Why get Windows 7 64bit

[Night Hawk]

For the average user who browses the net, plays a couple of mildly demanding video games and watches videos it's unnecessary. The people who can really benefit from a 64 bit OS are manipulating large files and need the increased ram capacity and throughput. These are the same people that were putting 2gb in when the rest of us were happy with 512mb of ram. Users here and on the vista forums are gung-ho for it and sure that it is the immediate future of the OS and I just don't agree. The "more than just the ram" article still doesn't apply to most home users and without the price of ram dropping so much that 4gb is commonplace we probably wouldn't have seen this kind of interest in 64bit OS environments until years from now. For joe sixpack it IS all about the ram and that much ram isn't necessary for him.

As for drivers it's not as easy as some have mentioned. Yes there are 64 bit drivers for most products, but it's not a surprise to find ones that are unstable or reduce the capabilities of the device from what the 32 bit driver can do. Sure they will continue to release newer, better drivers but as long as the 64 bit crowd is the vast minority so shall the drivers be less of a priority.

Not only is driver support missing for several things still even the 32bit Vista sadly hasn't seen much in the way of updated softwares there with 7 almost out. If you look around at tv tuner cards despite the "Vista compatibility" tag all you get is XP software with a Vista driver update thrown at you. Despite all of the 32bit emulation where are the actual 64bit native softwares? 16 to 32bit went a lot farther and faster there!

I'm trying to find something that actually record composite/analog video and sound from an external source like an old vhs camcorder. Either a new tuner card records sound only in Vista or 7 with no picture even seen or the next card displays both but can't record either! Where's that leave the 64bit side of things when they have been slacking off for 32bit?

As for memory regardless of 32bit or 64bit editions it depends far more on the types of programs being run where a large demand on ram is present. For a pc game that runs on a 512mb system why does anyone think they will see any great performance going 64bit just to run 6-8gb of memory?

The reality of it is that the 32bit market still embedded for XP is too greedy to let go of their "golden egg" and start working on 64bit as well as Vista softwares left in limbo. Despite an improved efficiency of moving up to 64bit over 32bit reality checks are simply a look at "what is" still being marketed by the main software companies.

(Gee? JB: Quatam of Solice recent November title=32bit, Fear 2 just released in the last month = XP compatible still 32bit, and the list goes on and on and on...)

 

[darkassain]

XP64 could have been a lot better, had that dreadful Vista not taken up any of MS's time, was a good OS, unsupported and forgotten due to greed and no thought as regards to progress.

it depends on XP 64 as there was two versions based on architecture(IA64 and the AMD64)
IA64 is long gone and well wasnt a good architecture to beging with (i mean 400mhz for 32 bit instructions thats ridiculous [at least when the market was inherently )

the AMD64 version based on the Windows Server 2003 and not based on Windows XP so it was not completely compatible
while i agree that it was very hastily built it was also a OS that was nearing its OS family life cycle
also very few Manufactures supported this OS which also caused its downfall...
so it was not only MS but the OEM's the Antivir people (patchguard was not liked since its inauguration by antvir makers since most used kernel patching for protection, which by the way is also the way rootkits enter)
i say this was one of the main reasons that xp failed is because of its lateness to retail and the cooperation with OEM's was minimal and at that time driver signing was completely minimal (there were even instructions on how to bypass the prompt that said that this hardware was not tested on this machine....)
then users are asking why the computer bluescreens and think automatically its window's fault...
sorry if this turned into from a comment into a rant but MS is trying to change that by having OEM and manufacturers test their hardware before shipping (at least for 64bit)
and of course having to pay money in the process....
some hardware manufactures dont have this amount of money and i would like to see ms trying to help these IHV's and give certs to those that really need it the most and that have really tested their software...

 

[Romulinx2]

In a few years you will be able to buy a box (a very small box) of nano-machines that will build your own CPU/PC.

You will control the PC with you brain waves also.

It will probably make cake or pie, if you ask it nicely.

 

[darkassain]

Nighthawk only specialized software such as autocad (or CAD in general), Creativity Software (such as premiere, finally 64 bit) and Scientific Software in general usually have a 64 bit version...



another link
Windows Vista 64-bit - Is it worth the upgrade? | Windows Vista for Beginners

where i get news on 64 bit apps:
64bit and x64 - Home

 

[Night Hawk]

Nighthawk only specialized software such as autocad (or CAD in general), Creativity Software (such as premiere, finally 64 bit) and Scientific Software in general usually have a 64 bit version...



another link
Windows Vista 64-bit - Is it worth the upgrade? | Windows Vista for Beginners

where i get news on 64 bit apps:
64bit and x64 - Home

I like this one. Video Tuner Capture*«*Drivers/Codecs*«*Catalogue of 64-bit Software* There are none! :huh:

Finding 64bit drivers first before running 64bit Windows is the advice seen on the first link there as well as at MS. Unfortunately that's the main beef for most people when finding there are none for something they have on their own systems.

You can't point the finger at Microsoft there since they only provided the 64bit editions of Windows while 3rd parties fell sleep at the switch as darkassain summed that up pretty well. Unfortunately not everyone is in a position to simply go after the latest hardwares that do see support.

Presently I'm waiting to see if adding a wireless router that will match up wiith the ethernet type dsl line and will work for getting online with the 64bit 7. The video and sound drivers are easy enough to find while Creative still lacks on the application side of that.

For those that can get everything going they are one step ahead there. But for the rest of us .. not soooo good is the unfortunate side of that..

 

[zrtom]

This is indeed a great thread. Lots of really good thoughts and ideas.

One way I look at x86 vs. x64 is, forgetting about drivers and installed programs, the Operating System itself will run more efficiently (faster) if the computer's architecture supports addressing 64 bits. It seems like, with Windows at least, that the Operating System is sometimes its own worst enemy. It is so busy indexing and defragging and verifying digital signatures and polling the removable media and checking for updates and ......on and on... that it is sometimes hard for a driver or program to get a word in edgewise. So with the OS itself being faster and more efficient, the other things like drivers and programs will have more time to do their thing.

How does that present in the real world? You click on Photoshop and in two or three seconds it is loaded and ready to get to work; and you're not sitting there watching the blue circle spin....less time for the OS to get confused and forget what it was doing. Windows 7 has fixed a lot of that by reprogramming interrupt timers but being more efficient (64-bit) reduces the total interrupt "load" and gives you a faster system.

I don't know, just a thought. From my experience at least, 64-bit Vista, 64-bit XP (to some extent) and now 64-bit W7 all run more stable and faster than the 32-bit versions.
Tom

 

[Night Hawk]

Once I get the 64bit side of things online and see what familar programs will actually install and run while most see the not compatible with 64bit message appear I can sit the 64bit vs 32bit argument to a real test to take notes with both on the exact same set of hardwares at the same time.

The 64bit isn't actually so much faster but simply a more efficient kernel still sadly lacking the 3rd party efforts with a 3rd major Windows release on the way. With 7 finally you may actually start seeing far more 64bit drivers and softwares(key word) being released. For the novice and those running older hardwares the rush to 64bit is still a bit off for the time being however.

 

[Smashy]

My idea? Install 64bit, it doesn't kill you and anything that doesn't kill you will only make you stronger!
Besides that do everyone a favour and stop using 32bit OS so all the programmers can stop wasting time with 32bit drivers/applications and go straight for 64bit.

 

[Dzomlija]

Once I get the 64bit side of things online and see what familar programs will actually install and run while most see the not compatible with 64bit message appear I can sit the 64bit vs 32bit argument to a real test to take notes with both on the exact same set of hardwares at the same time.

The 64bit isn't actually so much faster but simply a more efficient kernel still sadly lacking the 3rd party efforts with a 3rd major Windows release on the way. With 7 finally you may actually start seeing far more 64bit drivers and softwares(key word) being released. For the novice and those running older hardwares the rush to 64bit is still a bit off for the time being however.

Remember how long it took for 32-bit to become mainstream? The 80386 series processors introduced 32-bit, but it was only with the release of Windows 95 that we had a 32-bit operating system, but the real acceptance of 32-bit can only be seen with the release of Windows NT 4 and later Windows 2000.

How long will it be for 64-bit computing to be the norm in the same way that 32-bit is today?

 

[Smashy]

According to what you said :
XP was the first 64-bit Windows OS (only had a 64-bit version and sadly a rather ****ty one) <-> Windows 95
Vista was the second 64-bit Windows OS (first "good" one) <-> NT 4
Windows 7 is the third and really good 64-bit Windows OS <-> Windows 2000

note : only compared on timeline in terms of the 32-bit usage/acceptance

Basically the time for 64-bit is NOW, this is the third 64-bit Windows OS and we really have to stop using it as 32-bit too, people need to move on.

*edit*
There were other 32-bit versions but not that well known or used.

*edit 2*
Build 7048 is now installing on a pc couple years old with a Pentium 4 3.0 GHz and I'm installing the 64-bit version to see how it runs (machine has 1GB ram)

 

[Night Hawk]

Remember how long it took for 32-bit to become mainstream? The 80386 series processors introduced 32-bit, but it was only with the release of Windows 95 that we had a 32-bit operating system, but the real acceptance of 32-bit can only be seen with the release of Windows NT 4 and later Windows 2000.

How long will it be for 64-bit computing to be the norm in the same way that 32-bit is today?

95 was far from being 32bit there. That was still 16bit later seeing OSR2 for 32bit support included in Windows 95 PLUS! NT 3.1 was the first actual 32bit version seen there. A good reference to really see how versions came out and when is the history of Windows page seen at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx

 

[Dzomlija]

95 was far from being 32bit there. That was still 16bit later seeing OSR2 for 32bit support included in Windows 95 PLUS! NT 3.1 was the first actual 32bit version seen there. A good reference to really see how versions came out and when is the history of Windows page seen at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx

Thanks Night Hawk, that's a very good reference to which I can send people that want to know about Windows, although it did say that Windows 95 was 32-bit from the word go:

Windows 95 was the successor to the three existing general-purpose desktop operating systems from Microsoft—Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups, and MS-DOS. Windows 95 integrated a 32-bit TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) stack for built-in Internet support, dial-up networking, and new Plug and Play capabilities that made it easy for users to install hardware and software.

The 32-bit operating system also offered enhanced multimedia capabilities, more powerful features for mobile computing, and integrated networking.

But whether or not you believe Windows 95 to have been 32-bit or not, it makes little difference. 32-Bit is an aging technology, and developers should begin adopting 64-bit more often, now that Windows 7 is the third major 64-bit version of Windows.

If I understand Microsoft's road-map correctly, I think that whatever is to follow after Windows 7 (Windows 8?) will be released in 64-bit only, which is what they originally planned with 7....

 

[Triple7]

I will be trying a 64 bit version of win7 soon.
My pc meets minimum specs for x64.
Although I have had MANY headaches with xp and vista 64 bit editons (drivers,software etc.) I will give win7 a shot because it will probaly be less resource intensive as well.

 

[Night Hawk]

Thanks Night Hawk, that's a very good reference to which I can send people that want to know about Windows, although it did say that Windows 95 was 32-bit from the word go:



But whether or not you believe Windows 95 to have been 32-bit or not, it makes little difference. 32-Bit is an aging technology, and developers should begin adopting 64-bit more often, now that Windows 7 is the third major 64-bit version of Windows.

If I understand Microsoft's road-map correctly, I think that whatever is to follow after Windows 7 (Windows 8?) will be released in 64-bit only, which is what they originally planned with 7....

Win95 saw 32bit support once the OSR2 equal to what we now know as a service pack was introduced. Just like 3.1 before it however it still saw a 16bit kernel and ran on a Fat16 volume. 98 was a step up where you saw it go on Fat32 or Fat16 there.

That was the first home user desktop version to see 32bit integrated into while the server type NT 3.1, 4.0, 2000, and on see the NT core. For 7 the early blogs heard along with some one time articles was that after 7 MS had planned to dump the 32bit kernel entirely.

I had one MS MVP get in my face...:shock: when mentioning that the transition is long overdue while the 3rd party sources haven't gotten off of their ... and got busy writting 64bit drivers and softwares. Vista 32bit hasn't seen much after 2yrs. time in the way of updated softwares just some device drivers.

I will be trying a 64 bit version of win7 soon.
My pc meets minimum specs for x64.
Although I have had MANY headaches with xp and vista 64 bit editons (drivers,software etc.) I will give win7 a shot because it will probaly be less resource intensive as well.

I have the 32bit side of things running here since the old dsl setup didn't even see XP 64bit drivers made. The last update for that was seen in 2002. I know the feeling about not finding drivers for 64bit quite well.

And the first thing seen on MS pages is make sure you can find what you need before deciding to go 64bit? 3rd major release with 64bit editions seen and still no drivers! "what's going on here!"

 

[Zirro]

I built a new PC about 12mths ago and put Vista 64-bit on it.
I had to replace my clapped out printer too so i just made sure I got one with 64-bit drivers available.
I have had no technical or driver problems with 64-bit at all.
The only thing that sucks is Adobe not releasing a 64-bit flash player and (last time I checked) MS not releasing 64-bit Silverlight. So I have to run 32-bit version of IE.
(It comes with 32 & 64 bit IE).
Hopefully Adobe will release the Windows version of 64-bit Flash real soon.
If you are getting a new PC get 64-bit just to future-proof it.

 

[jimbo45]

Even if you only run 32 bit apps a 64 bit OS is worth it if you have >3.5GB memory.

The 32 bit OS can only address up to 4GB RAM max (usually a bit less).

Now I have a machine with 16GB RAM in it -- so even if I ran NOTHING else on the 64 bit OS it would allow me to use 4 full 32 bit 4GB RAM Os'es under VMWARE without needlessly page swapping etc etc.

It's a moot point if your PC has around 4GB -- but even with 4GB RAM I'd still install a 64 bit OS.

Problems with Drivers are grossly overarrated unless you are a serious gamers (which conversely could be one type of application which really could make use of more RAM).

32 bit OS'es are really now going to be history and only good for running legacy apps or for use on small computers like netbooks -- and there isn't really any reason why these shouldn't have 4GB Ram or more provided power consumption and heat problems can be solved.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Night Hawk]

Problems with Drivers are grossly overarrated unless you are a serious gamers (which conversely could be one type of application which really could make use of more RAM).

Cheers
jimbo

There's a bit more then just gaming involved. When you are not seeing the software side as well as drivers for a variety of hardwares and addon devices you are limited to 32bit since the software companies slacked off even for the 32bit editions of Vista. MS already provided the 64bit Windows.

As far as much ram is actually needed for gaming you are better off going with a faster cpu and a larger vpu on the video card with more memory there to see any real performance gain.

Once 7 is out then maybe you start to see Vista/7 compatible softwares released. That would make 64bit editions more inviting for the average novice at that time rather then listening to "I can't get anything to work."

You have to consider that each system sees a different combination of hardwares, softwares, and different purposes at the same time as seeing the eventual transition(long overdue) from 32 to 64bit.

 

[AllanJacques]

But, allow me a question?
Do you think it is worth using windows 7 64-bit with 2 gig ram?
I mean, my notebook has only one slot for ram , but has a hd 2400 wich renders me more performance, and 4 gig modules are way too expensive for me...
So, 32 bit wouldnt hurt ram, as 32-bit os can handle 2gig quite fine.
But 64-bit would be overkill? Would it be slow or laggy or bad performance?
Thanks in advance!

 

[Night Hawk]

I can still you straight out that many are running the Vista 64bit editions with 2gb of memory. 7 will see the advantage of a refined kernel being far less of a resource grabber that Vista was tagged with. The first thing however is seeing whether or not 64bit drivers are available before hand however.

If you decide to buy 7 retail rather then OEM you will likely see the second 64bit disk along with the 32bit edition you go with included. That's one of the main reasons that Vista saw the $400 retail for Ultimate while XP Pro ran for about 1/2 of that. XP only saw one disk, one large book in the retail carton like any other previous version.

 

[jimbo45]

There's a bit more then just gaming involved. When you are not seeing the software side as well as drivers for a variety of hardwares and addon devices you are limited to 32bit since the software companies slacked off even for the 32bit editions of Vista. MS already provided the 64bit Windows.

As far as much ram is actually needed for gaming you are better off going with a faster cpu and a larger vpu on the video card with more memory there to see any real performance gain.

Once 7 is out then maybe you start to see Vista/7 compatible softwares released. That would make 64bit editions more inviting for the average novice at that time rather then listening to "I can't get anything to work."

You have to consider that each system sees a different combination of hardwares, softwares, and different purposes at the same time as seeing the eventual transition(long overdue) from 32 to 64bit.

Any computer on this planet will benefit from MORE RAM (up to the allowable that the OS can see) since "Swapping" or paging" devices are of millions of times slower (Disk storage) than internal RAM -- games included.

In fact the bottleneck in most "typical" day to day computers is usually in this order

1) SLOW DISKS
2) NOT ENOUGH MEMORY
3) Finally CPU

Games of course will require adequate graphics boards -- but it's no good having your nice fast graphics card having done a lot of its processing and then just sitting there idle waiting for actual DISK I/O waiting to complete because the OS itself is waiting on paging / swapping.

If you ARE a gamer get the FASTEST Disks you can afford and more memory (Graphics cards a re a given of course) . Most decent machines have more than enough power -- you don't need to shell out for a sooper dooper QUAD CPU. You can of course if money is no object but bang for buck do it in the order I've stated.

A big mistake gamers make in choosing their hardware is to think all the processing is done on the graphics board -- yes a lot IS removed away from the main computer but processes still require the main OS services and this is where the bottlenecks occur.

On a desktop machine if you are a serious gamer get SCSI disks, 8 GB RAM (at least) and then a CPU abd Video card of your choice (and run a 64 bit OS).

(If the game won't run on the 64 bit OS run a 32 bit virtual machine -- with a decent rig the 32 bit VM will be running at around 95% of its native (speed as if it was a real physical OS) speed.

All these facts are basically Operating Systems 101.


Cheers
jimbo