64 bit = 32bit?

[Lee]

McBlzr - remember those days quite well. Glad to see you were using the all time best floppy disk reader (1541). Would you believe me if I told you that I traded my C64 and all the goodies (plus about a zillion games) for a Mac Plus (the guy couldn't get it to do anything (didn't know he had to buy software to get it to work).

 

[kenabi]

the amount of ram you have is completely irrelevant when determining your os bits, if you have at least the minimum for the os to install (i'd really like to know how some people have managed to get it working on systems with 512mb of ram >.>)

and frankly, if anything the x86 version will choke just a bit more (not a lot, mind you) than the x64 version on the same machine.

rule of thumb however, is 2+gigs for either, when dealing with vista+ oses

3+gigs of ram is the 'sweet' spot when it comes to system memory and performance. anything higher is only useful if you have applications that load things into memory like photos, videos, 3d rendering. games? 3gigs is fine. you won't notice _any_ difference, really, between 3gigs and 4, if you don't do professional quality video/audio/art.

don't game? don't do professional quality visual/audio work? 2gigs would probably be fine. perhaps not as snappy as 3, but i doubt the average user would notice anyway.

as a side note; if you do any sort of professional quality work as mentioned above, max your ram out on what you can afford/get your computer to recognize, it'll let you have more open/loaded without issues.

 

[Night Hawk]

2gb worked well enough here for XP and Vista both(32bit) for working with video and some plans on CAD as well. The big boost was seen with XP when moving up on one build from 1gb to 2gb there seeing XP become more stable at that time.

Unlike the first issues seen with over 2gb installed with the 64bit Vista running into installation problems the 64bit 7 has been going on and working well with 4gb for both kernels. Despite the 420mb immediate drop realized for the x86 platform the ram hasn't totally gone to waste here like it would for those simply cheching their email and some browsing, shopping online, etc. there.

The big advantage now being seen with both platforms with 7 is not seeing the weight that Vista saw for those running older systems with some actually being pleased running only 512mb! Obviously those are simply running 7 on basic setups and nothing demanding is seen there.

 

[fakeasdf]

You should almost always choose 64 bit over 32 bit if all of the drivers are available for your machine in 64 bit. There are more security features that your 64 bit OS can take advantage of that your 32 bit OS can't...
@Kenabi Thanks for stating this, most people think that their 64 bit OS needs more RAM or something like unto. Yes you need to be running a 64 bit OS in order to access memory more than 4 GB RAM, but you don't need to limit yourself to a 32 bit OS just cause you don't have 4 GB+ RAM.

 

[Night Hawk]

You'll find a good number of people out there running 64bit editions of XP, Vista, and now the 7 builds with only 2gb. Some are running 64bit editions on systems with only 1gb installed!

Once you pass the 512mb to 1gb of free memory available even while gaming you have gone over to some degree what you will use. For multitasking and running demanding games and programs then you consider having some extra onhand to prevent system locks and others problems when running out.

 

[Shuko]

32bit vs 64bit is not just about memory usage, there are other things as well like code execution etc. As it was already said, you should always use 64bit OS on 64bit processor, as long as the programs and drivers you need are available.

 

[Night Hawk]

For the time being most cpus are 32bit ready, 64bit supported not dedicated 64bit processors seen on desktops. As for actual performance results you have to look at a variety things when actual benchmarks are available. Performance Results Comparing 32bit and 64bit Development Environments - MOSS Blog

Another one is from 2004 regarding 64bit computing in general. 64BIT Computing

 

[jimbo45]

with the 2 gigs of memory that you have i would suggest x86

WRONG WRONG WRONG

If you have a 64 bit CPU then it's 100% better to install the 64 bit OS even with 1GB of RAM only. - One exception -- I'll explain later.

I've posted elsewhere how these OS'es work and what happens when you run a 32 bit OS using a 64 bit CPU.

No argument if your CPU is a 32 bit one.

The exception -- some early 64 bit CPU's or Mobo's didn't have VT or the possibility to enable it. (Also for the AMD equivalent -- not sure wht it's called as I only have INTEL CPU's).

In this case the jury is still out on the 64 bit OS question but there aren't a huge number of these left.

You can always add RAM -- most laptops these days have 2 memory slots so 4GB shouldn't be a problem and with Affordable 4GB modules beginning to appear 8GB laptops aren't far off either.

Driver and other issues will be solved very quickly as most people go over to 64 bit.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Night Hawk]

Why is it everyone thinks you need xxxx amount of gigs to run any 64bit Windows? The 64bit edition of XP ran on far less when that came out! Have a look at the old 128mb, 356mb, 512mb, rigs running that at the time(2005)!

 

[jimbo45]

Why is it everyone thinks you need xxxx amount of gigs to run any 64bit Windows? The 64bit edition of XP ran on far less when that came out! Have a look at the old 128mb, 356mb, 512mb, rigs running that at the time(2005)!

Quite.

and as others have said (always assuming there's enough minimum RAM to load the OS in the first place) the amount you have is TOTALLY Irrelevant to deciding whether to use 64 bit or 32 bit.

Case seems to me to be completely closed.

cheers
jimbo

 

[swarfega]

Actually they are different. MS recently announced the minspec which for RAM is: Memory: 1Gb of RAM (32-bit); 2Gb of RAM (64-bit)

See: http://www.sevenforums.com/news/8328-microsoft-releases-windows-7-minimum-requirements.html

 

[Night Hawk]

The 7 minimum was raised when that assessment was far more accurate for Vista. In reality 7 is far from the resource hound that many complained about Vista being there. MS has done a great deal of refinement to take out the "bloated feeling" seen with Vista.

In reverse the Vista rerequirements apply more to 7 seeing the 512mb minimum with Vista needing the 1gb minimum standard. But you also have to take into account the capacities seen with hardwares at this time compared to what was seen only 3yrs. ago while Vista was still in development.

Basically MS is starting to set the standards just above the actual in order to avoid the past mistakes seen with the previous version. Don't knock it people when MS is starting to consider what the customer is looking at for a change!

 

[PNutts]

Should I have x86? What is the criteria on picking either?

Here's a brief summary on choosing between the two:
http://www.w7forums.com/windows-7-64-bit-vs-32-bit-t484.html

With that said, I'm running an x86 version for the first time in years starting with 7100. The reason is two programs that aren't yet compatible in x64 so I decided to go x86 for awhile. My system has 4 GB of RAM and can handle x64.

My quick answer is that you were already on x64 with Vista then stay with it. If not, stick with x86. The transition from x86 to x64 can be "interesting".

 

[damoh]

The only diff i noticed with my 6 gig was that the other day my son opened a game which took a gig of ram. Then i unknowingly opened another game which took another gig, plus the system use. I didnt even noticed until i finished playing and saw the icon in the taskbar. Thats one of the only things ive noticed having more then 3 gig

 

[7077]

Hi.

Currenty I have Vista Ultimate 32-bit installed on my PC, yes, 32-bit as I haven't noticed anything so much better working on 64-bit Vista Ultimate.
Please consider that I'm no gamer that needs extra good pc

But in a couple of days I'm going to install official Windows 7 and was wondering whether to install the 64-bit version or 32-bit (x86).
Yes, I also know that the topic has been discussed countless times, but still...

The point is that I once has Windows 7 32-bit installed on my PC (I believe the 7068) and It worked like a charm, except that it wasn't the "ooficial" OS and I couldn't install updates.

Now, I'd like your oppinion (or should I say, advice) if the 64-bit Windows would work better and faster which would mean I'd "upgrade" to 64-bit technology... Or there is no significant difference and I stay on 32-bit for a bit longer.


Thanks in advance.

 

[Night Hawk]

I would suggect getting a first hand look at both! Eventually everything will be moving into the 64bit world anyways.

That would allow you to make the comparison of each for things like compatibility, driver issues to resolve unless you can't find any Vista at least 64bit driver updates available. For a tv tuner card here with "NO" 64bit driver support it not only works on the 64bit for viewing but records what you watch as well. That's with 32bit device drivers on.

 

[fakeasdf]

I suggest 64 bit, unless drivers are an issue... I actually was trying out 64 bit winrar earlier today and it was taking about 3/4 of the time to compress things with the 64 bit version than the 32 bit version... I also have been using th 64 bit version of Vegas Video. It's been working well, the only fun thing I've had to deal with is I've needed to get 64 bit codecs to work properly with it

 

[jonmobrien]

Well my x64 sure is faster than my first C-64

But the C-64 was faster than Vista.

 

[jonmobrien]

There was rarely any need for a 64-bit O/S to date - the 3GB limit of XP and Vista was not an issue when 256MB was standard in an original XP box and 512MB standard in a Vista box.

Only when installing Windows SP3, Office SP3, and all updates and the latest Symantec version and updates, preloading Adobe reader, Java, IE8, VNC, etc, etc, etc, and try firing up Photoshop or something, we are finding now that 2GB is not enough and just getting by with the limit of 3GB. So Microsoft had no real issue with 32 bit XP and Vista.

But - just like they did not release a 16 bit Windows 95, they should NOT release a 32-bit Windows7!! 1GB is their required minimum, but it is obvious that standard Windows 7 users installing Office 2010, Adobe 12, etc, will be needing more than 3GB very shortly with no upgrade path possible. The only option to activate additional RAM being to purchase a new retail Win7x64 and doing a clean install.

As Windows 95 stayed in the mainstream for 7 years, and Windows XP will be mainstream for 7 years minimum (and with XP Mode in Win 7, it's quite possible legacy Win XP machines will be around even longer), can't we expect Win7 to be mainstream until at least 2016? And with 4GB of RAM today costing the same as 512MB did 7 years ago, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16GB of RAM will sequentially become as cheap as chips, but with x86 builds unable to use anything above 3GB.

The only reason there are 64-bit driver issues is because there is not much demand for them. But if manufacturers were told there is no Win7 32 bit, they would have no choice but to write 64-bit drivers. Writing 64 bit drivers is no more difficult or timely than writing new drivers for any new operating system. If 64 bit Windows 7 was the only Windows 7, manufactures would have had Win 7 64 bit drivers done as fast as they are currently making 32 bit Win 7 drivers.

And already today there are a significant number of 64-bit Vista builds using 64-bit drivers. Unlike XP-64, Vista-64 has a non-negligible take-up and manufacturers have acknowledged that Win7-64 will be almost as popular as Win7-32, so by RTM, 64-bit Win-7 will not be an issue.

 

[Night Hawk]

Did not release a 16bit 95? Windows 3.1 95's predessor was 16bit as well as 95! Sorry but you goofed on that one. The OSR2 release(SP equivalent) for 95 actually saw some 32bit support for 95 there as well.