Windows 7. In my opinion it's not worth running XP with less than 1 gig of RAM.

[ComputerSaysNo]

Originally Posted by luciddream

So I wonder... where do all of those resources go exactly? Toward what? A few new mitigation techniques, outbound FW, and a UAC? That accounts for needing 4 gigs of RAM instead of 1?

Windows 7 it uses about 2.5GB of DDR. Then you have AV/HIPS/AM the Virtual Machines it add's up. Most modern day games these days are using up to 6GB of DDR too.

[luciddream]

Well it's a good thing I'm a retro gamer then, and use a PS3 (not a PC gamer). I don't use VM's, or real-time AV's, and probably won't use a HIPS either on Win7. AppLocker/SRP will suffice. In fact I'll be using practically exclusively 1'st party/integrated security. Sandboxie may be the only exception.

I may just run the least memory intensive setup on the entire planet. My setup was snappy even with 512 MB of RAM, and it's gotten lighter since then. I've since removed my real-time AV, Spybot S&D, Spyware Blaster, several more services, and about 5 addons since then.

I realize Win7 is more memory intensive, but it's only a matter of time until I learn how to get the most out of it too. I'll bet I can get it to run like greased lightning on 4 gigs of RAM. I'm assuming that 2.5 GB figure is with out of the box settings. That will not be the case with me.

[luciddream]

Originally Posted by roger_m

XP uses less memory than Windows 7. In my opinion it's not worth running XP with less than 1 gig of RAM.

Depends on the individual. My XP Pro box would fly right now on 512 megs of RAM. I use about 290 MB in idle. Gets up over 400 MB when I have FF open, and it's been on a few days. Even the 1 GB is overkill for me. And I'm about to upgrade to 2 gigs in a few days (I'm getting it for free).

[Sully]

I use win7 ult x32 every day on 2gb of ram. Right now with chromium and 17 tabs open, plus 6 instances of foxit open, I am consuming 1.3gb ram. With only 1 tab in chromium, the ram use is 600mb and without chromium running it is 480mb. 6 instances of foxit requires about 8mb.

4gb is nice, but 2gb is enough. I use this machine for lots of research, a good bit of coding and some graphic work. I can open 2 vms at the same time, both win7 or vista. I just have to turn off eye candy in the vms. I am not saying 2gb is better, just that it is silly to say that you must have 4gb, when clearly you don't.

I have been a gamer since they were first around, way back in the asteroids days. I have been gaming on atari, comodore, amiga, ti, colecovision, intellivision, apples, pcs, and many more that I can't remember. I started playing games with paddles and tape drives. I coded games that I saved on tape drives. I remember the true "floppy" drives. In all that time, I myself have never seen a game consume 6gb of memory. Ever.

BF3, on my w7 ult x64 with 8gb of ram and an i7 2600k doesn't even use that. In fact, with BF3 running on all high (not ultra) my whole ram useage in total (OS and game) is only about 3.5gb. There could be a game that uses that much, but it is the exception, thats for sure. Granted I haven't played every game, but a good number of the popular ones, and I have not seen anywhere near 6gb of ram used by a game. Heck, I haven't even seen that much use with multiple vms open and compiling a video at the same time.

None of this means anything. Just sharing what I have seen myself.

Sul.

[roger_m]

Originally Posted by luciddream

Depends on the individual. My XP Pro box would fly right now on 512 megs of RAM. I use about 290 MB in idle. Gets up over 400 MB when I have FF open, and it's been on a few days. Even the 1 GB is overkill for me. And I'm about to upgrade to 2 gigs in a few days (I'm getting it for free).

A few years ago, I did a reinstall of XP on a laptop with 512MB ram, using the restore cd which came with it. With pretty much nothing installed other than the included software, Norton AV and Office, there a very noticable increase in performance upon upgrading to 1 gig. Even without antivirus software installed, I believe XP will run much better with 1 gig of RAM.