32 bit or 64 bit OS?

If we did that and waited around for people to feel comfortable, we would all still be using 98SE.
It is deja vu all over again. This change from XP to Vista/7 is a complete and identical total repeat of 9x to XP.
So many people complained and moaned and swore up and down they would never switch and if they did, they were switching to Linux, blah blah blah blah and on and on.

All those same people are saying the exact same thing again, Change happens. Get with it, or get left behind.

So,, I'm sorry, I don't agree.

Honestly,, if I thought it could happen,, I would say skip x64 and force x128 or x256.
Time to evolve, it has been far too long with XP and 32bit. it's old.

Tepid said:

Change happens. Get with it, or get left behind.
So,, I'm sorry, I don't agree.

I'm not saying that change isn't a good thing. I just think that today it's still valuable to offer both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the operating system. At home, I run 64-bit and have no problems. But at work, I use 32-bit because I do have problems.

And since about 85%+ of all of the software that I use is 32-bit only I don't see a big benefit to being on 64-bit aside from getting full use of my 4GB+ of RAM. I don't hardly experience any performances differences between 32 and 64 bit version of Windows 7.

So, I still think that making Windows 7 a 64-bit exclusive would have been substantially reducing their install base. Just think of all of the computer amateurs who would be having all kinds of hardware issues as they didn't realize they needed 64-bit drivers for their hardware.

Wishmaster said:

IMHO, theres no reason in this day and time to stick with a 32bit system. The advantages of 64bit far outwiegh the cons of staying with 32bit.

Unless of course you have hardware peripherals that you must use which don't have 64-bit support. Or like I mentioned earlier, many corporate VPN solutions are stuck with 32-bit support only...so if you are required to connect remotely, you may be forced to using a 32-bit system to do it. And while it is possible to use a 32-bit VM and run the VPN from there...not having direct access to all installed applications on the host in that VPN session is often a real issue.

I agree that if you aren't limited by any known issues, you might as well go 64-bit.

Everything just boils down to your experience and your requirements. Many of us here have very different backgrounds and have seen and experienced many different things throughout or lives which bring us to our opinions. And I truly don't think that the majority (50% of home computer users), really benefit in any way whatsoever from 64-bit computing. Most people can happily surf the web, read facebook, listen to iTunes, draft emails and watch movies in a 32-bit system.

Just think of all of the computer amateurs who would be having all kinds of hardware issues as they didn't realize they needed 64-bit drivers for their hardware.

It wouldn't matter, cause there wouldn't be a choice. As there is now.
It wouldn't matter and we wouldn't see these threads, cause there wouldn't be a choice
Like there wasn't when switching to XP.

Again, deja vu.

And trust me, these companies would fix their software. As they did during the XP switch.
Don't even believe for a second that they wouldn't if they didn't have a choice as they do now.

[QUOTE=Tepid;539786]

It wouldn't matter and we wouldn't see these threads, cause there wouldn't be a choice.

The choice would be that many of these users would simply stick to XP or Vista. Unfortunately we have lived for a very long time in a 32 bit world and people are far more dependent upon their computers and all of the add-on things that they have purchased which integrate with the computers and simply ignoring this large of a percentage of the market would be a big mistake in my opinion.

I just don't see where the majority of computing users are really going to benefit greatly in 2010 from having to use a 64-bit OS.

What is the major advantage that you see if 64-bit is the only option? Why would this improve things in your opinion? Is it because you think all hardware manufactures and software vendors would simply offer everything in 64-bit.

I'm just failing to see why being 64-bit only is a major advantage.

Again, it comes down to the fact that many companies either don't offer, or offer a limited supported 64bit version of their software. They make it expensive cause they aren't fully working on it. It's like when any new hardware comes out, the price is ridiculous till it's in mass production, then the cost drops.

Trust me, if 64bit were all that was available and all new systems were sold with only 64bit OS,

You seriously think that these companies wouldn't be jumping to fix their software?
Just liek they didn't jump to fix their drivers and software for Vista when they realized they had no choice.
Trust me,,, yes they would.

I'm sorry,, I trapped in Deja Vu Twilight Zone moment here. And I am only going to say that you are wrong about this Parks,, it's history repeating itself.

Infact,, I saw all these same arguments from,,,, 3.1 to 95, to 98SE, to ME, to 2000 to XP.

Tepid said:

You seriously think that these companies wouldn't be jumping to fix their software?

I think that some would, and some would simply expect the end-user to purchase a new peripheral that did indeed support 64-bit. For example, I had an NEC SuperScript 870 black and white laser printer. That has no 64-bit driver and never will. NEC simply doesn't care. It's an older model printer and their effort to release the driver would only help a handful of people anyway..so there is no reason for them to put any effort into this. I've also got a Canon lide 35 scanner and Canon has not and is not releasing a 64-bit driver. They are offering a discount to customers who own this towards the purchase of a new model which has 64-bit driver support.

Like I said, I use and endorse 64-bit systems. I'm an avid user of virtual machines...so my new box has 8GB of RAM to support running a couple of VM's in a lab situation at home. I've switched to some new programs which do support 64-bit and provide performance incentives. I'm happy to make sacrifices and put effort into getting into this environment.....but I also see the flip side well that most users just don't have much benefit.

So, I don't see the benefit of MS shutting out some of these customers and some of this old hardware. I mean MS had enough egg on their face with the dismal success of Vista.....following it up with a 64-bit only operating system wouldn't have likely been received very well. I can absolutely guarantee that it would have limited the initial success. In my office, not being able to use that CheckPoint VPN would have been a showstopper. And Checkpoint does offer a 64-bit solution...but like explained above that required our company to buy new devices and move to an SSL based VPN solution and this would have been an enormous cost which in todays economy would not have been justified simply for the upgrade to Windows 7. We would have skipped it, guaranteed.

I think Windows 7 is the first real MS OS which is getting lots of 64-bit installs. Lots of new machines come with 4GB of RAM and have Windows 7 64-bit by default because of that. This is going to really get it out there. I really don't think that Vista 64-bit was heavily used. So, simply discontinuing 32-bit with Windows 7 would have been a mistake in my opinion. I would not be shocked at all to see at least 1 more client OS offering (windows 8) with 32-bit support.