So is Win7 64-bit actually more robust than 32?

[Antman]

I thought it explained the facts pretty well myself. Last time I ever post relevant information here though, too many people here take pride in poking holes in everything that is posted instead of giving Reps for posting of relevant facts.

The holes were poked by persons that did not require the article to understand the science. The three "pokers" have at least 120 years combined experience between them. While it was a "good" article on the surface, it likely overwhelmed the OP.

Regarding your willingness to continue posting relevant information - look at the crap many of the replies contained. No one poked holes in the ignorance. We let it slide because those persons will require years to get their heads around the science. You posted information worth dissecting.

No whining.

 

[chuckr]

Another "poke":

Finally, 64-bit hit the desktop market with AMD's launch of the Opterons and Athlon 64 chips in 2003.
Though these chips were not based on a "pure" 64-bit architecture (as they had to maintain compatibility with existing operating systems and software), they could use an expansive group of 64-bit instructions known as x86-64.

From: Athlon 64 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is AMD's first K8, eighth-generation processor core for desktop and mobile computers.[4]
Despite being natively 64-bit, the AMD64 architecture is backward-compatible with 32-bit x86 instructions.[5]

From: x86-64 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

x86-64 is a superset of the x86 instruction set architecture. Therefore, x86-64 processors can run existing 32-bit or 16-bit x86 programs without sacrificing speed or compatibility, and in addition, they support new programs written in an extended instruction set, which features a 64-bit address space and other capabilities.

I was waiting for my Athlon-64x2 since the last century, appreciative of the architecture, even back then...