Win7 32bit or 64bit?

[still1]

64 bit...

[mikiem]

64 bit is a PITA to learn & use, but 32 bit's going away, so why not take the plunge now whilst you're certainly not alone? Next upgrade if you're new to 64 bit, you probably will be. 'Nother reason is 7 likes RAM -- lots of it -- & you'll have a (IMHO Much) nicer experience with 4 or more GB.

Far as I can tell the only reason not to go 64 is if/when you don't have driver support, but fortunately that's becoming more & more rare, & the virt. XP can often take care of those problems if it's not something major like graphics.

[veritas310]

Mostly true, though I still run into a couple incompatibilities here and there, especially for "regular" computer users (which means nobody on Neowin). Basically Apple took a smarter route than Microsoft by allowing 64-bit software to run on a translated 32-bit layer in OSX. This encourages the development of 64-bit code. Microsoft did the opposite. So now you've got the mess we're in where there's little encouragement to compile 64-bit software on the Windows platform since essentially no home computer users have a 64-bit OS even though many of them have 64-bit processors.

The ONLY thing that's going to get 64-bit Windows onto lots of computers is OEM computer sales of rigs with 4GB of memory or more, and then those computers trickling out into the world. The fact that the vast majority of computers in use right now have much less memory means that 64-bit computing on the Windows platform will not be commonplace for several years.

How is Apple fully taking advantage of their 64-bit platform? Like you stated with most "home users" that are on the Windows platform, they either are not aware of or don't understand the difference between the two. In any case, it doesn't really matter since Snow Leopard won't boot into 64-bit by default, unless you change the boot settings, plus a lot of models are not even supported even though they have a 64-bit capable processor. I'm booting my MBP into 64-bit but I'm not the typical "home user". I believe your second point is more valid in that the only way the 64-bit versions of either OS will catch on is through OEM's coming preinstalled with it (I know HP preinstalls the 64-bit versions of all Windows 7 flavors).

I had a few 64-bit issues when I first installed Vista 64-bit Ult on it's release, but have faced zero issues with Windows 7 64-bit Ult, which tells me Microsoft has learned and prepared better this time around (along with most of the hardware/software manufacturers). Also, to those of you who are having software compatibilities or driver issues (which I have seen none of yet, at least with my network), if you're running Windows 7 Pro/Ult/Enterprise, you can download and install Windows XP Compatibility Mode (XPM) from Microsoft's site for free:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/download.aspx

You can also use the built-in troubleshooting tools before you resort to XPM by right-clicking on the app and choosing troubleshoot. You can then specify the OS that the selected program worked correctly on (i.e. Windows XP SP3).

I'm loving Windows 7 thus far, and have been since I installed the RTM of Ultimate two months ago. Cheers!

[Hurricane Andrew]

64 bit is a PITA to learn & use, but 32 bit's going away, so why not take the plunge now whilst you're certainly not alone? Next upgrade if you're new to 64 bit, you probably will be. 'Nother reason is 7 likes RAM -- lots of it -- & you'll have a (IMHO Much) nicer experience with 4 or more GB.

Far as I can tell the only reason not to go 64 is if/when you don't have driver support, but fortunately that's becoming more & more rare, & the virt. XP can often take care of those problems if it's not something major like graphics.

Tough to learn? OK, you have a Program Files and a Program Files (x86) folder, and the registry has 32 and 64 bit Local_Machine\Software hives. OTher than that, there's nothing to really learn from a usability standpoint. Heck, I've had Vista and now Win7 64-bit installed on 2 of my kids' computers, and they know no difference. All of their games work, online and local. The only potential gotcha' other than potential driver issues, is that the 64-bit version of IE has virtually no plug-in support (which I think is a good thing). Fortunately for users, the 32-bit version is the one that is launched by default.

Bottom line, 64-bit is the way to go. Even on my older single core Athlon 64 CPU with 2GB of RAM it runs like a champ, old hardware and all. Most of the drivers are Vista/Win7 packages (ATI's Catalyst for example). If you don't see one that says Win7, if there is a Vista version available, it will likely work in 99% of the cases. The only machine that I haven't installed the 64-bit version is my work laptop that has an older Pentium M 32-bit CPU.

[UnclePritchard]

My Windows 7 Professional Retail came with both versions in the box. And I installed the 32 bit version. I don;t know if my HW is really fully 64 bit compatible but I think I will wait for a new Windows version (and possibly a new PC) to switch directly to 64 bit.

[*RedBull*]

The upgrade from vista HP 64 bit to 7 ultimate 64 bit did not work. had to do a clean install

That really sucks, Vista is supposed to upgrade to 7. I had 32bit though and did a back file to retrieve data from when setting up 7.

32bit, until 64bit is more mainstream and has better compatibility i say 32bit.by 2015 or less 64bit will be more worthwhile.

Dude, you haven't used 64bit recently have you? I had tried XP64bit a few years back, it sucked for support then. I helped a friend with problems on their new laptop recently and was amazed at how well it worked. Yes there are some things not completely supported yet, but for the most part it is.

I decided to go with the 32bit version for now, even though I'm "loosing" 1GB of the 4GB of RAM I have installed. Two reasons:

1. Ethernet drivers weren't working too well. Transfers on local networks were visibly slower and not very reliable. When playing music from a NAT and trying to copy a large file at the same time, music was stopping for the time of transfer.
   
2. DVI video output seemed to be slightly more blurry than with the 32bit version. This may have been just my perception, as I couldn't easily compare two versions side by side, but felt quite strong.
   

I have a month-old ThinkPad R400 with Intel's graphics.

As for the additional RAM - running the 64bit system casually was eating up 500MB more RAM than 32bit, so I was effectively getting only 512MB more.

For anyone trying to choose right now I'd suggest checking out the 64bit version and testing it thoroughly before activating. If everything works, you may as well stick with it. If not, you'll have a way back to 32bit.

Yeah I found ethernet having some issues, bu then I updated my driver and is good now. Video play back in fullscreen can be doggy at times, but it's clearly a driver issue. Bugs get worked out.

64bit

Works Great

I like it so far as it is my main OS. I have Vista and Win7 RC on another HD for back up, both are 32bit.

[JustinTime]

I went with 32 but really want to try 64 but also don't want issues.

[bucko]

Not windows 7 here but just reading, Vista x64 flies with 5GB ram...I'm sure win7 be the same.

[1759]

I'm using both.

Windows 7 Professional (32-bit) on my netbook, runs really well with 1.5 GB of RAM

Windows Server 2008 R2 on my laptop, runs well, but has an issue with audio completely disappearing after resuming from sleep.

Soon to be:

Windows 7 Professional (64-bit) on my desktop, will be an upgrade from Vista Business (32-bit). Only issue I think I will probably see on that, is that I have an ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro (AGP) card in it, and ATI never officially supported, and the drivers have always been flaky.

[Mazhar]

If you have 64-bit processor, then why would you use 32-bit OS?

[temple_treefrog]

If you are prepared to live without that scanner then go ahead and take the 64bit plunge.

Lol wow Fred you make it sound like such an emotional decision. :p

Using 64-bit here and definitely no complaints.

[robert03]

Somebody mentioned that the 64bit version used an extra 512MB of RAM, compared to the 32bit one. What he did not take into consideration was the fact that some people play games as well. So, if you install a 64 bit version you can use 3GB out of 4GB RAM when running games, instead of using just 2GB out of 3GB.

When coupled with a 512MB RAM graphics adapter, the extra GB of RAM might come in handy.

64bit all the way for me. I had Vista 32bit for a month and could not stand to not make use of the extra 1GB.