Windows 7 Forums

Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: did I install the wrong windows?

14 Jun 2009   #11
jw12345

Windows 7
 
 

Does anybody have any controlled benchmarks comparing 32 vs 64-bit? I run x64 because of having 8GB of memory, but to say that 64-bit is unequivalently better isn't the whole truth. All the benchmarks I've seen only show single digit differences either way depending on memory size, and personally I think having incompatible apps isn't worth that tradeoff. Onenote 2007 can't use the printer driver and some of the OCR stuff I believe on x64, gadgets that use flash break because sidebar runs as x64 by default, and as I mentioned my ti-89 calculator doesn't have the drivers to sync. Though I've gotten around these issues: onenote 2010 fixes the issue, you can just replace the sidebar executable with the x32 version, and I have another x32 pc to occasionally sync the calculator, and there are tons of other little incompatibilities that exist that may or may not affect you. I've yet to see any evidence that switching to 64-bit on 3gb or less has any benefit at the moment.


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
14 Jun 2009   #12
Lordbob75

Windows 7 Ultimate x64, Mint 9
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jw12345 View Post
Does anybody have any controlled benchmarks comparing 32 vs 64-bit? I run x64 because of having 8GB of memory, but to say that 64-bit is unequivalently better isn't the whole truth. All the benchmarks I've seen only show single digit differences either way depending on memory size, and personally I think having incompatible apps isn't worth that tradeoff. Onenote 2007 can't use the printer driver and some of the OCR stuff I believe on x64, gadgets that use flash break because sidebar runs as x64 by default, and as I mentioned my ti-89 calculator doesn't have the drivers to sync. (though I've gotten around these issues: onenote 2010 fixes the issue, you can just replace the sidebar executable with the x32 version, and I have another x32 pc to occasionally sync the calculator)
There are many such benchmarks, and none are truly accurate.
Look at it this way: Sometimes x86 is faster, sometimes x64 is.
But you CAN'T look at it like that!
You are using a x64 processor, along with over 4 gigs RAM and other things. There really is no good reason TO use x32 bit!
Yes, there are some other issues, some things don't work right. This is just like the transition from 16 bit to 32 bit. Things will not be perfect until we completely switch over.

~Lordbob
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Jun 2009   #13
jw12345

Windows 7
 
 

I can appreciate wanting to move the computing world up to a better standard, but I think that reality bites and it's a lot easier to stick with the theoretically inferior 32-bit if it doesn't give you problems. Why risk incompatibilities when there's nothing really to gain?

Give it a year or so though, and I'd imagine there will be even fewer manufacturers not putting out 64-bit drivers since even cheapo laptops are running up against the memory barrier. I mean onenote 2007 is recent software (by Microsoft to boot!) and ti-89 calculators are top of the ti line, and both have very serious problems with 64-bit. I consider either of those very good reasons to use 32-bit.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

14 Jun 2009   #14
Lordbob75

Windows 7 Ultimate x64, Mint 9
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jw12345 View Post
I can appreciate wanting to move the computing world up to a better standard, but I think that reality bites and it's a lot easier to stick with the theoretically inferior 32-bit if it doesn't give you problems. Why risk incompatibilities when there's nothing really to gain?
What incompatibilities? There are very few.

~Lordbob
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Jun 2009   #15
jw12345

Windows 7
 
 

You just quoted it 15 minutes ago:

Just from my upgrading to 64-bit: Onenote 2007 can't use the printer driver and some of the OCR stuff I believe on x64, gadgets that use flash break because sidebar runs as x64 by default, ti-89 calculator doesn't have the drivers to sync

Maybe I'm particularly unlucky, but these are all up-to-date common applications that many people use. And I haven't even tested that many programs, there's a good chance every person will run into their own set of issues.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Jun 2009   #16
digitalrurouni

Windows 7 x64 Pro
 
 

Having run both 32 bit and 64 bit, all I can say is that there is virtually no difference unless you are doing multimedia stuff and have a minimum of 4 gb ram then yeah why not go with x64 so you can access all your ram.

x64 DOES indeed use more resources than 32 bit and a simple example is because it has to support both 32 bit and 64 bit applications and also because the pointers used in the OS are well 64 bit vs 32 bit hence more memory usage but it wont matter if you are running 4 gigs

I think the main difference if you were running XP 32 vs XP 64 then yes the performance difference would be quite evident because the 64 bit version besides having 64 bitness well it was written off of a very good rock solid server OS. So any perceived performance difference between those 2 versions is simply that the 64 bit version was written using a more rock solid OS.

That is not the case with 64 bit Windows 7. Its your preference but like I said once you are at 4 gb there really is no reason to NOT use 64 bit. There are no more lack of drivers as it used to be once though some things like SLR cameras and so on you may have a bit of a hard time finding drivers for.

My 2 cents.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Jun 2009   #17
Snufffed

 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by digitalrurouni
Having run both 32 bit and 64 bit, all I can say is that there is virtually no difference unless you are doing multimedia stuff and have a minimum of 4 gb ram then yeah why not go with x64 so you can access all your ram.
Why do you not just patch the x86 for ability to use 4GB Ram.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Jun 2009   #18
fakeasdf

Win 7 Pro x64 x 3, Win 7 Pro x86, Ubuntu 9.04
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jw12345 View Post
Does anybody have any controlled benchmarks comparing 32 vs 64-bit? I run x64 because of having 8GB of memory, but to say that 64-bit is unequivalently better isn't the whole truth. All the benchmarks I've seen only show single digit differences either way depending on memory size, and personally I think having incompatible apps isn't worth that tradeoff. Onenote 2007 can't use the printer driver and some of the OCR stuff I believe on x64, gadgets that use flash break because sidebar runs as x64 by default, and as I mentioned my ti-89 calculator doesn't have the drivers to sync. Though I've gotten around these issues: onenote 2010 fixes the issue, you can just replace the sidebar executable with the x32 version, and I have another x32 pc to occasionally sync the calculator, and there are tons of other little incompatibilities that exist that may or may not affect you. I've yet to see any evidence that switching to 64-bit on 3gb or less has any benefit at the moment.
Check out my signature. It is true that it's difficult to do clean comparisons of 32 bit versus 64 bit when using 64 bit CPU's. Intel 64 (formerly EMT64) and AMD64. If you have a 64 bit CPU, both 64 bit and 32 bit software generally run better on a 64 bit OS than on a 32 bit OS.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Jun 2009   #19
jw12345

Windows 7
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by fakeasdf View Post
Check out my signature. It is true that it's difficult to do clean comparisons of 32 bit versus 64 bit when using 64 bit CPU's. Intel 64 (formerly EMT64) and AMD64. If you have a 64 bit CPU, both 64 bit and 32 bit software generally run better on a 64 bit OS than on a 32 bit OS.
Thanks for the link, but just two points:
1. Saying "Always Yes" simply isn't true. When to comes down to critical apps, it doesn't matter if everything runs 10% faster or whatever. Heck, I don't care if everything runs 150% faster, if I couldn't get onenote working properly, because that's critical software for me, and without it, I couldn't work. Luckily onenote 2010 fixed the issue, or otherwise I'd be selling my extra ram and going back to 32-bit.

2. Personally I would have set the intercepts of those graphs at 0. It's a bit misleading to look at the graph that exaggerates the 10% gain. And on say a 2gb system, the extra memory footprint of 64-bit would cause more paging out and probably kill that advantage.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Jun 2009   #20
DJG

 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jw12345 View Post
I mean onenote 2007 is recent software (by Microsoft to boot!) and ti-89 calculators are top of the ti line, and both have very serious problems with 64-bit. I consider either of those very good reasons to use 32-bit.
That's why you should use HP calculators ... unless you can't hack RPN of course .

The only benchmark I have between 32-bit and 64-bit, and I'll grant it's not a common one and originally 32-bit XP vs. 64-bit XP, but for me a real deal-breaker/maker, is my image backup. 32-bit XP times for the 500GB data volume was a little over 2 hours. For 64-bit it went down to 54 minutes, same hardware and backup program (Paragon's Drive Backup 2008 Server Express). My XP vs. Win 7 times are fairly equivalent in 64-bit. I imagine a lot of it is how the buffering is handled, but you can't dismiss a 100% improvement on a common and important long process.

In general things are noticeably snappier in x64 for me to a lesser and larger extent, the afore-mentioned image backup being on the extreme side of "good". I do have a substantial workstation which can take full advantage, and my Lenovo tablet has 4GB and a snappy SSD, so YMMV.

Either way, there's no "wrong" version of Win 7 here, just try them both. You could do x64 and see if you have any pain points, and if so then try x86.

One thing I do recommend regardless is a good backup / restore process you can rely on that works under both x64 and x86.

DJ
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 did I install the wrong windows?




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Windows 7 64 bit fresh install wrong partion.
I need some help because I just installed my new ssd and the system reserved partion stayed on my noraml hdd that i plan on using just for storage. I know where I screwed up. I left the old hard drive in while i was installing the new OS so it made it the way it is now. I really need some...
Installation & Setup
SSD Issues with Windows Install? Drive Space wrong?
Hi everyone. I did a new install of Windows yesterday and installed only what I really needed. The SSD is 120GB, but is 111GB for obvious reasons. Well, I almost ran out of space yesterday and I have no idea out. If I highlight all of my folders on the drive and check the properties it...
General Discussion
Windows 7 Re-install went horribly wrong
Hello! I've got a bit of an issue on my hand. Windows was being re-installed on my laptop from the partition. Unfortunately, the laptop shut off for unknown reasons - it was on charge and had a full battery, flipped open, and uninterrupted but it still shut off. Since then, I've not been able...
Backup and Restore
Wrong time on clock after windows re-install
Following windows updates on Wed my pc wouldn't start any more and I had to factory rset it and lose 14 years od data unless my cloud storage system will work which it wont at the moment. One problem I have is my windows clock is showing 10 hours ahead and tomorrows date despite being in the...
General Discussion
Windows re-install gone wrong; can't boot from Hard drive - Help
I installed a new HD and cloned my old drive onto it. MS then kept reporting that the windows installation was not genuine, but that is another story on another thread, and is given here only to provide a 'background'. I have therefore been trying to do a clean re-install windows 7 Home premium...
Installation & Setup
Cant install windows seven or vista.Whats wrong?
i have installed my windows 7 in the past and today i got my pc back from geek squad this is the second consecutive time i have sent it to theam it came back from repair with windows vista on it they used the windows vista cds i gave theam but when i tryed to install windows 7 or vista the screen...
Installation & Setup


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:56.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App