• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Windows 7 - 64 bit or 32 bit?

Recommended Posts

ToneKnee    326
alright 64 bit it is!

thanks guys

think ill start hunting down drivers now :)

64-bit processing is faster, look at this benchmark on my system 32-bit executable vs 64-bit executable.

While benckmarks don't really reflect real life experiences, when it comes down to number crunching, rendering and future apps which will be 64-bit, it's stupid not to go with 64-bit.

Have fun and good luck! :)

post-95774-1250086005_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xenomorph    38

Raw horsepower (as in, CPU speed) shouldn't be that different with 32-bit vs. 64-bit.

Memory bandwidth is where the big changes would be seen. Anything that eats tons of RAM (such as a zipping program or video encoder) would benefit greatly when ran in 64-bit mode.

Also, it doesn't matter if your games and apps are "just" 32-bit. I've been running exclusively 64-bit Windows for years, and most of my apps are still 32-bit. I can just run a lot more of them side by side now than I could with a 32-bit OS. And of course I have the ability to run 64-bit code if the application supports it correctly.

The biggest issue I ran into was the crummy 32-bit only Cisco VPN client I use to have to use with my last employer. The work-around is to run 32-bit Windows in a Virtual Machine (such as XP in VMware, VirtualBox, or VirtualPC), connect with Cisco VPN in that, share the connection, and then add static routes in the Host OS to redirect the VPN network IPs to the guest Virtual Machine. Your Cisco VPN connection must support split-tunneling for that to work, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,657
It's a no-brainer dude. Go 64 bit.

Agreed on the no-brainer part.

All that talk of additional overhead is just that - talk. (The empirical research I've done helping two others crossgrade, and then crossgrading myself, and in every case with 2 GB or less (mostly less), has shown that there is very little to NO overhead in practical terms in straight crossgrades (XP32 to XP64 or Vista 32 to Vista 64 or 7 32-bit to 7 64-bit). When you add a generational change to the crossgrade (XP or Vista 32-bit to 7 64-bit or even XP32 to Vista 64-bit), there are several stability advantages to be had (mostly due to better drivers and code improvements in the newer operating system, along with the stability gains created by the WOW thunking layer for 32-bit applications).)

Games? In most cases (in fact, in darn near any case) your games will run as they always have, if not better. (The exception? Games with 16-bit installers; the installer isn't accepted by any 64-bit version of Windows.)

Once you move to 64-bit, you'll ask yourself why you didn't do so before....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa    156

It maybe talk, and on a fast machine you'll never know the difference but if you have no imperative need to run 64bit apps and have less or equal to 4gb memory it makes more sense compatibility wise to run 32bit windows.

Don't forget also: no 16bit on a x64 platform

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaun N.    569
My only hang up on moving to 64-bit is that my workplace's VPN client doesn't work on 64-bit. So, check your applications' compatibility.

Very true, Cisco VPN doesnt work on 64 bit, I have to load my laptop up if I need to do some work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simmorya    0

If your CPU is capable of 64-bit, use Windows 7 64-bit. I know you only have 3GB of RAM but 64-bit software will still outperform 32-bit software if its designed for 64-bit systems.

Above this, adding more RAM would further increase 64-bit software performance by extending the RAM support.

Go 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,657
It maybe talk, and on a fast machine you'll never know the difference but if you have no imperative need to run 64bit apps and have less or equal to 4gb memory it makes more sense compatibility wise to run 32bit windows.

Don't forget also: no 16bit on a x64 platform

I made the move for reasons of *increased stability*.

In the case of most applications, even if there isn't a 64-bit version of the application in question (same applies to games) they will work just fine either way.

16-bit installers are only applicable to (again) very old games or niche applications (and why can't you run those in a VM?). Name *one* modern game OR application (non-niche) that uses a 16-bit installer.

Also, I made the move when I had just a gig of RAM (and helped two others crossgrade with even less; just 512 MB).

Finally, I run a grand total of one 64-bit utility (Microsoft Security Essentials) and one 64-bit productivity suite (Microsoft Office Professional 2010 Tech Preview). Note that both are still in beta (and will remain so for most of 2009, at minimum), so it certainly isn't the applications.

I like being able to keep the system up for days, if not weeks, at a time, without BSODs. Even as good as 7 32-bit RC was, it wouldn't let me do that; 7 64-bit RC did,

That's why 7 RTM 64-bit is on my PC now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta    108
Quick question, I have my games installed on a separate partition to the OS, so effectively I can upgrade my OS without having to install my games again. (I've done this through several XP installs and the games have never complained so I assume they don't add anything to the registry.)

I'm on 32-bit XP at the moment and I'm looking to upgrade (clean install) to 64-bit Windows 7.

Will my (32-bit) games still run fine without reinstalling them?

Yep, I do the same thing with my games and they work perfectly, the only problematic one is UT2004, but I keep the registry settings stored in a .reg file inside the folder, so I just merge the reg file after a reinstall and all behaves nicely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,657
If your CPU is capable of 64-bit, use Windows 7 64-bit. I know you only have 3GB of RAM but 64-bit software will still outperform 32-bit software if its designed for 64-bit systems.

Above this, adding more RAM would further increase 64-bit software performance by extending the RAM support.

Go 64-bit.

I made the crossgrade when I had just a single gigabyte of RAM. No speed loss, and did gain a great deal in terms of stability (BSODs were pretty much banished, except when I did something stupid).

Unless there are specific apps that are incompatible with 64-bit (and, except for certain niche applications, that likely won't be the case), given CPU and hardware support, go 64-bit, even with less than two gigabytes of RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa    156
I made the move for reasons of *increased stability*.

That's why 7 RTM 64-bit is on my PC now.

Have had x64 since xppro. I was just responding to the OP and using your quote to do it.

A tool must fit the task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
majortom1981    242

A 32bit program can only use 2 gig of ram right? (I dont mean the OS i mean a regular program)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JunkMail    1
A 32bit program can only use 2 gig of ram right? (I dont mean the OS i mean a regular program)?

I think it accesses 3.25 - 3.50 GB :)

XPx86 = 3.25

Vix86 = 3.50 (not sure on this on though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew Lyle    341

64bit has long been standard now.. No reason to continue using 32bit anymore. I wish Windows 7 only came in 64bit, but that is what Windows 8 will be for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JunkMail    1
64bit has long been standard now.. No reason to continue using 32bit anymore. I wish Windows 7 only came in 64bit, but that is what Windows 8 will be for.

Agree, the only reason why W7 x64 is bloated is because it has WOW64 emulation. When MS first removed 16Bit & DOS from XP, it was really a super HIT! :) guess W8 is expected to hit as well.

All I'm hoping for is Mark (process explorer guy) removes all the evolved outdated APPs and writes them from scratch (hehe) in Ribbin UI like theme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa    156
All I'm hoping for is Mark (process explorer guy) removes all the evolved outdated APPs and writes them from scratch (hehe) in Ribbin UI like theme

hmmm, he'll have his work cut out. I wrote this on the subject:

piece on ms codebase issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Anarkii    2,255

Get the 64 bit version. 32bit is kinda slowly dying off anyway, so having 64bit OS will help with the release of Windows 8 being 64bit only, which realistically, is what M$ should be developing anyway.

Also, 64 would be better for you in the long run, as any future upgrades will mean you don't have to fork out more cash to upgrade your OS should you do decide on getting more RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tech Geek Alex    29
My only hang up on moving to 64-bit is that my workplace's VPN client doesn't work on 64-bit. So, check your applications' compatibility.

My workplace uses cisco vpn and that isnt even an option in 64bit. However, using W7 Ultimate with XPM (XP Mode) I am using Cisco vpn with no problems.....

so if you have 32bit apps that have no 64bit option consider w7 pro or higher to get xpm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JunkMail    1
Get the 64 bit version. 32bit is kinda slowly dying off anyway, so having 64bit OS will help with the release of Windows 8 being 64bit only, which realistically, is what M$ should be developing anyway.

Also, 64 would be better for you in the long run, as any future upgrades will mean you don't have to fork out more cash to upgrade your OS should you do decide on getting more RAM.

What's the harm in dual boot?

somehow, I prefer removing wow64 completely (using vLite or something) and use x64 in it's pure AND use x86 XP :)

it sure has it's own benefits, when one is "virused" the other can restore backup ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hdood    145
16-bit installers are only applicable to (again) very old games or niche applications (and why can't you run those in a VM?). Name *one* modern game OR application (non-niche) that uses a 16-bit installer.

Not just that, but for the most popular 16-bit installers, 64-bit Windows will even detect them and swap them for a 32-bit version that is part of Windows.

hmmm, he'll have his work cut out. I wrote this on the subject:

piece on ms codebase issues

That's just nonsense.

Microsoft is perfectly capable of removing IE/Trident, and they know exactly where it "begins and ends". They just haven't done so because so many third-party products depend on it! A few Windows components like the help viewer do as well, but these could be modified. Third-party code, well, Microsoft can't do anything about that.

As for the Space Shuttle, that's just more hyperbole. "Beyond human comprehension?" Whatever.

"Most blocks of code are generated by codegenerators" -- Huh? The Windows code is generally hand-written and clean. Not just that, but they've been working hard to make all the inter-dependencies as clear as possible (MinWin).

And... Russinovich's tools were all designed PRIOR to his company being bought by Microsoft, which makes your claims even more silly. Having said that, I don't think the Ribbon would be the right interface for most of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToneKnee    326
Agree, the only reason why W7 x64 is bloated is because it has WOW64 emulation. When MS first removed 16Bit & DOS from XP, it was really a super HIT! :) guess W8 is expected to hit as well.

All I'm hoping for is Mark (process explorer guy) removes all the evolved outdated APPs and writes them from scratch (hehe) in Ribbin UI like theme

JunkMail, please stop.

Windows 7 x64 is not bloated because it has WOW64, 64-bit binaries are actually bigger. Windows 7 x64 runs faster than x32 (at least for me it does). Oh, and, Microsoft is not ready to go to a x64 based operating system exclusively. They will still need to run a 32bit version, since most applications and processors are still 32-bit. If they went with a 64-bit version of Windows only, they'll still include WOW64 for compatibility reasons, and it'll be many, many years before 32-bit gets phased out completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAID 0    0
I simply can't install x64, after the first reboot comes the BSOD and there's no way to get it fixed or workarounded, unless I install x32 (yeah I know it's x86), I've been googling and nothing! So I decided to keep the x86 one, That problem exist since the Beta, RC wasn't solved and "RTM" still has it, x86 works good but I'd love to use x64, so I still love my Mac and use windows from time to time to laugh of M$ XD

I laugh at you not knowing how to fix a BSOD. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rover3500    0

of course u have to remember some software wont work on 64bit.I know most from now on will,but i stick with x86 and i have 4gb and a quad core,as i really miss my programs otherwise only from less than a year ago.Most software will work with 64 tho',just not all native.I'd make sure any progs u need are compatable,or if they aren't,will be soon.Otherwise 64bit i think.I do swap between them or sometimes dual boot,another option(on different drives)

r u sure ur drives are ok.64 bit uses a different way to store stuff,so just cause x86 works,doesn't mean 64bit automatically will.Is also why u shouldn't use a drive with x86 os on it from a 64 bit os installation.do a drive check just to be sure

Edited by rover3500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary2MBz    20

There should not be many driver incompatibilities unless it was badly coded *cough Broadcom cough* bluetooth* *choke*. The majority of Vista drivers work fine with 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa    156
That's just nonsense.

Microsoft is perfectly capable of removing IE/Trident, and they know exactly where it "begins and ends". They just haven't done so because so many third-party products depend on it! A few Windows components like the help viewer do as well, but these could be modified. Third-party code, well, Microsoft can't do anything about that.

As for the Space Shuttle, that's just more hyperbole. "Beyond human comprehension?" Whatever.

"Most blocks of code are generated by codegenerators" -- Huh? The Windows code is generally hand-written and clean. Not just that, but they've been working hard to make all the inter-dependencies as clear as possible (MinWin).

And... Russinovich's tools were all designed PRIOR to his company being bought by Microsoft, which makes your claims even more silly. Having said that, I don't think the Ribbon would be the right interface for most of them.

Handwritten.... You're joking aren't you? Even i tiny doityourself programmer like me uses RAD tools. You want us to believe that it's even possible to write such a huge codebase by hand alone. The manhours involved surpass largely the meagre, $4 bil R&D budget yearly.

The spaceshuttle was largely written by codegeberators. Maybe you should react with knowledgeand facts not raw emotion

And i'm not alone who sees it this way, i'm not going the fill the thread with links, look it up yourself but here's at least one other:

Windows codebase implosion

tiny snip:

Escalating Complexity

In a recent New York Times article, the following appeared:

Several thousand engineers have labored to build and test Windows Vista, a sprawling, complex software construction project with 50 million lines of code, or more than 40 percent larger than Windows XP.

Windows is growing beyond even Microsoft's ability to manage it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JunkMail    1
JunkMail, please stop.

Windows 7 x64 is not bloated because it has WOW64, 64-bit binaries are actually bigger. Windows 7 x64 runs faster than x32 (at least for me it does). Oh, and, Microsoft is not ready to go to a x64 based operating system exclusively. ...

First of all, you should not be telling me to stop (honestly, will I? why wasting words on personal attacks?)

Next, my point was, its cool to have x64 at it's pure state while you're on the side of "emulation" now? add to that, you want to claim emulated x86 apps on x64 W7 are faster then real x86 W7 which looks too good to be true :) Guess that makes MS fools for releasing slow OS. Mr Ballmer, you better halt the x86 because this man says, its slower then emulation :D

They will still need to run a 32bit version, since most applications and processors are still 32-bit. If they went with a 64-bit version of Windows only, they'll still include WOW64 for compatibility reasons, and it'll be many, many years before 32-bit gets phased out completely.
So you think its better that MS adds WOW64 in future OS, you're on the side of x86 and you want x86 to remain as emulation in future version of x64 OSes? hmmm, [(x64) + (emulated x86) + (Emulated XP Mode)] All this in the interest to protect previous generation's investments on hardware and you want to continue protecting these in future W8x64 too i guess :p

Wait, now this is nice if you're on the side of polar bears (x86) suddenly but as far as I know you, you want people to use x64 OS (shows a lot in your previous threads). If you say emulation like WOW64 is good, then there should be DOS and 16Bit too right?? wouldn't this be better to you? hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.