Why You Should Go 64-Bit With Win7

[VegasDen]

A nice (but short) article on why now is the time to go 64-bit.

Why You Should Go 64-bit with Windows 7 - Gizmodo

 

[garysgold]

The Seven beta is my first x64 OS. Only problem I have with it is now I want 4 more gigs of ram. It'll be in the mail by the end of the week.

Gary

 

[napilopez]

The Seven beta is my first x64 OS. Only problem I have with it is now I want 4 more gigs of ram. It'll be in the mail by the end of the week.

Gary

Same here. I don't know if its the move from 32bit to 64bit, or if its just going from build 6956 to 7000, but my PC runs palpably more smoothly. Probably a bit of both. I only have 2 gigs or RAM though =P. Particularly I've noticed improvements in Aero. Its like my effects are running at 50fps as oppose to the previous 25, to make kind of an analogy. I'm running old manufacturer drivers(nvidia default drivers wont work for me), and it all runs very smoothly. It was like before it was smooth, but now its like, uber smooth.

 

[Dzomlija]

This is a non-issue for me, really, seeing as I made the switch to x64 when I moved from Windows XP Professional x86 to Vista x64 Ultimate nearly 2 years ago.

But I must note that with Windows 7, I believe that x64 will truly become mainstream, because performance is improved. The way I see it, Microsoft "tested the waters" when they released Windows XP x64, to gauge consumer acceptance. From there, they decided that x64 adoption would be good enough to warrant releasing Vista in x64.

Currently, Vista x86 is more widespread than Vista x64. I think now that Microsoft has had sufficient time to tweak the system, and that hardware manufacturers have also finally caught on, Windows 7 x64 will enjoy a greater market share compared to Windows 7 x86.

It's about time too. The 32-Bit architechture was first introduced with the 80386 processors, and only became mainstream with Windows 95. 32-Bit is old, and if I had anything to say about it, I'd not release Windows 7 x86 at all.

Which is actually what the original Microsoft Windows roadmap was going to do. But because the masses didn't adopt x64 as much as they would have wanted, they made the choice of release it in both x86 and x64.

It's almost a given that whatever it's going to be called, Windows 8 will likely be released in x64 only.

 

[garysgold]

Now that the hardware manufacturers are coming around, maybe a lot more of the software will also start to come around. I think that if people could get more of their major applications in 64 bit they'd be more apt to switch. 32 bit apps on a 64 bit system run a little faster in my experience, but 64 bit apps should 'fly' as they say and that will get folks excited.

Gary

 

[napilopez]

Its a shame some manufacturers still haven't worked on x64 drivers.

*glares at palm*

I just found out today that there are no USB drivers for my palm centro on x64, which is quite unfortunate seeing as my celphone was my main means of internet access. My laptop has a weird problem in that it won't connect to my dorm buildings network without constant disconnectifications. It seems to have a problem conencting to half duplex networks. But oh well. I suppose I'll have to buy a router to get around that.

Oh well, still loving x64 W7. Only other issue I've encountered is google chrome not wanting to work at first, but now its fine.

 

[defrag1720]

While it is very tempting for me to go to 64 bits due to using Photoshop CS4 and several other photo imaging programs, I am not sure what the outcome would be (fixes and upgrades) and can't find the need yet. The machine I converted to Win 7 is a year old Dell 1720 that has 4 gig of RAM in it. The machine sees 3.62 and with a little tweak I was able to get PSCS4 to use 2.6 of the installed RAM. My photo programs run quite well even with RAW files from a 21 megapixel camera.
So perhaps it may be a personal choice for some, or rather, why rock the boat?

 

[johngalt]

The article actually explains *why*.

 

[garysgold]

Here's another article from MS.

Understanding 64-bit PCs

If you're shopping for a new PC you're probably going to come across systems that are designated "64-bit." These are computers running 64-bit editions of Windows Vista, typically with 4GB of memory or more. Compared to 32-bit systems, which top out at around 3GB of memory, 64-bit PCs offer added responsiveness for people who are running a lot of applications at the same time and switching between them frequently.

Both types of PCs are good options; the best choice depends on your particular needs. Here's a little background information and some shopping tips.

What's happening

More

Gary

 

[solsviken]

I guess i could install 64bit on my laptop.

But my Socket 939 - Athlon 3000+ doesnt support 64bit, or ?

 

[ajfaull]

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

 

[solsviken]

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

 

[patrickt]

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.

 

[ittech]

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.

 

[Chappy]

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?

 

[Cobra]

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

 

[darkassain]

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)...

 

[napilopez]

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.

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.

 

[buster52]

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

 

[garbanzo]

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.