I use XP pro and I wonder if the time to upgrade came. I want to see your opinions regarding your favorite version of windows. I won't vote as I want to see first and then maybe decide to upgrade. I believe it is not worth bulk the poll with home vs pro vs ultimate editions and also older windows versions, so I will narrow it to XP, Vista and Win 7.
I have Vista 64 bit for gaming and running virtual machines (6 Gig of Ram fully usable). Windows 7 32 bit for everything else..
Windows 7 32bit Maybe when i upgrade my PC i'll have to change to 64bit due to ram problems, but at the moment im fine with x64
Windows 7 32 bit if you have less than 3 GB of RAM. SOFTWARE. Many software vendors still focus their updates to 32 bit versions and rarely maintain exclusive 64 bit versions. Sadly, we won't see this changing, probably even when Windows 8 comes in exclusive 64 bit flavors, because the legacy support to 32 bit software (represented by the x86 Program Files folder) will be maintained without a doubt. DRIVERS. As for drivers, the 64 bit versions are under constant development and you can find them for pretty much any decent device, but 32 bit revisions/updates come more often - but this is starting to change. USAGE OF RAM. The usage of RAM is dependent on the program, the coding and the program architecture, so a 32 bit program running under 64 bit will use 64 bit libraries + 32 bit libraries and the "32 bits" blocks will be stored in "64 bits" blocks - that means that you will get a huge increase to the use of RAM of any running 32 bit application in a Windows 7 64 bit, compared to the same application running in a Windows 7 32 bit. SECURITY. The PatchGuard, exclusive of the 64 bit version, can be bypassed easily, so it doesn't really add that much to the overall security, though it is still good in its main task: try to enforce intrusive apps to be built using the right paths provided by Microsoft. So, only get Windows 7 64 bit if you have more than 3 GB of RAM, period.
All I see here are statements based on nothing, made out as fact, but are more like fiction. Microsoft thinks otherwise. Please point me to this documentation. Example? Funny as my RAM usage is pretty much the exact same with 32/64bit 7. Lol what? How can it be "easily" bypassed? Some of the worst advice I've ever read on this forum.
The first 64 bit Microsoft Office only now came - and the 32 bit is still around as well, for the 2010 line. So, definitely no exclusive 64 bit versions on the majority of software made by software companies is a reality fact - just like I said on my post. Did you read the word "probably" on that quote? If yes, learn its meaning and in what circumstances people use it (tip: FYI they don't usually include documentations). The 32/64 bit releases of drivers made by big companies like Nvidia or ATI are pretty much synchronized but take device manufacturers from Taiwan like Atheros or Soundmax - 32 bit versions of their drivers still come more often than revisions for 64 bit drivers. In PCs with less than 3 GB of RAM, you can rest assured that these manufacturers are predominant. Compare the memory usage of running some not optimized 32 bit software in Windows 64 bit with running the same software in Windows 32 bit. This is not a criticism of PatchGuard*: 1. PatchGuard has been (demonstratively) bypassed by security software companies that wanted their software to fully work with Vista x64 when Microsoft had still not released the proper APIs (they were released in Vista SP1); 2. PatchGuard has been bypassed by several crackers - easily demonstrated on several different samples of rootkit malwares in the wild; 3. If you want tech information regarding this matter, just search on Google/Bing/Yahoo. There are several articles made by hackers, some even detailing how to bypass PatchGuard yourself. *Like UAC, PatchGuard is not a security feature designed to combat malwares. It was introduced to incentive developers to use less intrusive methods, just like UAC was introduced to incentive developers to require less administrative rights on their software. Both are (slowly) succeeding on their objectives. There is no relevant benefit in running Windows x64 if you have less than 3 GB of RAM.
Good info. But I think patchguard strong when use user limited account. Correct? Yes I agree if less 4Gb ram no use 64-bit. Any one explain why if they dont agree? Thanks you.
Most 32-bit systems cannot fully accommodate 4gb (more info: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/03/dude-wheres-my-4-gigabytes-of-ram.html) Also most modern cpu's are 64-bit now and therefore should perform a bit better with a 64-bit OS. Even more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Pros_and_cons
That's right and I already knew about this issue, but I somewhat ignored it because I though it was a rare issue. Like 32 bit software not properly working in 64 bit Windows for obscure reasons is a rare issue. Maybe I should change 4 GB to 3 GB in every post I made here, if this issue is so common. The mainstream modern CPUs are of mixed architecture, their 64 bit implementations aren't "pure-blood". Performance benefits come from 64 bit software using larger address space, wider registers/data paths and more registers, which require more RAM. That part of the Wikipedia article starts with: It uses the term "common misconception" but it also accepts that this so called "common misconception" is "not entirely true", therefore automatically accepting it to be "partially true". (little semantic confusion of wikipedia editors exposed) The article then presents some arguments. The first and second arguments aren't relevant for systems with 3 GB of less of RAM. The third argument may not be relevant if the computer has less than 4GB of RAM. The fourth argument is only relevant if you use data encryption software that have 64 bit versions available and encrypt large files often. The article goes on describing the "main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures", which is what results in the higher memory usage of 32 bit software running in 64-bit Windows (that I talked about in my first post) - a relevant problem for systems with less RAM: After that, the article starts presenting some information only relevant if you are going to leave the Windows operating system: Finally, that part of the Wikipedia article ends describing the situation of software/drivers availability for x64 in a way that doesn't diverge from what I already posted here:
I see. Personally, I'd say if you have 3 gb or lower go for 32-bit, if you have 4 gb or more go for 64-bit. If you're in between, choose whichever that best fit your needs. Anyhow, since I have 4 gb RAM and sometimes do encrypt large files, I believe Windows 7 64-bit is best for me.
I know that my next computer will run Windows 7- 64bit. At the moment I just love my Vista Ultimate-32bit which is getting better with every update.
Poor Vista, his time already passed. Update the link to 32-bit and 64-bit Windows: frequently asked questions
There should be multiple selections I use both Win7(Earlier used WinVista but its time has really gone) as well as WinXP(I'll always use it)
