Windows 7: 32 bit or 64 bit

It isn't so much the OS, as it is the Machine your running it on.

I vote for x64 because it suites my needs, I can unrar 70 HD wallpapers from a 100mb rar in 2 seconds, not to mention how fast I render graffix in photoshop CS4, and the list goes on, I used to be shady when it came to switching, but now that I have ill never go back.

64Bit is the future and the future is now!

 

Thats my issue as well,alot of programs I like and use dont work with the 64-bit systems so,IMO,it would be pointless to buy a 64-bit system.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "not the OS, but the machine"? If a program tells you it isn't supported in 64bit, that's it, game over, hardware won't matter. You're right about the extra boost in speed with that kind of work though. It's pretty nice.

 

I'm running various OSes both 32 and 64 bit. I run 64 bit because I need to but, if I had one 64 bit machine I could also run 32 bit on it, but not the other way round.

 

I was talking towards the dude that was saying theirs no difference in speed between x32 & x64, when I said "It isn't so much the OS, as it is the Machine your running it on." I wasn't really referring to the software side of it but,

Theirs plenty of 64bit software out their that works perfectly fine, Zemena is no better than Comodo Firewall! you can set up any OS in a virtualbox and run all the 32bit software on it you like.

 

Plenty of 64bit, yes, plenty that I NEED, or want, no. Big difference there Whether Zemana is better than Comodo or vice versa is a matter of preference and opinion. Personally I have no need for the extra firewall and classical HIPS (which I detest no matter who the vendor is). As far as virtual boxes, well, I have no wish to test software on a daily basis nor do I do malware tests. Also, if I'm within a virtual system, there's not much need to run security considering that with a reboot, any issues are gone.

So yes, those of us with 64bit systems can and do run into compatibility issues still.

Edit: Okay, I got you. Yes, the speed difference between 32 and 64 when running tasks like you mentioned earlier is quite a difference for the better.

 

Btw, I´ve noticed that for example Dell sells all of their PC´s with the 64 bit Win 7 version, they don´t even give a choice, what´s up with that?

At the moment I really want to buy a new PC, but if I can´t run most of my favorite tools that would be a deal breaker.

 

both my machines have windows 7 64bit.
before that they both had vista 64bit.
unless you really want to run something like sandboxie then go for 64bit.

my laptop came with 4gb of ram so it came with windows 7 64bit.

For my desktop i got windows 7 retail because it was a cheap preorder deal.
my mate wanted 32bit windows 7 so he can run sandboxie. sandboxie on 64bit windows is terrible. i think it was only produced because soon enough everyone getting a new machine will have 64bit OS so it needs to be supported to keep making money.

I think windows 8 or whatever it will be called will be 64bit only. windows server 2008 R2 is 64bit only so i expected windows 7 to be 64bit only as well.
programmers have had years to create 64bit programs so if a program doesnt work on 64bit blame the companie not MS.

 

Probably so they can market their overly expensive machines as "top of the line" and "the best security you can get" (meaning 64's kernel patch and such, although we know the real deal with said patch). Either way it's a marketing thing.

 

It is pretty likely that any further Windows releases will be 64, I agree. Sandboxie being "terrible" on 64, I don't really know about that. I only know it is "less secure" and that alone bothers me. As far as it being produced to keep people happy, you bet, Tzuk said as much. Without it Sandboxie was almost assured to get less and less business. I completely agree that a lot of software developers are being slow as snails to get on the ball with 64bit support.

 

You have hit the nail on the proverbial head. For now, there is a choise, and the answer is dependent upon which is right for you, not which is emperically 'better', because it is almost impossible to prove that.

But this piece is not as clear cut. Yes indeed, x64 is the future. They have been talking about it for a long time. The advent of the AMD chip which let you run both x32 and x64 opened up the floodgates for the possibilities. Suddenly instead of going one or the other, you can go both.

Is the future now? If it were, you would see only x64 software including OS's. But you don't see that because it is not time yet. If the next flavor of windows is only x64, then M$ forces the issue. Hardware is already there for the most part. Drivers are catching up at a fast rate. But can the software segment, or maybe will the software segment be as quick to catch the train?

There is no doubt that you might want to future proof yourself by going x64 now. But I believe there are still too many $$$ to be made in creating /supporting x32 for it to be dropped like a hot potato.

Only time will tell, but this x64bit song and dance is nothing new, it is just being pushed much harder right now.

Sul.

 

Someone at work bought an EMachine laptop to me to set up for them. They had purchased it on “Black Friday” at Walmart for $198. I was surprised to find that it had Win7 HP 64 bit installed on it. Later on two more employees bought the same laptop to me and all of them were 64 bit. These people aren’t that computer savvy so I don’t think they will know the difference.

I went 64 bit to get a head start on the new technology. While I don’t have any RAM hungry programs for my 8GB RAM, the extra memory for Prefetch really makes my desktop fast. All the programs I use have no problems with it.

Plus you can never have enough RAM, lol.

 

Anyone arguing the points of 32-bit vs 64-bit in the bubble of Microsoft's operating system doesn't get it. It makes no difference which OS is technically superior. What matters are the applications you need to run and the work that you need to do. For a new home user with no baggage, 64-bit makes perfect sense. Yes, 64-bit is where we will all be eventually, but not all of us can make that jump.

A classic example is DOS. It was a crappy OS, but it was King because people wrote applications for it. You didn't run DOS for the sake of running DOS. DOS only went away when good application replacements existed for Windows 3.1 and 95.

I have several programs critical to my job, or just plain useful in my home life that only work on 32-bit. Or.... it works much better on 32-bit since it was made for XP. Why would I want to go through the hassle of using a 64-bit OS if I don't need to use more than 3GB RAM?

 

So all 32 bit applications will run on 64 bit machines and 64 bit operating systems or not ?

Does the new MS Office 2010 come in both flavors.... 32bit and 64 bit ?

I would want to get whatever is compatible with most of the software/applications out there.

 

64 bit is not the future, it is the past. There have been 64 bit CPU's being used since the 1960's (supercomputers) and in workstations since the early 1990's. On x86, we have had 64 bit since 2003.

As for OS's, Linux has supported x86_64 since it came out in 2003. M$ has supported it since 2005.

So, the point is, it has been around a while. I don't understand what the hold-up is where 100% adoption is concerned.

 

No, not all 32bit apps will run in 64. This is especially true with many security apps. If you want complete compatibility with the vast majority of software out there, stay with 32bit a while longer. As for Office 2010, I thought I read somewhere that it would be 64bit only. I can't remember where I saw that, so don't take my word for it.

 

Funny how that happens, huh? I wasn't aware of the history of 64bit. One could assume that 64bit, probably with a LOT of "help" from corporate marketing is "new" in the sense that it is going more mainstream than in the past.

 

I was just surfing the web and ran across a blub that there WILL be a 64 bit 0ffice 2010, but that Microsoft themselves are urging people install the 32 bit instead of the 64 bit due to problems with all the add-ons available for Office.

Apparently most add-ons come only in the 32 bit flavor.

 

Yes, very true. It is only in the recent history however (AFAIK) that a processor had the ability to utilize both architectures. This IMHO was the catalyst that pushed x64 onto the home consumer sector. Like I said, the ability to have a 32/64 chip on a 64 platform that is capable of running 32bit applications has opened the door.

The hold-up to adoption is not in the users, as I think everyone agrees that x64 is faster and offers more security options, but in the software market not wholly supporting x64 yet. Perhaps it is the many many applications that were written in x32 that won't work in x64 that is the 'anchor' holding things back. I know it is for me. No matter the features x64 gives, neither do I utilize them nor do I want to lose certain software titles that won't run in x64.

100% adoption would be easy if everything you have purchased in the past migrated flawlessly. And who would not want to upgrade if that were the case, there would be no way to argue otherwise, from a software side of things. However for the hardware side (performance) until there is the next great performance leap I don't believe for most "common" tasks there is a large enough difference between the two to make one or the other be "heads and tails" above the other.

Sul.

 

I once had a 368SX meaning 32 bits cpu with a 16bits bus. It never ran a 32 bits OS

Now I type this on an 64 bits CPU while the data array of my harddisk only supports 48 bits (and it is a brand new 500MB spindle samsung). I guess this PC will run XP pro until the mobo dies.

Funnel opening on the CPU always came a head of other parts. We will be using 128 bits CPU's wihile the rest of the components will be shuffling 64 bits at a time. But hey that is what our society is build upon (vreating demand).

So enjoy your x64 OS on a brand new PC, I wil keep an x32 OS on a four year old PC

PS I forgot GPU's lead the innovation, next XPU's next Mobo's next drives, so you will allways have some kind of bottle neck

 

I noticed that too with the Dells. The only choice is 64bit.

Do you think it would be possible to order one with the cheapest 64 bit version and then sort of "downgrade" to a 32bit ultimate version without having to do a clean install ?

It's usually easier to do an "upgrade", but I don't know it's as easy to do a "downgrade".

 

Pratzert its not possible to downgrade or upgrade to a different architecture than whats installed. You would have to do a clean install.

 

I was afraid of that....

Oh well.... I guess I'll keep my fingers crossed that all my apps work.

Thanks for the info.

 

Thanks Peter.

It's worth a phone call to check with them.

Regards, Tim