Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

32 bit OS v. 64 bit OS

Last response: in Windows 7
Share
August 18, 2009 1:00:49 PM

Hi,

I am thinking of adopting 64 bit instead of 32 bit windows xp or vista or 7. My CPU is AMD 64 Athlonx2. Can anyone tell me if there is any advantage or disadvantages going with 64 bit system instead of 32 bit system?

More about : bit bit

August 18, 2009 3:22:24 PM

You have the ability to use more than 3gig of ram if you have say 4gig of ram installed. I believe it is also meant to provide higher throughput in applications that take advantage of 64 bit computing.
Related resources
a c 209 $ Windows 7
August 18, 2009 10:54:18 PM

Yes, the most significant reason is to allow you to install and use more than 4GB of memory. If you're building a system today you may not need that much memory, but if you expect to use the system for at least a few years and if the motherboard can accommodate more than 4GB, you should probably use a 64-bit operating system so that you'll be able to add the extra memory in the future without having to reinstall the OS.
August 18, 2009 11:04:55 PM

If I happen to have an x64 copy of Windows 7, even if my machine doesn't have more than 4 GB of memory, it should still do fine with the x64 copy? It should just run it as if it were the x32 version shouldn't it?
a b $ Windows 7
August 18, 2009 11:17:19 PM

Ausmus said:
If I happen to have an x64 copy of Windows 7, even if my machine doesn't have more than 4 GB of memory, it should still do fine with the x64 copy? It should just run it as if it were the x32 version shouldn't it?

A 64 bit OS will run just fine on a pc with 2gb or more. One advantage of 64 bit vista and windows-7 is that it is more secure. Individual programs are rarely are written to take advantage of more than 4gb. Still, when you multitask several such programs, a 64 bit OS and plenty of ram can make your system run better.
a c 209 $ Windows 7
August 19, 2009 2:08:33 AM

habitat87 said:
Quote:
I'd say 64 bit is going to be beneficial to us when Windows 4057438520345 arrives.
Quote:
Ah, that brings back memories of the comments I heard back when Intel brought out the 32-bit 80386 CPU. "Who could ever need more than 16MB of memory?", they said...
August 19, 2009 2:20:19 AM

If you have specific software that will not run on Windows 7 64-bit, and not being able to run that 32-bit software is a deal breaker, well then install the 32-bit OS. Otherwise, why not try the 64-bit. I am amazed at the old ladies on this site who say why run 64-bit, I say why not?

Install the 64-bit OS. If it doesn't work out, you can always go to 32-bit.
a b $ Windows 7
August 19, 2009 2:50:11 AM

If you buy retail, you have both 32-bit and 64-bit in the box. If you buy OEM, you get either one, with the option to get the media for the other... usually for the cost of shipping it. Some of us know that 64-bit works properly as well... if you're using a program that has a 16-bit installer it's time to retire that program and use something else or simply stick with 32-bit. Compatibility issues as a result of 32-bit software on 64-bit Windows are rare. Leave some to blow them completely out of proportion, however... I always thought trolling was frowned upon in this forum.
a b $ Windows 7
August 19, 2009 4:04:55 AM

Hab... you've gone way past stating your opinion. You are blatantly trolling every single 32-bit vs. 64-bit or Vista vs. Win 7 thread. Posting inflammatory BS is known as trolling where I come from... especially when you're doing it on every single one of these threads. Try to deflect or redirect, but this is exactly what you are doing. Just know that if you insist on continuing with it, you will be banned.

State your opinion with facts to support it. Leave out the inflammatory comments. If you cannot do so, you will be dealt with.
August 19, 2009 4:16:55 AM

+1 Zoron

I have the following advice:
1. If you have an older Athlon with only a Gigabyte or two of RAM then you are probably best loading 32bit win 7 - this is especially a good idea imho if it only has expensive DDR ram to upgrade or if the board only goes to 4GB total anyway (yea there is a slight benefit for 64bit with 4GB RAM, but for this user I probably wouldn't bother.)
2. If you have a more modern board that'll go to 8GB of DDR2 ram and you can do that cheaply I say go 64bit and get the extra RAM as multi-tasking (including having a lot more stuff running then running a big game at the same time [32bit programs can only use 2GB at once]) will be a lot better - especially if you wish to do, for example, encoding at the same time as backing up as burning a disc as running dozens of tabs in Firefox etc. Imho 6-8GB of RAM in 64bit Win 7 is the way to go for a very smooth experience that comes with all that extra ram for the multi-tasking and for caching as well.

My 2 cents.
August 19, 2009 4:34:00 AM

Zoron said:
Hab... you've gone way past stating your opinion. You are blatantly trolling every single 32-bit vs. 64-bit or Vista vs. Win 7 thread. Posting inflammatory BS is known as trolling where I come from... especially when you're doing it on every single one of these threads. Try to deflect or redirect, but this is exactly what you are doing. Just know that if you insist on continuing with it, you will be banned.

State your opinion with facts to support it. Leave out the inflammatory comments. If you cannot do so, you will be dealt with.


I think I'll just patiently lurk and watch this thread.... I have a bet with myself on how many posts it takes to get this thread locked.
a b $ Windows 7
August 19, 2009 4:35:30 AM

No, there aren't a plethora of 64-bit apps available right now. Why does this surprise you? It makes perfect sense... as long as the majority of computer users are still stuck on a 32-bit OS, then creating 64-bit apps makes absolutely no sense. Once the installed base of 64-bit Windows increases beyond a certain point, we will start seeing more 64-bit applications. The only way to push software vendors to start creating 64-bit apps is to get more computers out there capable of running it. If we insist on sticking with 32-bit, then vendors won't see any point in creating more 64-bit apps.

Adobe has been dragging it's feet with 64-bit Flash, despite the increase in 64-bit Windows users and the already installed base of Linux x64 users. Does this mean we should stick with 32-bit forever and let Adobe continue to sit on their thumbs? Of course not. It's about time vendors like Adobe realize that 64-bit isn't just for techno-geeks anymore.
August 19, 2009 5:03:42 AM

Habitat: It was only meant to be an opinion. I have been reading Toms Hardware since its inception in 1996 and have used many computers since 1987. My opinion is based on the use of 64bit Vista and 7 for a year now - and also the comments of several people regarding the usefulness and compatibility of the 64bit OS's mentioned. One of these people is a Windows MCAD programmer who doesn't seem to mind using a 64bit OS for 32bit stuff.
a b $ Windows 7
August 19, 2009 5:58:34 AM

No one said "huge". No one said there was "compatibility progression". What has been said is that 64-bit Windows isn't as incompatible as you like to make it out to be and that performance is on par with Windows XP. Why install an old OS on a new computer when it doesn't provide any clear benefit? While XP will continue to be supported for a few more years, Windows 7 will be supported until 2020. If you're purchasing a new computer now, there is no reason not to consider Win 7.
August 19, 2009 6:24:33 AM

Zoron said:
No one said "huge". No one said there was "compatibility progression". What has been said is that 64-bit Windows isn't as incompatible as you like to make it out to be and that performance is on par with Windows XP. Why install an old OS on a new computer when it doesn't provide any clear benefit? While XP will continue to be supported for a few more years, Windows 7 will be supported until 2020. If you're purchasing a new computer now, there is no reason not to consider Win 7.


OK, I'll stick my 2p in here... I'll say huge improvements in some apps. In the latest release of ACad, going from a ~3GB RAM system running a 32 bit OS, to a 6GB RAM system running a 64bit OS yields a 66% improvement in redraw times alone. Same system just different OS. That's a FACT.

My Autodesk rep tells me that they are working on a 64bit version of their software across all of their products, that may release in late 2010 early 2011. That's a RUMOUR.
August 19, 2009 6:54:19 AM

elkatman said:
Hi,

I am thinking of adopting 64 bit instead of 32 bit windows xp or vista or 7. My CPU is AMD 64 Athlonx2. Can anyone tell me if there is any advantage or disadvantages going with 64 bit system instead of 32 bit system?


Time to make a post that's more relevant and on topic. The first notable advantage of using a 64 bit os is the fact your pc can make use of 4gb of ram or more. Which is a good thing being that in the past we have all been stuck with much less ram which makes for a much slower overall experience. Another advantage is the price of ram itself its so cheap now it doesnt make sense not to install or have installed lots of it. And also any modern motherboard as well as other hardware devices now come with 64 bit drivers and support right out of the box. Windows Vista and Windows 7 include both flavors of either 32bit and 64bit. Performance wise between 32 and 64 bit versions of windows is virtually none if you have less than 4gb of ram installed in your pc. But other factors come into play such as the type of applications you run how many instances of multiple applications you have going. With less than 4gigs of ram in your pc the 32 bit version of windows just limits how many different things you can do at once same goes with the 64bit version but with an exception. Add more ram to a 64bit OS more work or play can be done.

Another notable factor is application compatibility almost all modern software at-least in the consumer sector now includes 64bit support. And if it doesn't and it is 32bit only windows x64 runs it in compatibility mode I could be wrong on what that exact feature is called but its something along that line. And with windows 7 x64 microsofts including an XP mode environment thats virtualized and allows use of those old applications that don't work on vista or windows 7. Other hardware requirements mainly cpu virtualization are required.

Windows XP is so old now I cant recommend it to anyone rather it be 32 or 64 bit It's only a matter of time before all application and hardware support for it is phased out. Not only that but its much more vulnerable to picking up virus's and spyware atleast the 32bit version that is I have never used the 64bit version of windows xp nor do I intend to.
August 19, 2009 7:17:28 AM

habitat87 said:
Saying that 64 is a lot better in terms of performance and saying that it has a lot to offer in terms of features and overall benefits the user is not huge claims? That's claiming huge because even xp didn't offer much over 2000, it's only because they totally stopped supporting it and pushed for XP support. Why don't they just do this for XP? Cause they can't. Maybe I was a bit too broad in the explanation that's about it, now your just trying to search for flaws when you should be clearing yours up. I also remember there was a discussion on how technology could be stuck at 32 bit for a while because of this.

It's not that incompatible because 32 bit is being supported on those Os's. I can give you a very good reason to install the previous os and you can't call it old yet. The reason is because you know it's going to work properly. Can you honestly say that for Vista? No. Why did it take buisnesses a while to adapt to XP and why did they eventually switch? Because 2000 was that good and XP was based on it but eventually they saw the benefits of XP and needed to switch. This does not hold as a fact as far as Vista goes.

I never said nothing about Windows 7 really. It's not even out yet either so how can you make such a comment without there being some kind of doubt about it.


I think maybe your a little off when it comes to business computing. Company's don't upgrade as often because they usually have specialized applications that only work on what they have and they keep it untill the support for the application is their then eventually upgrade or its replaced with something new when the pc die's..lol
August 19, 2009 7:56:07 AM

I'm just posting my opinion that's based on my real world experience not reviews if your really having trouble understanding my post and not just being critical I will post a valid response.
August 19, 2009 7:59:01 AM

0ptic0n said:
I'm just posting my opinion that's based on my real world experience not reviews if your really having trouble understanding my post and not just being critical I will post a valid response.


"Please do not feed the trolls"
August 19, 2009 8:38:12 AM

Well before I went back to college I worked for a consulting company and during my time their I was often sent out to different company's to fix whatever was broke or not working right. At 1 lcation their was a server that was running nt4 a server and about 12 desktop clients with xp home/pro non domain type network none of the clients could access the accounting software that was setup on the server via mapped drives turned out to be simple ipconfig error I asked why the company had such an old outdated server and aging desktops. Response in turn was that their was no support for anything newer that the accounting software would run on. It was a much older 16bit application if i remember correctly. At another location our local courthouse the company I worked for was responsible for server/desktop and network management layout simple single domain server 2003 over 60 desktops mixed with windows 98 2000 and XP a few of the desktops where damaged by lighting/power failure when it came time to order new pc's it was made clear that the os had to be xp because the software used in tax commissioners office that's supported by the state doesn't work with vista. And those in trash collection had been using xp and the type of database software used hadn't been tested approved to work on anything other than xp. So for simply compatibility reasons everything that was ordered had windows xp. From what I have seen with company's its not about how new or old the technology is its all about will it work with what we need.
August 19, 2009 8:40:22 AM

croc said:
"Please do not feed the trolls"

Couldn't have said it better myself. So how's the weather croc? :) 
August 19, 2009 8:54:43 AM

I don't have time to list all the unique situations I have dealt with as i said I pulled my information from real world experience. Where have you gotten yours? Oh a review right no actual read world experience a review is simply meant to be informative. I tried to dismiss the ignorance but oh well just how some people are I guess.
August 19, 2009 8:57:20 AM

aznguy0028 said:
Couldn't have said it better myself. So how's the weather croc? :) 


Getting closer to Spring Almost made 20C today, but could use some rain... Probably another bad fire season, by the looks of it.
August 19, 2009 12:06:33 PM

Here's my 2cents and 2 pounds of salt.

Moving to a 64-bit Win7 isn't really a problem, unless you have some ancient or unpopular hardware that doesn't have drivers for 64-bit Vista or 7. I haven't had trouble yet with the typical apps such as, Firefox, Opera, Flash (32-bit), ATi's 64-bit drivers, MS Office 2k3. The only real problem I have with Win 7 64-bit, was when to my horror I discovered that my printer didn't have a Vista 32 or 64-bit driver.

Here's a scenario, what if Firefox, Opera, Chrome, MS Office, other Anti-Virus apps, FLASH, etc suddenly release their 64-bit apps and prove that they perform at least 2% and 10% on average faster than their 32-bit counterparts? What then with 32-bit users that have 3GB of RAM, are they screwed and need to reformat and reinstall just because they believed habitat whole-heartedly?


Win 7-64 is here, it is available, it doesn't have performance penalty, most of the apps you use would work, it functions still pretty much the same, popular hardware makers have their drivers available, so why not?
August 19, 2009 7:59:40 PM

You want links? Ok

http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2009/08/12/64-bit-computing-...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2337414,00.asp

And here is even one talking about Mac 64-bit computing:

http://lowendmac.com/musings/09mm/64-bit-computing.html

Just because it has no huge immediate improvements doesn't mean that it won't in the near future. Why limit yourself?

BTW, I am running Windows 7x64 Ultimate and I am able to do an extreme amount of multi-tasking with no noticeable slowdown - an immediate improvement over my Vista 32-bit experience. Is it something I can document? Well no, that kind of thing is subjective. That said, there are an awful lot of people saying that 64-bit provides a better experience and far fewer pitching a fit to stay 32-bit.
August 19, 2009 8:34:55 PM

See.. that is what you do that the people responding to you have a problem with in general. You pick out the parts of articles that you feel substantiate your opinion without looking at the overall picture. The fact of the matter is that even if 64-bit doesn't help everyone at this moment it soon will as that is the future trend in computing. If you want to keep the hamsters running in your XP PC then by all means do so but don't get 'your panties in a wad' over those of us who are forward-thinking.

The fact remains - given the OPs hardware, 64-bit is the logical choice.
a b $ Windows 7
August 19, 2009 9:03:35 PM

Whether or not it does today, sticking with 32bit may create a future limitation. Yes, there are apps that will not run in a 64bit environment (e.g. Cisco VPN, a potential dealbreaker for some [businesses]), but however slowly, this is where the industry is headed. If your specific situation dictates one or the other, then that's what you get. Otherwise, the most options will be available to you now and in the future by going with 64bit, whether or not you can measure any notable difference today.
August 19, 2009 9:26:24 PM

hello habitat.. why install (AND PURCHASE) a 32bit system now
if you can purchase a 64bit OS which you can use for.. lets say a good 5 years?
apps will eventually be 64bit after 7's release. wouldnt it hurt our pockets if we
listened to your advice and purchased a crappy 32bit now and that 64bit OS will be useful when windows 45458925 came out? lol
August 19, 2009 9:58:50 PM

32bit windows and intel atom 32bit only is holding the world back, get the x64, u may not need it, but it is the future, lets say ur needs go past 2 gb, then ull have to reinstall
August 19, 2009 10:20:09 PM

Instead of bashing other peoples post why not add something that has relevance to the topic at hand. All you really seem to be doing is opening a can of worms on just application compatibility. If that's your main concern just list it and move on
a b $ Windows 7
August 20, 2009 12:21:14 AM

You bring it upon yourself. Your attitude is atrocious. You can't find specific examples of compatibility issues with Windows 7, yet you keep claiming that somehow it will definately have the same issues as Vista. If you used Windows 7 as you claimed you have... then you should be able to provide us with specific examples... not just links to articles talking about how older software wasn't written with Vista's UAC in mind. We are talking about Windows 7 here, not Vista, not XP and not Mac OS. If all you're going to do is link to articles, at least link to ones regarding Windows 7.

"It's not released yet" is a cop-out. The Release Candidate has been widely available for quite some time now. While this isn't necessarily a true reflection of what the RTM release will be like... it is damn close. Certainly close enough that it can be used as a guage to tell what will be and what won't be compatible.
August 20, 2009 1:29:48 AM

Zoron said:
You bring it upon yourself. Your attitude is atrocious. You can't find specific examples of compatibility issues with Windows 7, yet you keep claiming that somehow it will definately have the same issues as Vista. If you used Windows 7 as you claimed you have... then you should be able to provide us with specific examples... not just links to articles talking about how older software wasn't written with Vista's UAC in mind. We are talking about Windows 7 here, not Vista, not XP and not Mac OS. If all you're going to do is link to articles, at least link to ones regarding Windows 7.

"It's not released yet" is a cop-out. The Release Candidate has been widely available for quite some time now. While this isn't necessarily a true reflection of what the RTM release will be like... it is damn close. Certainly close enough that it can be used as a guage to tell what will be and what won't be compatible.


Even worse, in other threads he 'claimed' that he was one of 'only 10,000' people to be in the Vista beta test group. He says that Vista has compatability issues, but can't provide examples there, either. Me, I filed over 500 bug reports for Vista, 1500+ bug reports for XP / server 2k, and about the same for NT. Being semi-retired, I choose to just play with Win 7, not do a full debug / file reports on it.

Vista has very few compatability issues left for the average user, and some issues for businesses due to running older, legacy code. Also the hardware requirements did increase, making it a costly upgrade. Certain companies really have no recourse but to upgrade, however, as the productivity improvements in the newer hardware coupled with the newer OS's makes the cost of NOT upgrading a real bottom-line issue.

@Habitat: The Luddites have no website, but should have a meeting in a town near you soon... The FlatEarthSociety forum can be found here: theflatearthsociety.org
a b $ Windows 7
August 20, 2009 1:49:16 AM

Simple. Windows XP was originally intended to be supported until 2012... this would have been the case regardless of how Vista performed or sold. MS has clearly stated on their website that ALL versions of Windows would have 5 years mainstream and 10 years extended support. The only reason XP has been extended to 2014 is because Vista was delayed... it should have been ready in 2005 (MS is shooting for a 3-year cycle), but wasn't ready until 2007. Windows XP wasn't delayed and the 10-year support period for Win 2K expired... hence why support for 2000 was discontinued on schedule.

It's really that simple.
August 20, 2009 2:13:27 AM

"Go away dirty ol man, I don't trust your findings at all..."

Listen, I really don't CARE about what you think, feel, trust, etc. I gave you a link to a website, please go there. On the other hand, the flat earthers have an exquisite sense of tongue-in-cheek humour, irony. I think that it might be a little above your intellectual level, and might leave you confused....

So to paraphrase your statement, 'Go away you irritating young twit, I don't care if your feelings are hurt or not. You have no findings or posts of any value on this forum at all'.

You have single-handedly destroyed every thread that you have ever posted in, you have never once offered any constructive advice to any OP that I can see, and have been the single-handed cause of more threads being locked than I can recall in recent history. Why you are still here, I have no clue.

You are aware that there are quite a few (many) knowledgeable members on these forums, yeah? I would posit the position that it would not be in your best interest to ever post a request for assistance in any of these forums...
a c 209 $ Windows 7
August 20, 2009 2:19:15 AM

habitat87 said:
your starting to irritate me with your nagging.
...said the kettle to the pot! :o 
a b $ Windows 7
August 20, 2009 3:05:52 AM

Quote:
1. What is the Support Lifecycle policy?

The Microsoft Support Lifecycle (MSL) policy standardizes Microsoft product support policies for Business and Developer products, and for Consumer, Hardware, and Multimedia products. The Support Lifecycle policy was originally announced on October 15, 2002. A Support Lifecycle policy update went into effect June 1, 2004. The Support Lifecycle policy update applies to most Business and Developer products that were in Mainstream support on June 1, 2004, and to future product versions. The new Support Lifecycle policy provides:

Business and Developer products

Microsoft will offer a minimum of 10 years of support for Business and Developer products. Mainstream Support for Business and Developer products will be provided for 5 years or for 2 years after the successor product (N+1) is released, whichever is longer. Microsoft will also provide Extended Support for the 5 years following Mainstream support or for 2 years after the second successor product (N+2) is released, whichever is longer. Finally, most Business and Developer products will receive at least 10 years of online self-help support.

Consumer, Hardware, and Multimedia products

Microsoft will offer Mainstream Support for either a minimum of 5 years from the date of a product’s general availability, or for 2 years after the successor product (N+1) is released, whichever is longer. Extended Support is not offered for Consumer, Hardware, and Multimedia products. Products that release new versions annually, such as Microsoft Money, Microsoft Encarta, Microsoft Picture It!, and Microsoft Streets & Trips, will receive a minimum of 3 years of Mainstream Support from the product's date of availability. Most products will also receive at least 8 years of online self-help support. Microsoft Xbox games are currently not included in the Support Lifecycle policy.

To find the support timelines for your product, visit the Select a Product for Lifecycle Information site (products listed by Product Family) or the Support Lifecycle Index site.


There it is for you... in black and white. Yes, XP is still supported (it has entered the extended support cycle now) and will be until 2014. There will still be security updates and critical fixes... but no more service packs or general updates.
a b $ Windows 7
August 20, 2009 3:33:16 AM

Quit attempting to be a smartass... it doesn't suit you.

If you would actually read and comprehend what you're reading, you'd find that this support policy applies to ALL MICROSOFT PRODUCTS. Last time I checked, Windows XP was a Microsoft product and therefore covered by this support policy. Windows XP became generally available as of 12/31/2001.

That was quoted directly from Microsoft's website... where in the blue hell do you think it came from? Or are you just trying to be obtuse? (Never mind... I know the answer to that already). But since you insist...

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

There is the link. Unlike you, I don't make *** up.
August 20, 2009 5:44:42 AM

habitat87 said:
Shall we rephrase your choice of words then?


"I have been around when your "MUM" was still a virgin" blah blah blah

I cant tell the difference between you and highschool punk with your rant. Stay on topic or go get some of those prescribed medicine that helps old people better focus in life. That's why they invent these types of medication...

Stay on topic please.

And again, stop following me around threads old man, if you want to judge people go and read the bible and be humbled greatly. You think your so wise, you would be put to sleep in those days with your dirty mouth.


So now you are an irrational, delusional bible thumper? And yes, I do have a 'dirty mouth', as do we all.

As to your Mum, them's just the facts, kid... And those facts scare me greatly as I did spend (mis-spend?) some time in and around Richmond in my youth. But the thought that one of those condoms broke, BRRrrr..!!!
a b $ Windows 7
August 20, 2009 5:57:12 AM

Child?

If your posts are any indication, I'd have to wager that I'm probably much older than you. Considering you have to rely on other people to give you your opinion rather than actually forming one yourself tells me a lot. Use and evaluate and then give your opinion. Stop quoting articles that aren't relevant to the conversation. Stop making every thread in here XP vs. Vista.
August 20, 2009 7:06:45 AM

So....when exactly did habitat go insane?
August 20, 2009 7:12:28 AM

I wonder if croc's estimate was close.
!