tomyk Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I am running the x64 version of Win 7, but once 7 if officially released I am wondering whether to go with 32 or 64-bit. Do you guys think that Microsoft will be pushing x64 version of Win 7 as they are now with Vista x64? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null_ Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Unless you have an application or a piece of hardware which does not support it, you have no reason not to use 64-bit. Besides, with Windows XP Mode, there's even less of a reason to even think about using 32-bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddingguy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Unless you have an application or a piece of hardware which does not support it, you have no reason not to use 64-bit. Besides, with Windows XP Mode, there's even less of a reason to even think about using 32-bit. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phemo Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Depends really. 64-bit can be faster with the right software, but in reality the only real reason to run any x64 Windows is to benefit from being able to make use of 4GB of RAM and over. Personally I have 6GB of RAM so that means if I want to be able to make use of it (without dodgy hacks like PAE) then I have to use an x64 OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joontje Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=787192 *cough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted June 25, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted June 25, 2009 64 Bit all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Depends really. 64-bit can be faster with the right software, but in reality the only real reason to run any x64 Windows is to benefit from being able to make use of 4GB of RAM and over. Personally I have 6GB of RAM so that means if I want to be able to make use of it (without dodgy hacks like PAE) then I have to use an x64 OS. I call shenanigans on that; big time. I originally built the computer I am on right now with a single gigabyte of RAM, and, except for brief testing periods, it has run ONLY 64-bit operating systems on a day-to-day basis. (It's not even the 64-bit system with the lowest RAM loadout; I have converted two others with half that, or 512 MB of system RAM. Both are running Vista 64 Ultimate, in fact. Both systems are powered by single-core, but 64-bit, Celeron-D processors.) In both those cases, and the two dual-core systems I've crossgraded or (in the case of my own, built from purchased parts and carryover from my old system) built ground-up, the reason certainly wasn't gobs of RAM, as none of those systems has any. (In fact, none support even 4 GB of RAM, and I just upgraded my own system to 3 GB on Monday.) The biggest reason to upgrade (and leave 32-bit with Northwood and other processors of history) is, believe it or not, *stability*. You remember the definition of stability when it comes to operating systems, right? It's what mainframe users and the original Windows NT crowd refer to as *uptime*. The longer the system can stay up without having to be taken down (or having the system itself crash), the more stable it is. Windows NT (specifically 3.5 and 3.51 Workstation) brought mainframe-class uptime to the desktop. In the waning days of 3.51 Workstation, I actually rebuilt an NT-type desktop around a 386DX-40 and 16 MB of RAM. (Except for the RAM upgrade, a CD-ROM drive change and a replacement IDE controller, this was, in fact, the same system that I originally used as a Windows 95 beta-tester. I racked up an uptime (before I shut the system down temporarily for a cleaning) of two weeks. That is fourteen days of 24/7 operation, on a 386-40. And that figure is actually low in the case of NT uptime. Whatever happened to wanting that sort of stability back?) I migrated to Windows 2000 Professional from 98 Second Edition (instead of either sticking with 98 SE or upgrading to the 9x swan song, Windows ME) for that same reason (stability, stability, stability). I had nothing against 98 SE (I was, in fact, a beta-tester of 98 *and* 98 SE); however, compared to 2000 Professional, 98 SE blew chunks when it came to stability. Even more horrifying, 98 SE blew chunks when it came to *security*, especially dial-up security. (It certainly didn't help any that 2000 whacked both ME and 98 SE when it came to Internet dial-up performance.) I would, in fact, remain in the 32-bit NT camp through XP (Professional) and Vista (Ultimate), until my crossgrade experiments of late last year, and my own crossgrade in January of this year. Moving to 64-bit (not just with Vista, but since then with Windows 7) has brought back the beauty of uptime. I can leave the system running for days at a time without having to worry about the BSOD or RSOD (in fact, I haven't had either that was not the result of user error, and I haven't had an RSOD at all). I can take a system with even a minimal RAM loadout and treat it like Lt. Harris treated then-Cadet Mahoney in the original "Police Academy": run it around the track until it "throws up" (crashes) then, run it some more. (Unfortunately for Harris, Mahoney never threw up. And, unfortunately for 32-bit flavors of Vista and 7, 64-bit Vista and 7 haven't thrown up, either, even with minimal RAM and pushed beyond sane limits.) And the nice thing about that vastly-increased stability? I'm not giving up a single solitary thing for it. All my applications and hardware works the same or better. Same is true with all my games. Even now, I have only 3 GB of RAM. I don't know about the rest of Neowin (or the OP), but, in my own humble opinion, increased stability = increased performance. Period. If you have the CPU/hardware/application support, go 64-bit now, no matter how much RAM you have (unless you have less than 512 MB of RAM). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phemo Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 I've never had any issues with Windows 2000 or XP that weren't caused by bad hardware, drivers or simply poorly written software. To say 64-bit OSes are more stable than 32-bit OSes is absurd. It's probably more accurate to say that a 64-bit environment is potentially more stable than a 32-bit environment simply because drivers and most properly supported software are newer and have been more recently built from the ground up, whereas a lot of drivers used in 32-bit Vista are probably still loosely based on drivers from the Windows 2000 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Xinok Subscriber² Posted June 25, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted June 25, 2009 I've never had any issues with Windows 2000 or XP that weren't caused by bad hardware, drivers or simply poorly written software. To say 64-bit OSes are more stable than 32-bit OSes is absurd. Windows x64 has extra security features, like PatchGuard, which surely makes it more stable. (PatchGuard prevents software from patching the kernel) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoDEAN Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 +1 -1. Guy doesn't know what he is talking about. 4gig or more is the STANDARD on ram these days, and 90% of processors out there are 64bit. 64bit is becoming the main stream, run 64 bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkaic Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 64 Bit all the way. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoDEAN Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=787192 *cough* People just don't use the search function here do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScorpioRGc1 Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Personally, I'll never touch a 32-bit OS on my own machine again after using Vista Ultimate 64-bit as well as Windows 7 Beta/RC1 64-bit. More secure, faster, and everything I have that matters works fine (including virtually all of my old games). If you're using 4GBs of RAM or more, I'd say you should use 64-bit without question, especially since everything is moving to 64-bit (albeit gradually) anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taliseian Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Like others have said, the only reason not to use a 64bit OS is if your hardware doesn't have drivers or support for it. Doesn't matter the ram (tho having more than 4gig is nice if you have a need for it), its more about the hardware - CPU, Mobo, Video, etc. Personally, I haven't seen any reasons not to run a 64bit OS since I have drivers that support it. Research your hardware before you make the switch. Make sure you've got drivers that will work on a 64bit OS. T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilovetech Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 I dont know why people are so skeptic when it comes to acceptance & adaptability of 64-bit computing. 64bit is reality & future. Only if someone do not have 64bit drivers as of yet should stick with 32bit. there is no reason not to go for 64bit. 1. you can run all your 32bit apps just the way you do in 32bit OS 2. you get benefit of 64 bit computing wider registers, larger memory & faster apps. 3. better security by DEP(processor based) & patchguard protection. 4. better stability. 5. And, yes there is no performance penalty running 32bit apps in 64 bit OS, i am using 64bit windows 7 in single core P4 3.0GHz & 2gigs of ram. It is a misconception that you get benefits of 64 bit only if you have more than 4gig of ram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null_ Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 (edited) I dont know why people are so skeptic when it comes to acceptance & adaptability of 64-bit computing. 64bit is reality & future. Only if someone do not have 64bit drivers as of yet should stick with 32bit.there is no reason not to go for 64bit. 1. you can run all your 32bit apps just the way you do in 32bit OS 2. you get benefit of 64 bit computing wider registers, larger memory & faster apps. 3. better security by DEP(processor based) & patchguard protection. 4. better stability. 5. And, yes there is no performance penalty running 32bit apps in 64 bit OS, i am using 64bit windows 7 in single core P4 3.0GHz & 2gigs of ram. It is a misconception that you get benefits of 64 bit only if you have more than 4gig of ram. To add to these points: 1. 32-bit applications do run through the WOW64 subsystem (Windows-on-Windows 64), however the amount of work that is involved in translation is quite minimal thanks to the architecture of x86-64. All WOW64 does on x86-64 is switch the processor from 64-bit mode to 32-bit native/compatibility mode to execute the code, and translate any calls to the kernel from 32-bit to 64-bit. There is no noticible impact on real-world performance, and if you were to compare with benchmarks the numbers would only show a slight hit. 2. The operating system, along with any 64-bit applications, do have access to the wider registers. 32-bit applications really only see one advantage on 64-bit Windows, and that is if they are compiled with the LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag set (which means they can address 4 GB of virtual memory compared to the 2 GB limit on 32-bit Windows). If an application is not compiled with LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set, it acts and behaves as if it were on 32-bit Windows. 3. 32-bit Windows does have hardware (processor backed) Data Execution Protection (enabled through PAE, which is enabled in 32-bit Windows XP as of SP2, 32-bit Windows Vista, and 32-bit Windows 7), however it is not permenantly set. On 64-bit Windows, all applications are set with DEP enabled, and 32-bit applications have it set "permenantly". 4. Yes, 64-bit is inherently more stable. Due to the improvement of x86-x64 over plain x86, drivers typically have less bugs. We are almost three years into running Windows Vista 64-bit and the ecosystem for drivers and software has matured to the point where everything is rock solid. 5. Not only can you take advantage of more physical memory (if you have more than 4 GB of RAM), but you can also take advantage of increased virtual memory address space. 6. Your computer will be more responsive over time due to the improvements in memory management. There are a few articles written by Mark Russinovich, a technical fellow at Microsoft and the head of Sysinternals, which explain physical memory, virtual memory, and paged/non paged pool limits. I highly encourage anyone who is interested in memory management and how different architectures of Windows handle memory overall to read take a look at them: Pushing the Limits of Windows: Physical Memory Pushing the Limits of Windows: Virtual Memory Pushing the Limits of Windows: Paged and Non-Paged Pool I would also recommend looking at the Memory Limits for Windows article on MSDN for some more technical information on the differences between client/server, and the difference between SKUs. The article also highlights the differences between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows memory addressing. From my personal computing experience, I have been using 64-bit Windows since early 2007, shortly after Windows Vista launched, on a multitude of configurations, including: A Dell XPS 710 gaming machine with a GeForce 8800 GTX and 4 GB of RAM An HP Pavilion Notebook with Intel Integrated Graphics and 1 GB of RAM, later upgraded to 2 GB of RAM A Dell Studio 15 notebook with a discrete ATI Mobility Radeon 3450 and 3 GB of RAM How did 64-bit respond on these machines? On the Dell XPS 710, it absolutely blew past 32-bit Windows in almost every aspect. I used this machine a lot for gaming, and it never skipped a beat with 64-bit. On the HP Pavilion notebook, it ran with the same level of performance as 32-bit Windows, however I was able to perform more tasks at once; once upgraded to 2 GB of RAM it performed faster than 32-bit Windows. This computer was used for every day use and school work, and performed generally well overall. On the Dell Studio 15, it absolutely flies and performs better than 32-bit Windows in almost every aspect. I use this computer for virtual machines, day-to-day business tasks, some light gaming, and it's my portable media center. 64-bit really shines on it, and I wouldn't ever reconsider running 32-bit on it. The only machine I still maintain a 32-bit Windows installation on is the family computer, which has a 32-bit Pentium 4 processor in it (and is only used for email, downloading pictures off of digital cameras, etc). When I replace that machine, it's 64-bit all the way. Edited June 25, 2009 by Nighthawk64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MistaT40 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I have a question - I'm currently running Vista 32-bit on my Sony Laptop. I heard you can do a clean install to 32-bit Win 7 using the Win 7 upgrade version of it - does anyone know if I can do a clean install to 64-bit Win 7 using the 64-bit Win 7 upgrade version of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasqid Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I have a question - I'm currently running Vista 32-bit on my Sony Laptop. I heard you can do a clean install to 32-bit Win 7 using the Win 7 upgrade version of it - does anyone know if I can do a clean install to 64-bit Win 7 using the 64-bit Win 7 upgrade version of it? Does your Sony laptop have 64bit hardware? Yes, changing OS from 32 to 64 bit requires a fresh install, not an upgrade. The only upgrade issues I am aware of is from Vista versions to 7. 32bit to 64bit doesnt matter. If you have Vista HP, I dont think you can upgrade to 7 Pro. Only 7 Home. If you want to upgrade to 7 Pro, you have ot have a valid Vista License for Business or Ultimate. This may have changed... I'm going from memory from a chart I was reading a few months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MistaT40 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Does your Sony laptop have 64bit hardware?Yes, changing OS from 32 to 64 bit requires a fresh install, not an upgrade. The only upgrade issues I am aware of is from Vista versions to 7. 32bit to 64bit doesnt matter. If you have Vista HP, I dont think you can upgrade to 7 Pro. Only 7 Home. If you want to upgrade to 7 Pro, you have ot have a valid Vista License for Business or Ultimate. This may have changed... I'm going from memory from a chart I was reading a few months ago. Yeah my Sony Laptop is 64-bit hardware cause I just bought it last xmas. It is an OEM version of 32-bit Vista Business. I was thinking of buying the Win 7 Upgrade Professional but I want to use the 64-bit version so I just wondering if I can do a clean install to 64-bit Win 7, using the upgrade version of Win 7 (meaning I don't have to buy a full version of Win 7 in order to use 64-bit)...so you are saying that's possible? I hope you understand what I mean....thanks for any replies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts