Windows 7: Why You Should Go 64-Bit With Win7

Socket 939 Athlon chips are 64bit single core processors, so it will work in 64 bit mode. Any Athlon 64 processors are 64bit. Even the Socket 754.

Andy

Thank you...
I will propably change to 64bit when the next version comes.

I read the article and some of the comments and downloaded the 64bit version of Windows 7. I got up and found it waiting on my computer and installed it. Things went well at first. One of my favorite programs, a dictionary, wouldn't install. Then I downloaded and installed AVG Free and drivers for my mouse and keyboard. Then, hell arrived.

It took twenty minutes for Windows7 to boot and start up and it wouldn't function. I tried to reinstall from the CD and my computer would not boot from the CD drive no matter how I set the BIOS. I finally unplugged my hard drives, started a boot, with 32bit Windows7, and plugged in one drive. Of course, I plugged the wrong one in and that caused new problems but that was strictly my fault and my frustration.

I'll wait awhile before I try 64bit again.

I'm afraid i am the dissenting opinion again. we are going 64 bit os down the road, that goes without saying. That change though will be driven by software titles on the market that are released exclusively for 64 bit platforms. There is nothing in the article i find compelling for home users to say, for the present, I have to go 64 bit. Game titles certainly don't have the weight to drive development the way they once did. The numbers are way up for games, but not on the pc, the vast bulk of the industry numbers are console related. You are going to have to show me something else in a title I want to or need to run.

Now that market does currently exist for special applications. I have built and support units for professional classical musicians whom like to tinker. Ditto for in field personnel or students of architecture, or engineering whom work from home after hours a lot. Cad? You bet. But the average home user at the present time, I just don't see the advantage.

From my business point of view, competative in the market means bringing a unit in within a very small margin of other industry quotes. For that, we give them the best bang for the buck within the end user's budget. An additional 4 gb of ram the people on this forum and others may go for costwise, I would myself, but the vast bulk of client order the minimum ability to run ram whatever our advice and they won't ante up, because that will add significantly to the overall unit cost. Microsofts big sell. their next big thing at the last developers conference I attended for the near future is zero touch deployment, and cloud computing. To me, I see microsoft trying to have it both ways because typical workstations are going smaller ram, not in gb increments from what they have now.

I'm sold on the 64 bit os, as soon as I have a need for it, but it's way too early for everyone to jump on the bandwagon. I cant wait till we see the numbers from Dell, HP and Toshiba once windows 7 has gone retail for six or nine months. The bulk of users out there don't visit forums, are not capable of teching their own pc issues, and I don't believe will willingly pay for the additional hardware cost.

You bring up some very good points ittech.
I also am sold on 64bit but I actually have few s'ware titles (if any) that are truly written to take advantage of 64bit. I mainly went to 64bit with Vista because my new build had 4G's RAM and I didn't want to waste even the 600+MB's that 32bit can't address.

BTW, my last trip to Halifax was 3 days after "Juan" left...what a mess. What area you in?

Yea
I've always used 64
I dont understand why not 64.

one thing "sanboxing"....

i loved sanboxing my apps (used sanboxie) but now (with patchguard) this author stop developing it for x64 alltogether...

i know i know you can use steady state and pc safeguard but i want on a app basis not on machine basis....

i mean i know that ms is doing something good by stoping kernel patching but i want something that can either apply the same ideal in sanboxing as sanboxie or something better...

and i know ms is onto it as i there have been hints on this (think virtualization and companies that have been bought by MS)...

While I do agree with most of your points, the thing is, why not?

If the person were to read the article in question, they likely have enough PC experience to sort out minor problems on their own through a quick google search. As the article states, the people who should go 64 bit are the people geeky enough to be reading that article.

Most 32 bit apps run at least a little bit quicker, and overall graphics do too. I think most users won't find issues running apps and drivers. The only issue I find is that my palm centro can't sync through USB with my PC. But some sacrifices have to be made. The people who are reading said article will most likely run it on a separate drive or partition anyways, like I am.

As a side note, I find it very stupid that Aero doesn't run smoothly on many retail PCs today. Usually when I walk into a PC store, I'll simply press Win+Tab to get a rough estimate of Aero performance on the PC very quickly. I honestly think its ridiculous that effects like flip 3D don't look smooth on many PCs today, regardless of how cheap they are.

I have been running 64 bit for over a year now and have installed 8 gig of ram the machine runs perfectly but some of the manufacturers are a bit slow in updating software but most 32 bit software runs fine

everybody here seems to forget that 90% of the people who run windows don't know the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit. moreover, they wouldn't notice a difference if they upgraded.

64 bit is for power users, and it will remain this way until 32 bit is no longer widely available, simply because nobody knows what it is.