Recommended Posts

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

  • Like 3
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1117073-goodbye-x86-hello-x64/
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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.

  • Like 1

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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".

Welcome to two or three years ago :D 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 :)

  • Like 1

Welcome to two or three years ago :D 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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!