Nearly half of Windows 7 installations are 64-bit

vierasniper · 09 Jul 2010

i was under the impression that 64x was new and not alot of people had it. but i must says i am a fan. having plenty of RAM myself. i haven't really experienced any slow downs.

JonM33 · 09 Jul 2010

I have been running only x64 since Windows Vista.

Lebon14 · 09 Jul 2010

I am part of the 54% having installed a 32-bits version. I am happy with it at the moment. No reason to upgrade to 64-bits with my current setup anyway.

WindowsStar · 09 Jul 2010

I have been 64bit since Windows XP came out 64bit, mostly because I wanted to try it since I had used Servers in 64bit. Once I got used to it I really liked how my Window XP 64bit ran faster and had less issues. At the time viruses were non-existent and I loved that too.

BCXtreme · 09 Jul 2010

Lebon14 said:

I am part of the 54% having installed a 32-bits version. I am happy with it at the moment. No reason to upgrade to 64-bits with my current setup anyway.

Wise, based on your System Specs, 64-bit might not even let you install it, much less run well.

JonM33 · 09 Jul 2010

BCXtreme said:

Lebon14 said:

I am part of the 54% having installed a 32-bits version. I am happy with it at the moment. No reason to upgrade to 64-bits with my current setup anyway.

Wise, based on your System Specs, 64-bit might not even let you install it, much less run well.

Why not? He has a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo E6600, 2GB DDR2 and a GeForce 8500GT (DX10, 512MB video memory).

Those all meet or exceed Windows 7 x64 requirements.

johnwillyums · 09 Jul 2010

I got a new rig (Q6600, 4GB RAM) when Vista came out and went to 64bit. When everybody was moaning about how terrible Vista was I had no problems at all. No stability problems and no compatibility problems. My 2 year old Canon printer was not an issue and I'm still using it now.
As soon as the W7 beta came along I got the 64bit version and that has been my main OS ever since.
I now use 6GB of DDR3 and it runs like a dream.

To address the topic. A Dell leaflet fell out of my newspaper today and I noticed that all their desktops and laptops came with 64bit as standard.

BCXtreme · 09 Jul 2010

JonM33 said:

BCXtreme said:

Lebon14 said:

I am part of the 54% having installed a 32-bits version. I am happy with it at the moment. No reason to upgrade to 64-bits with my current setup anyway.

Wise, based on your System Specs, 64-bit might not even let you install it, much less run well.

Why not? He has a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo E6600, 2GB DDR2 and a GeForce 8500GT (DX10, 512MB video memory).

Those all meet or exceed Windows 7 x64 requirements.

OK, maybe it would install then. I've never loaded x64 on anything else than 4GB, so I was going on that (since I know that is the point at which 64-bit becomes even slightly useful). But 2GB doesn't allow you to take advantage of 64-bit capabilities, so there would be no point to upgrading.

JonM33 · 09 Jul 2010

BCXtreme said:

OK, maybe it would install then. I've never loaded x64 on anything else than 4GB, so I was going on that (since I know that is the point at which 64-bit becomes even slightly useful). But 2GB doesn't allow you to take advantage of 64-bit capabilities, so there would be no point to upgrading.

The minimum requirement according to Microsoft is 2GB RAM.

He will be able to take advantage of 64-bit capabilities. He just won't be able to benefit from the higher addressable memory. There's more to 64-bit than just that.

BCXtreme · 09 Jul 2010

JonM33 said:

BCXtreme said:

OK, maybe it would install then. I've never loaded x64 on anything else than 4GB, so I was going on that (since I know that is the point at which 64-bit becomes even slightly useful). But 2GB doesn't allow you to take advantage of 64-bit capabilities, so there would be no point to upgrading.

The minimum requirement according to Microsoft is 2GB RAM.

He will be able to take advantage of 64-bit capabilities. He just won't be able to benefit from the higher addressable memory. There's more to 64-bit than just that.

I know you gain hardware-backed DEP, and Kernel Patch Protection (or at least you did in Vista x64), but then you lose 16-bit app support, 32-bit driver support, and the ability to install unsigned drivers. That's why I've typically felt that 64-bit was only really necessary on systems with higher RAM.

Obviously I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time (just ask some of the other members

). But don't forget, Microsoft's minimum requirements can be misleading. They said Vista could run on 512MB of RAM, and I and others I knew could barely get it to move on even 1GB.