42 replies to this topic 2 votes

[TCA]

Well I just wanted to say is I have decided to rid myself of x86 Ultimate. I am now running Ultimate x64 Window 7. I can say it was the right choice to make, after being on 32 bit since XP(2002 ver.). I would rather the system use all my ram instead of half. Which the first thing I put on here was Waterfox and I think it's better then Firefox. Also, things seem to run smoother then before. So now I am officially 100% through with 32 bit operating systems. Right now I only have 2GB but will be upping it to 4.

To the hundreds of posters and thread makers alway's raising the topic of sending x86 into exile, I will agree all the way. 64 is the future and it's pure fact...maybe, lol

[Growled]

Congratulations. I think you made the right choice. All x64 here and there is no going back.

[hagjohn]

Congrats.

[InsaneNutter]

Welcome to x64 land, i mad the jump with Vista in 2006 and never looked back!

Apart from been able to use all your ram you will probably not really notice much difference, although at the time the Dolphin emulator (GameCube / Wii) worked so much better on x64 Windows than x86.

[jon.01]

Ever since I switched to x64 windows I have had no problems with software compatibility. So I wonder why people are still stuck on 32-bit, 64-bit works flawlessly. Am I missing something?

[sagum]

jon.01, on 04 November 2012 - 01:59, said:

Ever since I switched to x64 windows I have had no problems with software compatibility. So I wonder why people are still stuck on 32-bit, 64-bit works flawlessly. Am I missing something?

Windows 7/8 hasn't been too bad for 64bit drivers. However, when 64bit XP came out, or even 64bit Vista, drivers were next to non-existent and the ones that were there for hardware were very poor. Not only that, but 64bit drivers used to have to be signed as well. It made simple things such as some DVD burners incompatible between 32bit and 64bit systems.

[PGHammer]

TCA, on 04 November 2012 - 01:51, said:

Well I just wanted to say is I have decided to rid myself of x86 Ultimate. I am now running Ultimate x64 Window 7. I can say it was the right choice to make, after being on 32 bit since XP(2002 ver.). I would rather the system use all my ram instead of half. Which the first thing I put on here was Waterfox and I think it's better then Firefox. Also, things seem to run smoother then before. So now I am officially 100% through with 32 bit operating systems. Right now I only have 2GB but will be upping it to 4.

To the hundreds of posters and thread makers alway's raising the topic of sending x86 into exile, I will agree all the way. 64 is the future and it's pure fact...maybe, lol

Welcome to the Land of X64, TCA.

To be honest, x32 (regardless of operating system - it's far from unique to Windows) hangs on for two reasons - inertia of users and inertia of developers.

I was where you are RAM-wise when I crossgraded to x64 with Vista - 2 GB; however, that is simply an excuse, as I have crossgraded folks with less (Mom had 1 GB, and some had a mere 512MB of RAM).

Gettiing past the inertia and FUD is the hard part.

[KomaWeiß]

The problem is many developers still won't make 64bit until Microsoft ditches 32bit Windows. >.<

[Pam14160]

KomaWeiß, on 04 November 2012 - 02:27, said:

The problem is many developers still won't make 64bit until Microsoft ditches 32bit Windows. >.<

. . .and, MS will not do that until companies/corporations get off the 32 bit systems they are stuck on.

[Eins.MY]

Happy Win 8 Pro x64 user

upgraded from 7 x64 and not looking back to x86 anymore

[Denis W]

KomaWeiß, on 04 November 2012 - 02:27, said:

The problem is many developers still won't make 64bit until Microsoft ditches 32bit Windows. >.<

So long as an application has no need to access more than 2 GB of memory (assuming defaults), having a 64-bit binary isn't an absolute necessity. Though one valid reason to require 64-bit binaries is if it's an Explorer extension and of course drivers. Your browser or PDF reader doesn't need to be 64-bit especially if it's portable.

The OS being 32-bit or 64-bit is a different case. People don't realize the loss of user-accessible memory if they complement a standard system with 4 GB of RAM (which perhaps they heard from others is the upper limit) with a discrete graphics card whose VRAM cuts into that limit.

I suppose, though feel free to correct me wrong, any speed differences if noticed is down to the reduced need of throwing away data in memory to meet limits in a 32-bit environment, plus a boost to computational-related tasks due to the number of CPU registers - those aren't a night and day difference though in most everyday applications.

[TCA]

Thank you very much everyone! time to take meds and eat.

[warwagon]

welcome to present day.

[Deranged]

KomaWeiß, on 04 November 2012 - 02:27, said:

The problem is many developers still won't make 64bit until Microsoft ditches 32bit Windows. >.<

EA said a 64 bit only title is in the works. I believe Stardock said they're planning to make 64 bit only DLC. Many devs are recommending 64 bit OSes instead of just newer OSes.

It doesn't seem like 32 bit has too much longer to live in gaming.

[Tyler R.]

Sweet! Welcome to the party!