32 bit or 64 bit OS?

F1FAN said:

64 bit is rubbish, after a while it slows down. Start up time was increased by atleast 6 secs for me and i had a few friends with games that worked on 64-bit but not very well at all, to me it still needs work. I have gone back to 32-bit, although i loose a bit of ram, it makes no difference because 64 takes more to run anyway so im using the same percentage as on 64-bit. about 1,15GB in 64, 900MB in 32.

this is ignorance. any os is going to have a slower boot time the longer it's used if not maintained. the 64 bit architecture allows better multitasking due to the higher levels of ram, there are few programs that will not work and don't have alternatives but that is up to the developers of the programs and is not a windows issue. the 64 bit os will grow in dominance as more users migrate to windows 7 and the 32 bit is going to die off, i'd actually be suprised to see a 32 bit windows 8

valtonray said:

F1FAN said:

64 bit is rubbish, after a while it slows down. Start up time was increased by atleast 6 secs for me and i had a few friends with games that worked on 64-bit but not very well at all, to me it still needs work. I have gone back to 32-bit, although i loose a bit of ram, it makes no difference because 64 takes more to run anyway so im using the same percentage as on 64-bit. about 1,15GB in 64, 900MB in 32.

this is ignorance. any os is going to have a slower boot time the longer it's used if not maintained. the 64 bit architecture allows better multitasking due to the higher levels of ram, there are few programs that will not work and don't have alternatives but that is up to the developers of the programs and is not a windows issue. the 64 bit os will grow in dominance as more users migrate to windows 7 and the 32 bit is going to die off, i'd actually be suprised to see a 32 bit windows 8

yep, and until that time comes, im sticking with 32. why would i want a slower system, higher resource system for no reason?

F1FAN said:

valtonray said:

F1FAN said:

64 bit is rubbish, after a while it slows down. Start up time was increased by atleast 6 secs for me and i had a few friends with games that worked on 64-bit but not very well at all, to me it still needs work. I have gone back to 32-bit, although i loose a bit of ram, it makes no difference because 64 takes more to run anyway so im using the same percentage as on 64-bit. about 1,15GB in 64, 900MB in 32.

this is ignorance. any os is going to have a slower boot time the longer it's used if not maintained. the 64 bit architecture allows better multitasking due to the higher levels of ram, there are few programs that will not work and don't have alternatives but that is up to the developers of the programs and is not a windows issue. the 64 bit os will grow in dominance as more users migrate to windows 7 and the 32 bit is going to die off, i'd actually be suprised to see a 32 bit windows 8

yep, and until that time comes, im sticking with 32. why would i want a slower system, higher resource system for no reason?

I have to agree with valtonray on this one. 7 should have been 64bit only.
As 8 should be.

For the record, I am running 32bit only because Hauppauge refuse to fix their software for 64bit with 4G of ram and call it a Windows problem. looking for new TV card and dump Hauppauge. Then I will install 64bit and be done with 32bit.

Tepid said:

I have to agree with valtonray on this one. 7 should have been 64bit only.
As 8 should be.

Absolutely have to disagree with this. For example, at my job, we don't have a VPN client for our CheckPoint firewall device that supports 64-bit. At my last job, they didn't and still don't have a Cisco VPN client which supports 64-bit. While there are options from both vendors available, they can costs tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade to...so in todays economy it's something that you cannot take lightly.

pparks1 said:

Tepid said:

I have to agree with valtonray on this one. 7 should have been 64bit only.
As 8 should be.

Absolutely have to disagree with this. For example, at my job, we don't have a VPN client for our CheckPoint firewall device that supports 64-bit. At my last job, they didn't and still don't have a Cisco VPN client which supports 64-bit. While there are options from both vendors available, they can costs tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade to...so in todays economy it's something that you cannot take lightly.

There are always exceptions. As in both of our cases.
My response is to F1Fan and valtonray.

However,, if MS would force the issue and go straight 64bit, then these companies would not be able to ignore 64bit clients. They would have to cater to them or get left behind. Someone will pick up where others slack, and that is what is needed right now with 64bit support. They don't have to yet because the issue is not being pushed hard enough. But that will soon change.

Think 9x to XP (16bit to 32bit) same concept here.

Tepid said:

However,, if MS would force the issue and go straight 64bit, then these companies would not be able to ignore 64bit clients. They would have to cater to them or get left behind.

Like I said, these companies often have solutions, but they involve having to change the VPN hardware and going to VPN clients which are SSL certificate based. This can cost business tens of thousands of dollars to make the move. And these are companies like Cisco and Checkpoint...they aren't going to get left behind in the marketplace.

Personally, on my home computer, Windows 7 is the first time that I have ever run a 64-bit operating system. I've got a couple of hardware devices that don't have 64-bit drivers...but I just left them connected to an old WinXP machine that I have. So, I think that 64-bit is finally making inroads..but it's not really ready for the masses as they only available option. I mean if nerds like me who are server admins for a living are just getting around to getting comfortable, it means that the average computer user is going to take some time.