Why get Windows 7 64bit

absolute3d said:

64bit it's the minimal spec for a CG artist, that works with 3d studio max/vray/mentalray etc. You'll need a lot of physical ram to finish a detailed rendering

This is one of the reasons why someone should use a 64-bit OS and programs :)

Byez

Exactly

Disney, Pixar, Lucas and Dreamworks SKG need it, but not me. Although I wish I could learn those 3D programs.

(Note: Dreamworks may not need it now as they have split the animation - I think?)

Here is the knockout for me below, from one of the previous posters links...

64-bit therefore refers to a processor with registers that store 64-bit numbers. A generalization would be to suggest that 64-bit architecture would double the amount of data a CPU can process per clock cycle. Users would note a performance increase because a 64-bit CPU can handle more memory and larger files. One of the most attractive features of 64-bit processors is the amount of memory the system can support. 64-bit architecture will allow systems to address up to 1 terabyte (1000GB) of memory. In today's 32-bit desktop systems, you can have up to 4GB of RAM (provided your motherboard that can handle that much RAM) which is split between the applications and the operating system (OS).

The majority of desktop computers today don't even have 4GB of memory installed, and most small business and home desktop computer software do not require that much memory either. As more complex software and 3D games become available however, we could actually see this become a limitation, but for the average home user that is very far down the road indeed.

Unfortunately, most benefits of a 64-bit CPU will go unnoticed without the key components of a 64-bit operating system and 64-bit software and drivers which are able to take advantage of 64-bit processor features. Additionally for the average home computer user, 32-bits is more than adequate computing power.

When making the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit desktop PCs, users won't actually see Web browsers and word processing programs run faster. Benefits of 64-bit processors would be seen with more demanding applications such as video encoding, scientific research, searching massive databases; tasks where being able to load massive amounts of data into the system's memory is required.

Right now, the biggest difference most users will see in a 64bit environment, is the ability to address a larger amount of RAM. Of course more RAM always equals better overall performance but in normal operations you won't notice any big gains with 64bit, except in programs that are specifically written to take advantage of 64bit architecture.
Drivers are really almost a non-issue these days for 64bit. A couple years ago there were many devices that didn't have 64bit drivers but that's pretty much taken care of now, only a very small few devices may not have drivers still but they better get on with it because more and more users are going 64bit and they'll lose customers if they don't get on it.

Most 32bit programs run just fine on 64bit due to the emulation layer, personally I think I have 1 program (out of 100's) that can't run on my 64bit system, and I've found another to replace it anyway so no prob there.

Very soon tho, most s'ware titles will be written for 64bit, and OS's will be 64bit only. Once programs are written to take advantage of 64bit and multiple cores, then we'll see a performance upgrade in how well and fast it can work. That's the way things are going, and I can't see 32bit going on too much longer. Really, going to 64bit as soon as you can is probably what I would say to do, but if you have a program you simply can't live without, and it won't run on 64bit (unlikely but possible), then I guess you're forced to stay 32bit.

While I haven't seen any great improvements in most areas since I went 64bit, I can also say that I would NOT go back to 32bit without an extremely compelling reason, and that just aint happening.

jfar said:

Hi,Chapy, good read and well written,I couldn't have said it better my self.

Thanx jfar...I try

The problem with progress is some folks balk at it when what they have is "good enough."

There are many, many issues with 32-bit OS, and for the most part, the issues are in the OS, not something the casual user will see, its the techs that waste their time fixing the issues because the 32 bit is "ok" and the simple swap to 64 was avoided because of that.

Regardless, a 64bit OS would be "good enough" as well for the casual user... I very much doubt they will see any diffrence, and with folks still on 32-bit it gives the techs less time to work on 64-bit and making computer life generally better.

So I agree 32bit is "good enough" but I think it's time to leave it behind, so everyone can stop wasting time with an outdated code, that will just slow everyone down.

actually the ram issue is not dependent on whether the OS is 64 or not
it is also dependent on how a 32 bit OS uses PAE
from what i can remember from Win Serv 2003 (Enterprise as Workstation is 4gb max as with XP and Vista) you can actually address more than 4gb of ram (cant remember the exact # out of my head) since PAE is enabled...

linux (any current distro will do) can address more ram than Win can in 32 bit because Win 32 sets a artificial barrier for compatibility (driver-wise).

that out of the way
@Chappy
yes Windows 2008 R2 (which im loving right now...) has now began to remove this layer by default and has really taken a good chunk of code that needs to be run (that WOW64 is a really big chunk..) of course this can be brought back but that now that this layer can be remove sends a message to me and to others that 32 will go...
( even vista still had limited support for NTVDM and has the ability to run 16 bit code while limited its still possible...)
Win64 has eliminated this 16 emulation layer and i believe that until Win128 then they will completely remove the 32 layer (as i see then most apps will be running 64 bit anyways)
the mainstream migration to 64 will take some time (i believe that it was same for the 16 to 32 bit also....)


@maddog: i completely agree....
most users wont see the difference until something that *specifically* requires 64 bit computing (games are getting closer and close for mainstream users) and devs can make good usuage of double floating point (which i cant see that happening)

security and stability options such as given by Windows 64 (such as ASLR and 64 driver signing and blocked kernel patching) are not seen by the mainsteam user as something that would wow them into using 64 bit Win because they have heard *things* that appA doesnt work in win64 and are scared that there appB wont work and so they go with something that "just works".
While i agree that most Compat issues are long gone and those little that are out there are by unsupported apps/hardware that are long gone or where update to be compatible is there, unless they can wow the user by showing them how secure 64 is i dont really see 64 becoming mainstream (also hp defaulting in CTO models (others apply) to 32 bit win does not really help either) and since you dont usually see any performace gains (apart from VM really since *most* apps dont really use more than 2gbs (i did say most as i use Auto cad 2009 and you will see a reason for using 64 auto cad instead...)

until people have a use for that ram and processing power that 64 bit (or even 128 bit...) i can actually see the cloud stopping mainstream use of these machines as all the processing will be done by servers and since really most users do is go online, check email, maybe play a simple game, write a memo or type a letter these users dont need the extra processing power 64 gives....
i have been only concentrating on 64 in general because that is what most users see...
Win64 really is more secure than Win32 because like i said 64 blocks kernel patching which is a big thing to most....

i actually feel a little more safer to know that Win64 makes it a lot more harder for hackers and virus writers to be able to exploit such bugs in Windows....
i would never dream of running Win32 without antivir (which i do run for my server machine....)


@angryman
i would believe it will take some time ( like i said above) for mainstream to switch...
i especially concur on reasoning with a example of bluray...
if you dont have a HDTV and you have a regular tv and dvd player why get bluray?
i dont really need bluray as DVD's quality is *good* *enough* for me....
and even if i do get HDTV is there really a difference i can see without squinting my eyes at the TV?
(also this is my POV as of now, i still have a VHS player and a bunch of VHS tapes [which include homemade] and until HD cameras (as i do have a dvd Video camera)go down in price i dont really see the incentive for me a home user, which is different from my business POV or Educational POV in which i would say if you have the money go for latest standard out there since your going to look better to an employer (in the case of student) or to an investor (in the case of a business) and while i have used HD cameras like i said most people like me dont really see the incentive (at least those who dont have HDTV (while i do have one i dont see a real difference when watching regular TV and when one of my friends hooks up his bluray player..)....

MadDog56 said:

As for drivers it's not as easy as some have mentioned. Yes there are 64 bit drivers for most products, but it's not a surprise to find ones that are unstable or reduce the capabilities of the device from what the 32 bit driver can do. Sure they will continue to release newer, better drivers but as long as the 64 bit crowd is the vast minority so shall the drivers be less of a priority.

Hi MD (and DA)

This is the only part I have a slight disagreement with.
Hardware makers all realize that 64bit is not only on the horizon, it's here and it is the way the OS's are going. Anybody who's still holding off on building 64bit drivers is now the minority and the longer they go without developing them, the more $$ they can potentially lose as more users are looking 64bit and will pass up on devices that aren't supporting 64bit yet.
I haven't seen any 64bit driver that doesn't offer the same or better functionality than it's 32bit counterpart yet, but of course that's just within my own setup and immediate friends setups. I have no doubt they exist but I don't think for much longer. With the release of W7 coming soon, and all the hype of it's favorable press lately, there's going to be a huge jump in new user machines built and in OEM machines for those making the XP leap, that are most likely going to be a majority of 64bit builds. And like I said before...any manufacturers that aren't fully supporting 64bit yet are going to find themselves behind their competition that is, so they better get their a$$e$ in gear or close their doors.

I look at it this way, if your machine is 64bit capable, why go or stay 32bit? It's no more $$ to get a 64bit OS over a 32bit one, and h'ware designed for 64bit will have drivers.
And if you're looking to build or do a major upgrade anytime soon, why go with a technology that's clearly on it's way out? I'd pretty much bet the farm that MS's next OS after W7 is going to be 64bit ONLY, they seriously want this to be the case and I don't see them making any concessions next time just because a few aren't quite ready for it. We all know 64bit is the future and we can help get that future here quicker by adopting 64bit over 32bit whenever possible.

That said, this is a Great thread and some very good points made both ways. I guess we'll always have both sides of this story having decent arguments for why one thinks the way they do, but all this can only help those who're on the fence make that decision. It gives them ideas to weigh out and in their own minds an opinion will start to form either way.
I've happily been running 64bit for over 2 years now, with no driver issues at all (unlike the first few months ), and future upgrades can be done in increments instead of having to go all out, so there's a bit of flexibility for the future in hand. I do notice a major increase in a few intense rendering apps from 64bit and that's already worth the upgrade for me.
Personally I would like to see this 32 or 64bit stuff over with ASAP, and get rid of 32bit forever. The longer this goes on, the more it costs everyone money. Programmers have to spend extra time developing both sides of their stuff, h'ware makers also spend extra time building reverse compatibility in their drivers, and MS has to bloat their OS development time by having to build both OS's. It's going to benefit ALL of us if we can just get 32bit outta here as quick as possible, and the more people who adopt 64bit, the faster that day will come.

Gosh..I started out writing my $.02 worth and ended up with about $1.05 (Freedom costs a buck-O-five)