32 bit OS v. 64 bit OS

Great Article on the Where’s Why’s and Benefits of a 64 bit OS and Memory:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feat [...] m_and_.php


Why 64 bit Articles:

http://www.extremetech.com/article [...] 478,00.asp


http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3034

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] spx?i=3044

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3060

V64 Questions and Answers
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=511

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?

32 bit does just fine too, thank you.

You know, that doesn't make sense due to the fact that the 64 bit os's are said to run both 64 and 32 bit. How is this more secure rather than the new os having more features for protection? That has nothing to do with 64 or 32 bit Os's.

I've seen this comment many of times through threads and I think some links to provide some facts would be nice.

As for the "Is 64 bit better?" As of right now and going to be for a while, no... Unless you are a professional user or your burning disks all day and everyday then no, LOL!

I'd say 64 bit is going to be beneficial to us when Windows 4057438520345 arrives. I could be a little off, but I think that's about correct I think. I might have to check on that though.

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.

Hmmm, unless Vista has an option for both 32 or 64 bit then this is why there are a lot of pissed of people. Spending that much just to get the os you need is just plain stupid. At least we know 32 bit works properly.

No, actually it's laughed at.

Secondly, biased opinions that persuade people over facts is a violation of the website and has been as long as I could remember. And not only is it frowned upon but looked down upon. People actually used to get permanently banned constantly for doing this. I guess they just got used to people having to always put in their opinion whether or not it's factual.

Which I find funny and I know your not talking about my posts because I was indirectly told by a moderator that I wasn't concise enough meaning I needed to have some sort of opinion rather then basing it on facts and having a normal discussion with jokes. But some people just don't have a sense of humor which is fine. I don't really care and I don't see it as a character flaw but rather just a lack of personality. But usually these types of people stay away from humurous comments so it kind of makes you think about why they respond in the first place. If you don't like it, just stay on topic and have a normal discussion. Man, what do I look like a moderator?!!!

This is a computer forum not the "Women's feelings club"

Really? Getting a bit hostile I see. Go read through all the threads, I tend to stay away from any opinions. So, your telling me everything I said wasn't factual? I think your just upset cause you paid a lot for an os that doesn't offer much? Who knows, maybe you belong in the last sentence of my last post. You figure it out...

Also, I did say in past posts, "If Vista works for you then that's fine." Although people tend to favor Windows 7 over Vista already, and it hasn't even been released in on retail shelves. Also, I hardly mention Windows 7 and it's pure speculation to say the least, which is why I hard mention it. Only thing we can really assume is that it's going to be better then Vista as far as performance goes.

I find your comment ironic because a moderator told me I wasn't concise enough... Which I am he just indirectly telling me that I need to have an opinion, which I don't cause it's just a computer forum.

Also, could you try to stay on topic at least? Like, if you really want to have a good discussion, feel free to post some links that show 64 bit progression. How about you put your money where you mouth is instead of just purely just ranting and trolling at people directly. I try discuss the situation, not people... Try not to get your panties in a bunch over this.

And just to clear things up. I was probably one of the first people to try Windows XP x64. Anyone that's tried this version of Windows is going to know a lot better how much 64 bit is lacking because there basically isn't any 32 bit support so unlike Vista which indirectly hides this by having both 32 and 64 bit, your going to know exactly what works and what doesn't work instead of it being worked around by 32 bit. Although, I can tell you for a fact, not much is going to work as far as 64 bit is concerned.

And they aren't doing a very good job with 64 bit apps, I'll tell you people that right now. Sure there are a few here and there, but take away 32 support and you've got almost nothing.

I'd would post links to prove this, but I can't prove it if it doesn't exist. See what I am trying to get at?

Also, I'm all for Windows 7, but they might let their consumers down by not progressing with more support for it right away. They've disapointed a lot of people with Vista and this is a fact.

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.

Okay, let me make this clear also. Where did I say that 64 bit was bad? And doesn't Vista 64 run both? So really, there is no excuse. Could you try to explain this one for the rest of us?

@Croc

I am getting the impression your quite the dirty ol man trying to lurk and follow me around threads. Not anything to be proud of either.

Okay, that's fine too. But your missing the fact that these people are claiming that there are huge performance and compatibility progression benefits. Not a fact.

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.

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.

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

Then why did reviews show that buisnesses were eager and wanting to upgrade to Vista but didn't want to deal with the issues?

"Please do not feed the trolls"

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.

I said buisnesses, not "a few buisnesses"

Your living in a delusional point of view. With online reviews you get more than just a broad view of things.

So, your basically claiming to have been to all those buisnesses, your crazy.

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.

As your basically claiming to have been to all these buisnesses yourself? Insane!

Okay, your basing your comment on a "IF" situation. That's some comment you got there...

LOL! Those reviews do not reveal anything beneficial to the normal user. And in very unlikely situations an intensive professional user. Yeah, they mentioned like two apps that aren't used on a normal basis, reserved for intensive professional users.

Also, Could you use some quotes to make things clear of why you posted those links? Cause, it doesn't show anything except a bunch of things we already know but can't benefit from.

Your saying that Windows 7 is a lot better than Vista, nice observation there. I bet you didn't need to read any other comments to figure that out either. Good for you!


I quote from the pcmag link...

"It's been more than four years since then and things have changed a lot. Windows Vista, while it wasn't exactly celebrated, has helped make 64-bit drivers become more readily available. The fact that Windows 7 uses the same driver architecture as Vista will make it the most 64-bit-ready OS when it's officially released come October. On top of that RAM is now about four times more affordable than it used to be back in 2005."

This is basically saying they are behind with 64 bit.


I quote from this article on toms...
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,2264.html

"Not much has changed since 4 GB of RAM became the “sweet spot” for performance and price in the enthusiast market. While 32-bit operating systems previously limited those 4 GB configurations to around 3 GB of useful memory space, today's test shows that 3 GB is still usually enough.

We remember days when having multiple Internet Explorer windows open could cause a system to become sluggish. But even that scenario has become unrealistic, as all the configurations we tested in this review supported over 100 open windows simultaneously.

If 3 GB worked so well, why do we continue to recommend 4 GB to 6 GB triple-channel kits for performance systems? Perhaps we’re just a little too forward-looking, but we can certainly imagine scenarios a typical “power user” could encounter where 3 GB might not be enough, even if today’s tests didn’t reveal any of them. For those folks, stepping up to a 64-bit operating system at the same time is undoubtedly the best course of action.

We can only recommend larger capacities of 8 GB to 12 GB for professional applications where its usefulness has already been documented and for servers. None of our tests required high-memory capacities and wasted RAM is a burden both financially and ecologically."


Okay, so if this has been the standard for professional users for years already, where does the average light professional app user fall under? Very good, below the 4 gig standard and possibly under the 3 gig standard. Very good... We are learning aren't we? And this has been a standard for YEARS, so anything you say about future proofing is just plain bs. Even toms reviewed this statement as a little farfetched.


All I need are a few legit links showing more then just farfetched claims that don't have any benefits to most people. It shouldn't be that hard if what you people are saying is correct.

You know a few years back people that used to post links without being able to back up their comment properly used to be banned.

Parts? That was basically the whole conclusion from the article! Are you serious? I basically summarized the whole review with the pcmag site... That was the best comment regarding 64 bit. What are you talking about?

I'm not, but you know, it's a violation to say that 64 bit has benefited them a lot when in it hasn't because that isn't a FACT. That's an opinion because they are overlooking the fact that it really isn't beneficial to them for whatever reason.

I really like how you have to mention the future. We've been waiting for this one for a long time. Would you like discussions dated back to 2005? I'd be glad to show you some. Four years later only a few apps are benefited? That's insane.

Okay, provide some logical links backing your post up. Least I can back my claims up.


Edit: And it isn't really bad that they say that Vista benefits them, it's when they start to make all these comments that aren't facts. If they just said, Vista benefits me, I'd just laugh and skip the post, but since they want to say things that aren't factual such as, Vista benefits me because they need more than 4 gigs when they really don't is almost next to flat out lying.

Good comment but 64 bit has been around for about five years and what we are seeing is not impressive at all.

Funny thing is, most people's situation does not dictate their decision on the OS.