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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
You don't need Defensewall with Comodo/Avast auto-sandboxing, Sandboxie/Bufferzone, and Applocker/SRP.
They aren't contradictory. 9 times out of 10 64bit will only bring you benefits -- those benefits being in both performance and security.
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.
Is there any pricing difference on 32 and 64bit? That's so silly. I've always gotten it through student deals or other ways.
