32 or 64


Recommended Posts

Id go with x64... Itll allow you to use more than 4gis of RAM, as x86 dont support more ram than that... So if you have more than 4gigs or ure planning to get more then you should go x64 cuz otherwise you just "waste" all that ram...

But you might encounter some driver incompatibility so i suggest you get all the necessary drivers before you upgrade/install....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

look at it this way. 32 bit runs up to 3 gig of ram. minus the gpu memory. i have two gpu's, running 1.5 gig of ram combined.. that would leave only 1.5 gig of ram to run the system..about what it takes to run vista 32bit. with 64bit you don't have this problem. 64bit can run more memory by a factor of 10, thats a huge increase in memory allocation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 1GB of RAM in my computer (AMD64 3700+ CPU). So for me I guess running a 32-bit version would be the smart choice, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 1GB of RAM in my computer (AMD64 3700+ CPU). So for me I guess running a 32-bit version would be the smart choice, right?

Or, just buy an extra gig and use 64 bit ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 1GB of RAM in my computer (AMD64 3700+ CPU). So for me I guess running a 32-bit version would be the smart choice, right?

Why? x64 doesn't have min 4gb requirement just like some trolls says

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 1GB of RAM in my computer (AMD64 3700+ CPU). So for me I guess running a 32-bit version would be the smart choice, right?

Wrong!

I have a Celeron E1200 (dual-core low-cache, 64-bit Intel processor, albeit the wimpiest such desktop processor currently shipping), and also have but the single gigabyte of system RAM. I run Windows 7 64-bit (currently 7232), and came from Vista 64-bit (Ultimate, in fact) as day-to-day operating system for reasons of *increased stability* over the 32-bit counterpart. (And over Vista 32-bit, and even over XP 32-bit.)

Increased speed (at least to me) isn't worth diddly if you crash more. When the bitness of the operating system went up, the stability also went up. (Surprisingly, performance didn't dip. Not just "didn't dip as much as expected", but "didn't dip at all". That was contrary to my expectations.) Also where possible, I moved the applications to 64-bit, and Office (my productivity suite of choice) was, naturally, the prime candidate (Office 2010 Technical Preview is the first 64-bit version of Office to see the light of day when it leaked). 64-bit (in terms of applications) is also more stable than 32-bit on the Windows side of the street. (That was actually expected; a few years back, a company called Sun Microsoftsystem recompiled their flagship operating system (Solaris) for a new 64-bit processor (called Opteron). in demonstrations that were first run by AMD reps (and that I later ran myself), on a 64-bit operating system, 64-bit applications were invariably both more stable AND faster than their 32-bit counterparts. It's still true; in fact, it's provable with Office 2010)

If your hardware isn't a roadblock, and your applications aren't a roadblock (16-bit installers in particular), why are you still using only half of what your hardware is capable of?

In short, if you have capable hardware and capable apps, even if you have minimal RAM, go 64-bit now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? x64 doesn't have min 4gb requirement just like some trolls says

That was precisely what inspired my original series of tests last year (running 64-bit operating systems near/at their minimums, compared to their 32-bit counterparts). I kept hearing, over and over (in fact, especially here) that 64-bit was only when you had too much RAM for 32-bit; however, I never saw any data (let alone evidence) to back it up. That worried me; in fact, it galled me. It reminded me all too much of "The Big Lie"; repeat something loudly and often enough, and everyone will believe it. Since I had a 64-bit single-core Celeron in for extended testing, I set about actually collecting the data.

First off, the performance dip with a 64-bit OS largely didn't happen (in the areas where it did happen, it could be attributerd to factors other than bitness).

Second, there was a definite stability increase with a 64-bit operating system compared to a 32-bit operating system (crashes that happened in 32-bit largely didn't happen in 64-bit).

Could it be that the warning folks away from 64-bit was an *elitist* move?

(In fact, my own experiences since then, having moved bag and baggage to 64-bit Windows Vista, and since then to 7, and with but a gigabyte of RAM, have done nothing to shake my suspiscions. If anything, they are more firmly grounded than ever.)

If you have the hardware and application support, it doesn't matter how *little* RAM you have (unless you have 512 MB or less). If you have the CPU support, have 512 MB of RAM or more, and have the hardware and applications support, you don't have to wait for Windows 7 (in fact, I would plainly suggest you NOT wait); I would say to "Go 64-bit NOW, young (wo)man!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id go with x64... Itll allow you to use more than 4gis of RAM, as x86 dont support more ram than that... So if you have more than 4gigs or ure planning to get more then you should go x64 cuz otherwise you just "waste" all that ram...

But you might encounter some driver incompatibility so i suggest you get all the necessary drivers before you upgrade/install....

It's not that x86 can't support more RAM, x86 is just an architecture. They call 64 bit systems x64, but they are still built on the x86 architecture. I hate that they named it the way they did because it generates mass confusion. x86 is simply the term for Intel's CISC architecture and the number of bits really doesn't have anything to do with it. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it.

I have 1GB of RAM in my computer (AMD64 3700+ CPU). So for me I guess running a 32-bit version would be the smart choice, right?

See above where one guy was talking about how his 64 bit system with 1GB of RAM performed better than his 32 bit system with 2GB's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will have to agree with the sentiment here in that there is no reason to not use 64bit version of the OS if there is one available. Even if you are under the 4GB cap of 32bit, you can still make use of the advancements available under 64bit. There aren't as many programs available in pure 64bit mode, but that is increasing every month. Numerous games have a 64bit engine (CryTek engine based like Crysis, Source engine Based like TF2) and really the memory expansion is just more like the cream filling to the Twinkie. Sure, the sponge-cake tastes great and is full of sugary goodness by itself, and certainly tastier than an average biscuit, but the cream filling is the big sell to the masses. *laughs* Or I need lunch and that was a bad analogy.

However, either way it stands that 64bit is efinitely the way to go if your processor supports it and you can find drivers for all your other bits. 64bit will run just fine on your existing 1GB or 2GB of RAM and when/if you upgrade later, you don't need to worry that it will get capped in. So you can put in as much as your motherboard will let you address (some chipsets cap out at 6GB, 16GB, 32GB, etc), and as much as your pocketbook will allow you to spend on.

TL;DR version?

Just go 64bit and don't look back. I doubt you will regret it. 32bit, you will eventually regret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(-) You might not have 64-bit compatible drivers for your hardware.

(-) Some applications might require drivers to function and if they do not provide 64-bit drivers, they will not work

(-) 16-bit is no longer supported, 16-bit applications will not function.

(-) Some installers (which install 32-bit applications) might still be (partially) 16-bit and therefore, such applications will not install easily

(-) 64-bit Windows Operating Systems use WoW to run 32-bit applications, 32-bit software is not running in a native environment, and might run slightly slower (slightly!).

(-) Some applications (made by morons usually) will not run for no good reason aside from not detecting a 32-bit OS.

(-) WoW layer requires more resources and therefore your OS install will be slightly bigger and your OS will use slightly (slightly!!) more RAM to run.

(+) 64-bit environment supports massive amounts of RAM which allows running multiple RAM-heavy applications at once - such as Photoshop. (Can make a big difference.)

(+) 64-bit versions of your programs will function faster than the 32-bit variants. Things like 7-Zip or Photoshop CS4 for example. Depends on the application though.

(+) 64-bit is the future, if you have a 64-bit Operating System, you are set for the future :3

(+) 99% of stuff that runs with x32 bit variant of XP/Vista/7 should run on the 64-bit variant of XP/Vista/7.

(+) Modern hardware has 64-bit drivers.

(*) The only thing, as I see it, that is holding back 64-bit browsers is Adobe.

(*) You might have to install 32-bit and 64-bit version of things like Java...

Most cons arent really cons at all with W7 taking the optional XP VM Mode into account. wich IS 32 bit and supports 16 bit no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most cons arent really cons at all with W7 taking the optional XP VM Mode into account. wich IS 32 bit and supports 16 bit no?

Yes, using virtualization you can run a 32-bit operating system and therefore use legacy 16-bit applications. In fact, you can do this today with Virtual PC 2007, or VMware, or even VirtualBox, as long as you have a licensed copy of a product such as Windows XP to run within the virtualized envirionment; it's not something new to Windows 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, using virtualization you can run a 32-bit operating system and therefore use legacy 16-bit applications. In fact, you can do this today with Virtual PC 2007, or VMware, or even VirtualBox, as long as you have a licensed copy of a product such as Windows XP to run within the virtualized envirionment; it's not something new to Windows 7.

Yeah but doesnt the Optional XP VM mode in W7 (if installed) work diffrently ? as in it doesnt boot windows xp in a seperate window?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but doesnt the Optional XP VM mode in W7 (if installed) work diffrently ? as in it doesnt boot windows xp in a seperate window?

Windows XP Mode with Windows Virtual PC on Windows 7 can be configured to essentially integrate everything together (so that you don't have your applications running within a seperate desktop) - the start menu contains a list of programs from within the virtual machine, the taskbar icons are displayed for the virtualized applications, and so forth. It's quite a bit like VMware Workstation's "Unity" mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is 501 now no body told you to click on the link im trying to same a lot of time backing up file lol

Games / work / pictures / fam vids Etc etc

Use Easy Transfer. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows XP Mode with Windows Virtual PC on Windows 7 can be configured to essentially integrate everything together (so that you don't have your applications running within a seperate desktop) - the start menu contains a list of programs from within the virtual machine, the taskbar icons are displayed for the virtualized applications, and so forth. It's quite a bit like VMware Workstation's "Unity" mode.

so essentially its not as complicated as doing this manually, infact its a great feature for win7?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am using windows 7 x64 on a P4 3.0GHZ & 2gigs ram. i really found it to be stable than 32bit i have used on my system.

moreover, in addition to benefits counted above you get 2 additional security features

1. Processor based DEP support

2. Kernel Patch guard protection

(-)negative points for 64 bit windows i would say is that it consumes a "little" more memory for same applications than in 32bit mode.

(-)64bit OS uses WOW64 translation that translates 32bit code to 64bit code so a small performance penalty as 32apps do not run natively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so essentially its not as complicated as doing this manually, infact its a great feature for win7?

That's right. Thanks to virtualization, you can run 64-bit Windows with 32-bit Windows in a virtual machine and eat your 16-bit cake too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

64bit means that it can make use of 64bit registers,buses and adresses. Because of the enormous adressing space, the operating system uses more memory to map the virtual adresses to physical adresses. I doubt the translation that occurs when you run 32bit on a 64bit os has that much of a performance hit since all the adresses have to be translated anyways, because modern computers use virtual memory. As far as I know, 64 bit systems have 4 levels of page tables to use less memory and not all the page tables are allocated. 32bit uses 2 levels though I'm not to sure about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.