did I install the wrong windows?

[Namelessbond]

Hello everyone I've been using windows seven for about a month now, and well I like it a lot, but after looking around I think I may have installed the wrong version.

I'll show you my spec's and what I have and you can let me know if I should change.

I have a AMD Athalon dual core 4850e 2.51GHz
only 1gig of ram (but that will change soon)

and I'm running the 32 bit operating system, should I be using the 64?

 

[YupYup]

If you add more ram as 1 gig is pretty tight for 64 bit, then your all set for 64 bit.

 

[Namelessbond]

but I mean to say is it worth it? will I notice the difference?

 

[antalgebra]

but I mean to say is it worth it? will I notice the difference?

Try Dual booting, section off a partition, install another copy of win7 64 bit, and try it out. Your dual boot options will be setup automatically, and you can test out to see if you like it or not.

Although, with such little RAM, you may be bogged down a bit. 64 bit is much more conservative with system resources, and simotanious tasks, but requries more overhead.

I say give it a try for your setup, although dont get rid of your 32 bit before you give it a test whirl.

 

[sup3rsprt]

will I notice the difference?

The frustration of dealing with incompatible software and drivers will totally outweigh any performance increase (which you will probably not get anyways).

As was said, you really need more RAM to make use of 64-bit Windows. Even then, 32-bit Windows is usually faster.

The only reason I use 64-bit is for Gaming. I play most of my games on 32-bit Windows XP with best speed. But a couple of games do run a tiny bit better in 64-bit.

 

[Wyodiver]

I avoided 64 bit Win XP Pro and Vista because of the known driver problems and program issues. But now I'm running Win 7 64 bit and I really haven't had a single compatibility issue. Also, I only have 2 GB of RAM but Win 7 rarely goes over 75 to 80% usage. Unless you have some old/oddball hardware or need to run some programs that just refuse to play nice in X64 then I would recommend switching to 64 bit.

 

[sup3rsprt]

antalgebra has the best answer.

You'll need to try 64-bit for yourself to determine if it works for you.

If you're rich, you can buy everything that is 64-bit compatible if it isn't already...

If you're poor like me and have some older hardware and software, 64-bit is just not an option for main operating system. That is why I use dual boot setup and get the best of both worlds (and some extra cash in my pocket).

 

[Fizban]

The frustration of dealing with incompatible software and drivers will totally outweigh any performance increase (which you will probably not get anyways).

As was said, you really need more RAM to make use of 64-bit Windows. Even then, 32-bit Windows is usually faster.

The only reason I use 64-bit is for Gaming. I play most of my games on 32-bit Windows XP with best speed. But a couple of games do run a tiny bit better in 64-bit.

I've never found an instance where 32 bit was faster than 64 bit. 64 bit is noticeably (both in actual use and in benchmarks) faster on my old laptop even and it only has 2 GB of RAM. I also have had absolutely zero issues with compatibility. Is it as noticeably faster as it is on my new laptop that has 8 GB of RAM? Well, no, of course not, but both laptops run faster with the 64 bit OS than with the 32 bit one.

 

[jw12345]

I couldn't tell any speed difference from x32 to x64, and I've seen benchmarks where the only noticeable difference is with more than 4gb. With 1gb I think you might see a slight decrease in speed because of increased disk and memory requirements of x64.

Also, there are some compatibility problems with x64 (personally, onenote 2007 isn't fully functional, my ti-89 calculator won't connect)

I wouldn't bother the reinstall unless you have 4gb+ of memory (which is dirt cheap at $10/GB).

 

[Lordbob75]

The frustration of dealing with incompatible software and drivers will totally outweigh any performance increase (which you will probably not get anyways).

As was said, you really need more RAM to make use of 64-bit Windows. Even then, 32-bit Windows is usually faster.

The only reason I use 64-bit is for Gaming. I play most of my games on 32-bit Windows XP with best speed. But a couple of games do run a tiny bit better in 64-bit.

What? Since when?

Here is the deal: x64 is the future. Basically every processor made in the last 5 (or more) years is a x64 bit processor. As long as you have over 2 gigs of RAM, then x64 is the better deal.
x86 (x32) cannot handle OVER 3.5 (or so) gigs of RAM, so if you get more than that, then you need x64 to get the benefit.

As to incompatibilities, I have only EVER had one program not be x64 compatible, and I fixed that by setting up a VM with a x86 arch.
Around the time Vista came out, newer systems were getting enough RAM to make x64 a viable alternative. The reason x64 drivers for XP were so hard to find was because almost no one used it; the hardware was not quite ready. Now, because a lot of computers are using 4 gigs of RAM, people started using it (just because it was what came installed). So with Vista, the x64 drivers became commonplace. With Seven, I have had only the ONE issue.

I don't know where you got your info sup3rsprt, but you are wrong! Over all (especially with newer systems), x64 is going to increasingly pull ahead.

~Lordbob

 

[jw12345]

Does anybody have any controlled benchmarks comparing 32 vs 64-bit? I run x64 because of having 8GB of memory, but to say that 64-bit is unequivalently better isn't the whole truth. All the benchmarks I've seen only show single digit differences either way depending on memory size, and personally I think having incompatible apps isn't worth that tradeoff. Onenote 2007 can't use the printer driver and some of the OCR stuff I believe on x64, gadgets that use flash break because sidebar runs as x64 by default, and as I mentioned my ti-89 calculator doesn't have the drivers to sync. Though I've gotten around these issues: onenote 2010 fixes the issue, you can just replace the sidebar executable with the x32 version, and I have another x32 pc to occasionally sync the calculator, and there are tons of other little incompatibilities that exist that may or may not affect you. I've yet to see any evidence that switching to 64-bit on 3gb or less has any benefit at the moment.

 

[Lordbob75]

Does anybody have any controlled benchmarks comparing 32 vs 64-bit? I run x64 because of having 8GB of memory, but to say that 64-bit is unequivalently better isn't the whole truth. All the benchmarks I've seen only show single digit differences either way depending on memory size, and personally I think having incompatible apps isn't worth that tradeoff. Onenote 2007 can't use the printer driver and some of the OCR stuff I believe on x64, gadgets that use flash break because sidebar runs as x64 by default, and as I mentioned my ti-89 calculator doesn't have the drivers to sync. (though I've gotten around these issues: onenote 2010 fixes the issue, you can just replace the sidebar executable with the x32 version, and I have another x32 pc to occasionally sync the calculator)

There are many such benchmarks, and none are truly accurate.
Look at it this way: Sometimes x86 is faster, sometimes x64 is.
But you CAN'T look at it like that!
You are using a x64 processor, along with over 4 gigs RAM and other things. There really is no good reason TO use x32 bit!
Yes, there are some other issues, some things don't work right. This is just like the transition from 16 bit to 32 bit. Things will not be perfect until we completely switch over.

~Lordbob

 

[jw12345]

I can appreciate wanting to move the computing world up to a better standard, but I think that reality bites and it's a lot easier to stick with the theoretically inferior 32-bit if it doesn't give you problems. Why risk incompatibilities when there's nothing really to gain?

Give it a year or so though, and I'd imagine there will be even fewer manufacturers not putting out 64-bit drivers since even cheapo laptops are running up against the memory barrier. I mean onenote 2007 is recent software (by Microsoft to boot!) and ti-89 calculators are top of the ti line, and both have very serious problems with 64-bit. I consider either of those very good reasons to use 32-bit.

 

[Lordbob75]

I can appreciate wanting to move the computing world up to a better standard, but I think that reality bites and it's a lot easier to stick with the theoretically inferior 32-bit if it doesn't give you problems. Why risk incompatibilities when there's nothing really to gain?

What incompatibilities? There are very few.

~Lordbob

 

[jw12345]

You just quoted it 15 minutes ago:

Just from my upgrading to 64-bit: Onenote 2007 can't use the printer driver and some of the OCR stuff I believe on x64, gadgets that use flash break because sidebar runs as x64 by default, ti-89 calculator doesn't have the drivers to sync

Maybe I'm particularly unlucky, but these are all up-to-date common applications that many people use. And I haven't even tested that many programs, there's a good chance every person will run into their own set of issues.

 

[digitalrurouni]

Having run both 32 bit and 64 bit, all I can say is that there is virtually no difference unless you are doing multimedia stuff and have a minimum of 4 gb ram then yeah why not go with x64 so you can access all your ram.

x64 DOES indeed use more resources than 32 bit and a simple example is because it has to support both 32 bit and 64 bit applications and also because the pointers used in the OS are well 64 bit vs 32 bit hence more memory usage but it wont matter if you are running 4 gigs

I think the main difference if you were running XP 32 vs XP 64 then yes the performance difference would be quite evident because the 64 bit version besides having 64 bitness well it was written off of a very good rock solid server OS. So any perceived performance difference between those 2 versions is simply that the 64 bit version was written using a more rock solid OS.

That is not the case with 64 bit Windows 7. Its your preference but like I said once you are at 4 gb there really is no reason to NOT use 64 bit. There are no more lack of drivers as it used to be once though some things like SLR cameras and so on you may have a bit of a hard time finding drivers for.

My 2 cents.

 

[Snufffed]

Having run both 32 bit and 64 bit, all I can say is that there is virtually no difference unless you are doing multimedia stuff and have a minimum of 4 gb ram then yeah why not go with x64 so you can access all your ram.

Why do you not just patch the x86 for ability to use 4GB Ram.

 

[fakeasdf]

Does anybody have any controlled benchmarks comparing 32 vs 64-bit? I run x64 because of having 8GB of memory, but to say that 64-bit is unequivalently better isn't the whole truth. All the benchmarks I've seen only show single digit differences either way depending on memory size, and personally I think having incompatible apps isn't worth that tradeoff. Onenote 2007 can't use the printer driver and some of the OCR stuff I believe on x64, gadgets that use flash break because sidebar runs as x64 by default, and as I mentioned my ti-89 calculator doesn't have the drivers to sync. Though I've gotten around these issues: onenote 2010 fixes the issue, you can just replace the sidebar executable with the x32 version, and I have another x32 pc to occasionally sync the calculator, and there are tons of other little incompatibilities that exist that may or may not affect you. I've yet to see any evidence that switching to 64-bit on 3gb or less has any benefit at the moment.

Check out my signature. It is true that it's difficult to do clean comparisons of 32 bit versus 64 bit when using 64 bit CPU's. Intel 64 (formerly EMT64) and AMD64. If you have a 64 bit CPU, both 64 bit and 32 bit software generally run better on a 64 bit OS than on a 32 bit OS.

 

[jw12345]

Check out my signature. It is true that it's difficult to do clean comparisons of 32 bit versus 64 bit when using 64 bit CPU's. Intel 64 (formerly EMT64) and AMD64. If you have a 64 bit CPU, both 64 bit and 32 bit software generally run better on a 64 bit OS than on a 32 bit OS.

Thanks for the link, but just two points:
1. Saying "Always Yes" simply isn't true. When to comes down to critical apps, it doesn't matter if everything runs 10% faster or whatever. Heck, I don't care if everything runs 150% faster, if I couldn't get onenote working properly, because that's critical software for me, and without it, I couldn't work. Luckily onenote 2010 fixed the issue, or otherwise I'd be selling my extra ram and going back to 32-bit.

2. Personally I would have set the intercepts of those graphs at 0. It's a bit misleading to look at the graph that exaggerates the 10% gain. And on say a 2gb system, the extra memory footprint of 64-bit would cause more paging out and probably kill that advantage.

 

[DJG]

I mean onenote 2007 is recent software (by Microsoft to boot!) and ti-89 calculators are top of the ti line, and both have very serious problems with 64-bit. I consider either of those very good reasons to use 32-bit.

That's why you should use HP calculators ... unless you can't hack RPN of course .

The only benchmark I have between 32-bit and 64-bit, and I'll grant it's not a common one and originally 32-bit XP vs. 64-bit XP, but for me a real deal-breaker/maker, is my image backup. 32-bit XP times for the 500GB data volume was a little over 2 hours. For 64-bit it went down to 54 minutes, same hardware and backup program (Paragon's Drive Backup 2008 Server Express). My XP vs. Win 7 times are fairly equivalent in 64-bit. I imagine a lot of it is how the buffering is handled, but you can't dismiss a 100% improvement on a common and important long process.

In general things are noticeably snappier in x64 for me to a lesser and larger extent, the afore-mentioned image backup being on the extreme side of "good". I do have a substantial workstation which can take full advantage, and my Lenovo tablet has 4GB and a snappy SSD, so YMMV.

Either way, there's no "wrong" version of Win 7 here, just try them both. You could do x64 and see if you have any pain points, and if so then try x86.

One thing I do recommend regardless is a good backup / restore process you can rely on that works under both x64 and x86.

DJ