Nearly half of Windows 7 installations are 64-bit

BCXtreme said:

I know you gain hardware-backed DEP, and Kernel Patch Protection (or at least you did in Vista x64), but then you lose 16-bit app support, 32-bit driver support, and the ability to install unsigned drivers. That's why I've typically felt that 64-bit was only really necessary on systems with higher RAM.

Obviously I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time (just ask some of the other members ). But don't forget, Microsoft's minimum requirements can be misleading. They said Vista could run on 512MB of RAM, and I and others I knew could barely get it to move on even 1GB.

Unless you are using Windows 95/98 then 16-bit application support is moot. His hardware is current enough to have 64-bit drivers. Both of those are unrelated to meeting minimum requirements for RAM.

Actually, the minimum for Windows Vista is 1GB RAM. Reference: Windows Vista system requirements - Microsoft Windows

I will admit though that Windows Vista was a bit more hardware intensive than that and needed at least 2GB minimum. Everyone that I know that had a desktop with Windows Vista and complained about it's performance had 1GB RAM. I'd suggest they double that to 2GB and also add a separate 128MB DX9 graphics card (for Aero) and all the complaints would go away.

I'd say 2GB minimum for Windows 7 x64 sounds normal. Now if you are going to be gaming at all then 4GB is your minimum.

The installed base of 64-bit (x64) Windows 7 has reached 46% in June 2010, vs. 54% for 32-bit (x86) Windows 7, according to statistics released by Microsoft. It is clear from the data shared by the Redmond company that end users are starting to choose x64 systems and equivalent Windows 7 editions over older x86 architectures. The software giant underlines that this is an increasing trend, and that it expects 64-bit Windows 7 to become the norm, and 32-bit Windows 7 the exception. Of course, the question now is, what will the future hold for Windows 8?

Windows 8: 32-bit vs. 64-bit - It will be interesting to see what the future holds for Windows 7's successor - Softpedia

It's very simple to me. Windows 32 is for yesterday and Windows 64 is for today and tomorrow. I don't notice any slow down using 4 gigs of ram. My next computer will have 8 gigs of ram. (I don't play games on line). I have found very few programs that I want that I can't find in 64 bit. There are 64 bit programs added every few days. With the very large increase in Windows 64 as JMH has posted things will get better for 64 bit. Other companies that see that increase will read the writing on the wall and pick up their pace switching to 64 bit. For those like me that have a pile of old 32 bit programs on c/d that work but not quite correctly will just have bite the bullet and buy them again in 64 bit or in some cases can update them to 64 bit. That's just the way it is in today's computer world.

I would like to see some more detail to the numbers of what the 32 bit Win7 are on. I'm tipping that with the hype of netbooks, the figures would be at least 15% -30% of the 32 bit installs are on netbooks/Ultra-Portables (whatever people want to call them).

I have been running 64 bit versions of Windows for around 5 years now, yes, sometimes software is hard to come by that has 64 bit versions available, but I have always had more than one PC operating at home (currently have 5, don't tell the wife), and there is always one that has 32 bit.

I say Windows 8 (or a special Windows 7.5 edition) should be released as 64 bit only OS. It has it's advantages to such a gamble, however, a gamble that would strongly rely on the hardware manufacturers releasing good quality drivers. Microsoft should take a balls to the wall approach on cramming 64 bit down the throats of the big PC companies, the end product would be PC specs that were well planned and not underpowered money wasters like we have seen in the past and present.
And that's my long winded 2 cents

Regards,
Thorn

i'm wondering how many people said we don't need 32-bits back in the day, or 16-, 8- etc

neo-phobes find it difficult to adapt to change - i'm glad we don't still live in caves.

i'm reminded of that often-repeated-but-maybe-not-true bill gates quote, something like “640K ought to be enough for anybody.”