Win7 / Win7 64 bit

[nemoreborn]

heya , i am actualy using win7 pro ...

i never used any windows 64 bit , and here is my question ...

what would be the change for me to upgrade to 64bit windows7 ?

better gaming performance ? better for apps ? more stable ??? i have no idea what is the difference between both windows .. 32 bit / 64 ...

thx you

 

[JackNaylorPE]

32 bit can't see more than about 3.5 GB of memory

 

[The_Prophecy]

Further to what JackNaylor said, the big difference between 32 and 64 bit is memory addressability. 32 bit can see a maximum of 4GB (but only use 3.0 - 3.5GB depending on what other hardware you have in the computer). 64 bit Windows 7 can see a maximum of 192GB. Applications loaded in 64 bit Windows can also address more than 4GB of ram (Photoshop being the first program that comes to mind).

 

[Gasm]

But there are some con's with the 64-bit such as some programs won't be as stable as they are if they were used in 32-bit

 

[The_Prophecy]

But there are some con's with the 64-bit such as some programs won't be as stable as they are if they were used in 32-bit

Who told you that?

32 bit apps are just as stable in a 64 bit environment, as they are in 32....

 

[croc]

Most modern AMD/Intel CPUs have 64 bit extensions, and have had for several years. They each do things in slightly different ways, with slightly different extensions, but should not be confused with true 64 bit processors, nor should any OS running on them be confused with a true 64 bit OS... I do wish, though, that there was a codified standard for the 64 bit extensions.

So basically, for your purposes, if you wish to use more than 4GB RAM, use a x64 OS.

 

[Ijack]

should not be confused with true 64 bit processors, nor should any OS running on them be confused with a true 64 bit OS

Why aren't Intel and AMD 64-bit processors "true". What do they lack - 64-bit registers, 64-bit addressing,...? No they have that; it's just that, in addition they can support 32-bit programs (and even 16-bit programs) as well. What more should they have?

Anyone familiar with programming in long mode on these processors will know that the instruction set is not merely an extension of the 32-bit instruction set but a whole new instruction set that is designed to resemble the 32-bit instructions (makes life much easier when porting programs).

So tell me, in your experience of assembler programming, what exactly makes a "true" 64-bit processor or OS?

 

[PsyKhiqZero]

I don't know if it means much. However when intel first started to introduce 64 bits to their cpus, they named them pentium IV emt. The emt stood for extended memory translation. To me this sound as if intel made a 32 bit chip capable of addressing more then 4 GB of ram, but somehow different then a "full" 64 bit chip.

 

[Ijack]

What Intel may have called their initial 64-bit chips is irrelevant (they did have a slight problem as they were competing with their other 64-bit chip, the Itanium). 64-bit Intel and AMD processors are as "true" 64-bit as any other - it's just that they have additional capabilities that some 64-bit processors don't have.

I'd be very interested in an explaination of why a processor that has 64-bit registers (it has several 128-bit ones as well, but let's forget those for the time being), 64-bit addressing and performs operations on 64-bit data is not a "true" 64-bit processor.

 

[imrul]

if they're not true 64bit processors, then what are?

 

[califoria-inmy-heart]

the 64-bit is the first version who work fine for the gaming and orther utilisation, uses an Intel processor but not an AMD

 

[RetiredChief]

If you need more than 3 ->3.5 gigs ram and can find 64 bit drivers for your Hardware (or don't mind upgrading Hardware) then I would recommend the 64 Bit.

I do get irritated that 64 bit advocates believe that 64 bit is better than sliced bread and everyone should quite complaining and bit the bullet

The only problem I have run into that typical users have is hardware
(Primarily Printers and scanners). Venders will simply not provide 64 bit drivers - They would rather you buy their "Newer" model. Even thought the older model function just fine. ie I have a perfectly good cannon lide 35 - NO 64 bit driver (Work around is to load the lide 60 driver and toolbox - Win 7 does not like this and tells me every time I boot).

Typical programs - Not had a problem with - YET.
But for the none typical, it's just not an option. In my case, Software for data logging of multimeter, Software for capturing waveforms from an o'Scope - WAY too expensive as cost is much greater than any benefit 64 bit could provide. (PS the o'scope uses a serial interface, solve that with a serial -> USB adaptor - But NO 64 bit program.

 

[Kraynor]

I do get irritated that 64 bit advocates believe that 64 bit is better than sliced bread and everyone should quite complaining and bit the bullet

The sooner that 64-bit OSs make up the majority of the market, the better. At that point developers will start optimising their software for 64-bit, making good use of the extra available memory, and making everything better in the whole run.

I've had 0 issues with Vista-64, or my current OS, Windows 7 Ultimate 64. They're the same price, so unless you need hardware that cannot run on a 64-bit platform, there is absolutely no reason not to get it.

 

[juvealert]

well IMO if u have 64bit CPU with 2GB - 4GB or ram and and DX10 / DX11 video card buy windows 7 64 bit


if u don't have the above requirements go for XP 32-bit. theres no point in buying a new 32bit operating system


I loaded my acer 5739G with win7 x64bit and its stable

 

[RetiredChief]

1st off I have a 64 Bit desktop so I'm not knocking 64 bit, but for Mr Kraymor's benifit - the other side of the coin.
The drive to make 64 bit the primary operating system is driven by "money" not need.

80 Percent (est) of consummers do not need 64 bit (Internet, email, low end games, watching movies - DVD/Bluray). The only "need" for 64 bit (and the need for memory)is high end video editing and gaming. While a vast majority of the people on this forum are heavly into games - compared to the general public - well.

Almost all LOW end computers, and laptops, w/4gigs ram now come with 64 bit Win 7 - Not because of need. The companies do not want to answer the question of where my memory is and as you said - No diff in cost.

Companies are a differnt breed. If thay need 64 bit and will benifit from it, cost wise, if they haven't they will upgrade. If their is no real cost incentive, the will stay.

Case in point. I use a ground suppot system to control a satellite instrum. This is two rack mounted computers - OLD P4's runing WINDOWS 3.11!! Sure it can be done with a single computer now, and we plan on upgrading. That cost will be approx $100K. The computer is only a very small part of the cost. AND it will probably be a XP 32 Bit system!! And the only benifit is supportability, not inproving ability to control the instrument or the data stream from the instrument.

I for one will maintain a 32 bit XP/Vista computer as long as I can keep it running, IT IS just too expensive to upgrade a $3K portable digital o'scope the WILL NOT benifit one iota by going 64 Bit

 

[bl1tz]

Well, I'll just join the party and ask a question since there's no point of making a whole new post just to ask it. I'm building a new rig (here's the link http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=11205871 and my friend's uncle happened to have a copy of Windows 7 32bit available for free, so I'm wondering if 32 bit would work with 4 gigs of RAM. Some people are saying that 32bit works if you have 4 gigs of RAM or less, some are saying it works with 3.5 gigs of RAM, but my real question is, is there any difference in performance using 32 bit or 64 bit with 4 gigs of RAM(or even better if you can tell me if my whole rig would function the same), I was thinking there shouldn't be. Any answers? Thanks, I just need some clarification.

 

[RetiredChief]

I clicked on your wish list and it says it's empty.
As to your question, probably not a big difference. I have a laptop, Win 7 32 bit, with 4 gigs and a desktop ( vista 32) with 4 gigs and my new desktop, win 7 64 bit) with 4 gigs. The 32 bit will see the full 4 gigs, it just that it maps MIMOs into the top and leaves about 3.5 available for windows/applications.

The laptop came with 3 gigs and I upped it to 4 - very little change.
It's hard for me to give a positive answer as my new system has quad core w/ati 5770 vs my vista computer core 2 dual (3.2 GHz) and a ati 4870 gpu.

If you plan (need) to increase memory beyound 4 gigs, you should go with 64 Bit. But, for the time being why not put a FREE copy to good use.

 

[bl1tz]

I clicked on your wish list and it says it's empty.
As to your question, probably not a big difference. I have a laptop, Win 7 32 bit, with 4 gigs and a desktop ( vista 32) with 4 gigs and my new desktop, win 7 64 bit) with 4 gigs. The 32 bit will see the full 4 gigs, it just that it maps MIMOs into the top and leaves about 3.5 available for windows/applications.

The laptop came with 3 gigs and I upped it to 4 - very little change.
It's hard for me to give a positive answer as my new system has quad core w/ati 5770 vs my vista computer core 2 dual (3.2 GHz) and a ati 4870 gpu.

If you plan (need) to increase memory beyound 4 gigs, you should go with 64 Bit. But, for the time being why not put a FREE copy to good use.

Oh, yea sorry about that, I test clicked my link after I posted it and it came out empty and I fixed it in a minute, sorry again. Thanks for your input, so basically, 4 gigs of RAM is the sweet spot between 32 and 64 bit OS? I wasn't going to get more than 4 gigs of RAM because I did a bit of research a while ago and came to the conclusion there's not point of getting more than 4 gigs of RAM for gaming and general computing. If you're interested, you can try the link again, it's fixed now, and while you're at it, any suggestions/improvements is welcomed though I did do quite a bit of research and other user input before coming to this build.

 

[RetiredChief]

Don't think you need that slot cooler. Didn't catch which PSU.
RipJaw's seem to be good memory, I got the DDR3-1600 Ripjaws.
No position on AMD MB, have the gigabyte P965-DQ6 and the P55-UD4P - Great boards.

Added
If you are in to games then If you can spring for it, I'd go for the sapphire 5770
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102858

 

[bl1tz]

Don't think you need that slot cooler. Didn't catch which PSU.
RipJaw's seem to be good memory, I got the DDR3-1600 Ripjaws.
No position on AMD MB, have the gigabyte P965-DQ6 and the P55-UD4P - Great boards.

Added
If you are in to games then If you can spring for it, I'd go for the sapphire 5770
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102858

Oh yea, I got the PSU handled but if you're interested here's another link to it http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817194019 , my cousin's not using it so I'm getting it, might be a bit of overkill, but hey. Well my choice of mobo was that one because it offered x8 x8 crossfire and had a high sucess chance of unlocking cores. Many people've suggested HD5770 and I know their logic and my excuse was, I'll wait for the Vapor X version, now that it's come out and its 180 bucks a piece, I've decided to just go with the HD5750 Vapor X's since only plan only going up to a 24" monitor max so if I get 2 HD5750's for 140 bucks each(yea, it was on newegg one day), I can save 80 bucks for ~10fps give or take a few and should be sufficient enough for gaming. I also found out that 2 HD5750Vapor-X's is in between the HD5850 and the HD5870 and should kill 24" monitors.Well, what do you mean by "into games" I usually play the newest titles out there so that should qualify me as a "gamer?"

 

[john51]

Further to what JackNaylor said, the big difference between 32 and 64 bit is memory addressability. 32 bit can see a maximum of 4GB (but only use 3.0 - 3.5GB depending on what other hardware you have in the computer). 64 bit Windows 7 can see a maximum of 192GB. Applications loaded in 64 bit Windows can also address more than 4GB of ram (Photoshop being the first program that comes to mind).

*all server variants of 32bit windows can adress more than 4gb and all other variants can allso do his but:
MS cut this *feature* away from vista/w7 (xp): Licensed Memory in Windows... for some reason: only large difference 32<>64bit...
linux, apple ... can do this since years (32bit >4gb)

*all 32bit applications can adress full of 4gb workspace (if they are have the right flags), and more if needed (like mssql).

here some comparsion: OS differences

there are other (much smaller) differences between 32/64bit that makes sometimes x64 a little faster, sometimes slower..

best

 

[bl1tz]

*all server variants of 32bit windows can adress more than 4gb and all other variants can allso do his but:
MS cut this *feature* away from vista/w7 (xp): Licensed Memory in Windows... for some reason: only large difference 32<>64bit...
linux, apple ... can do this since years (32bit >4gb)

*all 32bit applications can adress full of 4gb workspace (if they are have the right flags), and more if needed (like mssql).

here some comparsion: OS differences

there are other (much smaller) differences between 32/64bit that makes sometimes x64 a little faster, sometimes slower..

best

Wow, that's a very very nice read, clears a lot of things up. Ok, so there's nothing wrong with Windows 7 32bit right now, I'll just use that(currently using 64bit Vista) and upgrade to 64bit if needed. Thanks guys!

 

[howardp6]

If you are using Windows 7 32 bit, you will have to do a clean install to go to the 64 bit version. There are still more drivers available for the 32 bit version than the 64 bit version. Unless you have a compelling need to address more tha 4BB of memory stay where you are. If you are running multiple applcations at a time and want to ease your future path to 64 bit use the 64 bit version.

 

[john51]

Wow, that's a very very nice read, clears a lot of things up.
Ok, so there's nothing wrong with Windows 7 32bit right now,
I'll just use that(currently using 64bit Vista) and upgrade to 64bit if needed. Thanks guys!

hmm, i will say it this way:

if you plan to upgrade and:

*there is no price difference between 32/64bit win7
*you have at least 4gb of memory
*you have a fast pc

then i would choose 64bit. because its the future, not for peformance

 

[Scotteq]

the 64-bit is the first version who work fine for the gaming and orther utilisation, uses an Intel processor but not an AMD

It is completely and absolutely false to claim that 64 bits cannot run on AMD processors.