42 replies to this topic 2 votes

[Detection]

Been x64 for a long time on my Desktop, Laptop is currently 32bit and only has 2GB RAM but occasionally gets a 64bit install, depends which ISO is either already on a USB stick or easiest to find, makes no difference with the Laptops performance if I'm honest

[TCA]

Deranged, on 04 November 2012 - 15:59, said:

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.

I could believe that, I felt 32 wasn'tinadequate for what I like to do. Which also, I think x86 is better suited for just casual browsing, gaming(windows pre-installed) etc. But for those that like us that are power users especially when it comes to playing higher level games 64 is the only true way to actually use your system how it should be. (bad analogy?)

I would like to move back to W8 because I am kinda missing it, go figure eh? But I am not sure how well Sims 3 would take to it....especially, now that Seasons will be out the 13th or 14th and the latest patch for it was issued days ago.

[Deranged]

Sims 3 works fine in 8. It'll reset your display settings the first time you run it, but I haven't had any problems past that (in the preview releases the settings were hosed every time I launched unless I ran it in 7 compatibility mode.)

x86 isn't really better suited for anything but old games.

[DJGM]

I would switch to x86-64 (not x64) bar one thing ... AlfaClock doesn't work on x86-64 - it's 32bit only.

[TCA]

Deranged, on 04 November 2012 - 17:27, said:

Sims 3 works fine in 8. It'll reset your display settings the first time you run it, but I haven't had any problems past that (in the preview releases the settings were hosed every time I launched unless I ran it in 7 compatibility mode.)

x86 isn't really better suited for anything but old games.

Ah okay I may have to go to W8. But I will give it another month before I truly decide. I had to re-install them all except pets...can't play it(deformed pets) so I sold it to my friend, When I get a dedicated GFX, I'll just buy it from Origin

DJGM, on 04 November 2012 - 19:29, said:

I would switch to x86-64 (not x64) bar one thing ... AlfaClock doesn't work on x86-64 - it's 32bit only.

It doesn't even work if you changed it to backward compatibility?

[firey]

The only problem I have run into with 64bit.. is at work there was some 16bit apps that don't run on 64bit. but for the most part I've been using 64bit since XP-x64.. and never looked back.

[King Mustard]

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

"XP(2002 ver.)"

Windows XP came out in October 2001. There is no "2002 version".

[+Spirit Dave]

Welcome to two or three years ago hehe ... Seriously tho, there's no massive obvious reason for most people to do it because systems are still being marketed with only 3 or 4 gb Ram and half the time that's shared with video. So most of those people wont notice the difference, but you made the right choice for future proofing and Ram increases

[King Mustard]

Spirit Dave, on 05 November 2012 - 13:35, said:

Welcome to two or three years ago hehe ... Seriously tho, there's no massive obvious reason for most people to do it because systems are still being marketed with only 3 or 4 gb Ram and half the time that's shared with video. So most of those people wont notice the difference, but you made the right choice for future proofing and Ram increases

Most systems now, even budget laptops, come with 4 GB RAM.

Luckily, all currently sold systems/laptops that are currently sold come with x64 and not x32.

[Tha Bloo Monkee]

I'm still running 32bit cause my docking program doesn't work 100% properly in a 64bit environment
and I only have 3gb.

congrats on the move though!

[Shane Nokes]

King Mustard, on 05 November 2012 - 13:24, said:

"XP(2002 ver.)"

Windows XP came out in October 2001. There is no "2002 version".

XP identifies itself as Version 2002 in the System Properties. I believe that's where that comment is coming from.

[King Mustard]

Shane Nokes, on 05 November 2012 - 13:45, said:

XP identifies itself as Version 2002 in the System Properties. I believe that's where that comment is coming from.

It does? How strange! I never noticed this.

Any idea why it says that there?

[Shane Nokes]

Because while Windows XP had that naming convention it was identified as Version 2002...as a follow on to Windows 2000. It was the merger of the older Windows 9x (based on year) features and the Windows 2000 (NT, but still named based on year at this point) codebase.

The XP stood for eXPerience...and while it was the official name they still wanted a 'version' to tie in that businesses would be familiar with. So the properties identified it as Version 2002.

It was always common for companies to name their products with the name of the upcoming year. For instance Office 2013 has RTM'd and is available to certain groups...but it's still 2012.

[Dan~]

Somebody should of given you x64 earlier, nobody should ever leave a man behind, especially by a few years!

Tbh your quite lucky holding it off, they've fixed Adobe Flash 64 lolol

[nekrosoft13]

would be nice if MS would actually make a 100% 64bit OS. get rid of 32bit IE, WMP and all apps and utilities that are 32bit still.