32 bit or 64 bit OS?

[valtonray]

64 bit is rubbish, after a while it slows down. Start up time was increased by atleast 6 secs for me and i had a few friends with games that worked on 64-bit but not very well at all, to me it still needs work. I have gone back to 32-bit, although i loose a bit of ram, it makes no difference because 64 takes more to run anyway so im using the same percentage as on 64-bit. about 1,15GB in 64, 900MB in 32.

this is ignorance. any os is going to have a slower boot time the longer it's used if not maintained. the 64 bit architecture allows better multitasking due to the higher levels of ram, there are few programs that will not work and don't have alternatives but that is up to the developers of the programs and is not a windows issue. the 64 bit os will grow in dominance as more users migrate to windows 7 and the 32 bit is going to die off, i'd actually be suprised to see a 32 bit windows 8

 

[D3ftOn3Z]

64Bit FTW..

 

[kbrady]

Thank you for the run down!

Thank you. I appreciate the basic run down. That matches my experience. I guess to figure out what is using what resources I would start with TaskManager and go from there. Any tips appreciated. This is helpful.


Kevin

I am trying to sort of figure out how to 64-bit Windows deals with memory. The main reason is that I am using Dragon NaturallySpeaking 10.0 preferred which is a voice-recognition package. It is known that this will temporarily freeze when it runs out of memory. Sometimes it returns a report that it is attempting to recover from low system resources.

In Windows, the term "System Resources" does not mean memory, well, it does, but not the systems memory.

Windows contains a number of "pools" of memory called "heaps", these heaps are referred to as "System Resources" and refer to areas of memory reserved for graphics objects, fonts, file handles, and window objects. Some kinds of apps use ridiculous amounts of these resources and leave them low for other apps, and when you have several apps that use ridiculous amounts (or have resource leaks), then you run into trouble.

You can have 8GB of memory free and still run out of system resources. This is one of those "annoyances" about the architecture of Windows that we just have to deal with.

The only real solution is to find out what's using all your resources and not run those apps.

 

[Ritter197]

BUT - strangely enough, Windows 7, 64 bit does not allow its very own Speech Recognition to work. Even though it runs trough all the exercises fine, but when you want to use it, then Speech Recognition does not work.
Even on a fast, Intel Q8200 and 6 GB RAM machine.

 

[F1FAN]

64 bit is rubbish, after a while it slows down. Start up time was increased by atleast 6 secs for me and i had a few friends with games that worked on 64-bit but not very well at all, to me it still needs work. I have gone back to 32-bit, although i loose a bit of ram, it makes no difference because 64 takes more to run anyway so im using the same percentage as on 64-bit. about 1,15GB in 64, 900MB in 32.

this is ignorance. any os is going to have a slower boot time the longer it's used if not maintained. the 64 bit architecture allows better multitasking due to the higher levels of ram, there are few programs that will not work and don't have alternatives but that is up to the developers of the programs and is not a windows issue. the 64 bit os will grow in dominance as more users migrate to windows 7 and the 32 bit is going to die off, i'd actually be suprised to see a 32 bit windows 8

yep, and until that time comes, im sticking with 32. why would i want a slower system, higher resource system for no reason?

 

[victor96]

i think windows 7 32 bits is more cool

 

[Tepid]

64 bit is rubbish, after a while it slows down. Start up time was increased by atleast 6 secs for me and i had a few friends with games that worked on 64-bit but not very well at all, to me it still needs work. I have gone back to 32-bit, although i loose a bit of ram, it makes no difference because 64 takes more to run anyway so im using the same percentage as on 64-bit. about 1,15GB in 64, 900MB in 32.

this is ignorance. any os is going to have a slower boot time the longer it's used if not maintained. the 64 bit architecture allows better multitasking due to the higher levels of ram, there are few programs that will not work and don't have alternatives but that is up to the developers of the programs and is not a windows issue. the 64 bit os will grow in dominance as more users migrate to windows 7 and the 32 bit is going to die off, i'd actually be suprised to see a 32 bit windows 8

yep, and until that time comes, im sticking with 32. why would i want a slower system, higher resource system for no reason?

I have to agree with valtonray on this one. 7 should have been 64bit only.
As 8 should be.

For the record, I am running 32bit only because Hauppauge refuse to fix their software for 64bit with 4G of ram and call it a Windows problem. looking for new TV card and dump Hauppauge. Then I will install 64bit and be done with 32bit.

 

[pparks1]

I have to agree with valtonray on this one. 7 should have been 64bit only.
As 8 should be.

Absolutely have to disagree with this. For example, at my job, we don't have a VPN client for our CheckPoint firewall device that supports 64-bit. At my last job, they didn't and still don't have a Cisco VPN client which supports 64-bit. While there are options from both vendors available, they can costs tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade to...so in todays economy it's something that you cannot take lightly.

 

[Tepid]

I have to agree with valtonray on this one. 7 should have been 64bit only.
As 8 should be.

Absolutely have to disagree with this. For example, at my job, we don't have a VPN client for our CheckPoint firewall device that supports 64-bit. At my last job, they didn't and still don't have a Cisco VPN client which supports 64-bit. While there are options from both vendors available, they can costs tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade to...so in todays economy it's something that you cannot take lightly.

There are always exceptions. As in both of our cases.
My response is to F1Fan and valtonray.

However,, if MS would force the issue and go straight 64bit, then these companies would not be able to ignore 64bit clients. They would have to cater to them or get left behind. Someone will pick up where others slack, and that is what is needed right now with 64bit support. They don't have to yet because the issue is not being pushed hard enough. But that will soon change.

Think 9x to XP (16bit to 32bit) same concept here.

 

[pparks1]

However,, if MS would force the issue and go straight 64bit, then these companies would not be able to ignore 64bit clients. They would have to cater to them or get left behind.

Like I said, these companies often have solutions, but they involve having to change the VPN hardware and going to VPN clients which are SSL certificate based. This can cost business tens of thousands of dollars to make the move. And these are companies like Cisco and Checkpoint...they aren't going to get left behind in the marketplace.

Personally, on my home computer, Windows 7 is the first time that I have ever run a 64-bit operating system. I've got a couple of hardware devices that don't have 64-bit drivers...but I just left them connected to an old WinXP machine that I have. So, I think that 64-bit is finally making inroads..but it's not really ready for the masses as they only available option. I mean if nerds like me who are server admins for a living are just getting around to getting comfortable, it means that the average computer user is going to take some time.

 

[Tepid]

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.

 

[pparks1]

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]

While I agree that the majority of software atm is still 32bit, and a 64bit OS offers no real improvement for these apps, I think its also fair to point out a large amount of software providers are now offering offer both 64 and 32bit versions of thier software.
The amount of 64bit being avalaible is growing more and more every day.

Not to mention, since Windows 7 x64, theres very few things that have issues. At least in my experience.
What apps do have issues under the 64bitOS, theres usually a fix, patch, or upgraded version of that software that complies.

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.

32bit will (and is) dying out. Its just eveolution of technology.

I would guess within the next couple years 64bit will have a even stronger foothold, and 32bit will begin to be phased out quicker.

 

[pparks1]

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.

 

[Tepid]

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.

 

[pparks1]

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.

 

[Tepid]

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.

 

[pparks1]

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.