Does 32bit windows still make sense?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
For the average home user, you are correct... 64-bit doesn't really provide any advantage. For gamers and video or photo editors, however, 64-bit is starting to make a lot of sense. 4GB of address space is starting to be a bottleneck for some... though not yet the vast majority. Does that mean we should continue to stall progress simply because most people do not NEED it right now?

The only way to push vendors to support 64-bit is to get the hardware and the OS out there. Vista x64 is precisely the reason 64-bit support has gotten as good as it is right now. With Windows 7, that support will continue to grow. Old hardware and software are bound to be left behind. I know it's nice to have a 10 year-old printer or scanner that still works perfectly... unfortunately, like everything computer-related, it eventually has to be replaced. You can sit an whine about it or you can accept it and move on.

Nothing lasts forever.
 



^^+1 Zoron and agree 100% I think it is very important to move forward and advance software. XP 32 bit or 64 bit do nothing for advancement. There is nothing wrong with pointing out flaws or problems with a OS so it can be improved, however to just claim it is worthless or a crap OS or over inflate small flaws that alot of people don't even have a problem with, is just silly and very small minded, IMO.
 



I have no need to provide you with links of proof.

Very simple question, does XP support DX10 or 11? Hardware advancements change, and so will the OS have to advance also. Simple. :hello:
 



Well the first article you linked amazingly has this awesome bit of text...

"Our 2004 article pointed out weaknesses in the once-popular single-gigabyte configurations. But 512 MB and smaller modules are now a distant memory. It wasnt long after that 2 GB became the performance standard, and by 2007, 4 GB kits could be found in all but the lowest-cost systems. Is it time to take the next step, to 8 GB or more? More importantly, were 4 GB modules ever really needed for games and everyday applications? And with the 32-bit addressing limit of 4 GB making only 3 GB available to many users, should everyone switch to a 64-bit operating system simply to support higher capacities?"

I run 8GB's of RAM right now and have been for about 6 months, RAM is so cheap right now that 8GB's can be had for about 100$.

Why not have enough RAM to not have to worry about it ?

If your looking for a reason to stick with 32bit sure you can find them but you have to be looking pretty hard these days... Its not like the hardware is expensive or there is a lack of driver support.

Way back when Vista first came out (Im talking Pre SP1) I made the jump to 64bit and I had mixed fealings about it the drivers sucked and some of my favorite programs would not work. Now after all this time things are completly different. The drivers rock and every program that I use has been updated to work.

Your average user would never notice the difference between 2GB's of RAM and 8GB's of RAM but run a virtual machine and do some things your average user does not do and you WILL notice the difference.
 
If someone wants 32-bit, then they should consider keeping their PC the way it is instead of upgrading the OS to the next generation.

The technology has been around long enough -- let's move on to the next greatest thing already.
 


The reason I quoted from that article you linked...

"Our 2004 article pointed out weaknesses in the once-popular single-gigabyte configurations. But 512 MB and smaller modules are now a distant memory. It wasnt long after that 2 GB became the performance standard, and by 2007, 4 GB kits could be found in all but the lowest-cost systems. Is it time to take the next step, to 8 GB or more?"

Looks like at one point in time 1GB was plenty of RAM (I remember when it was almost too much)

Progression ?

What do you mean by progression ? That more RAM is needed ? or that there is some performance benifit by switching to 64bit ?
 



I agree with you, and it is a well know fact that businesses are slow to change.





Hab,

I am not trying to skew the topic, From a gamers point of view, and some one who works with CAD, and multi tasks like crazy, 64 bit does make sence period. I can get online and play DOW II ranked games and just by seeing the load six load bars for the mission and how fast other players load the mission can see a big difference. When talking to some of these players and asking what their build is, I then know why there running so slow.

I used to think that 2 gb would hold me over for a while and be all that I needed. I soon came to the fact that it was not, and now I am once again at that point of is 4 gb enough. For many users it is plenty, however the better hardware gets I am starting to notice a difference from having 4 gb up to 8 gb. When you run software and or games and it starts to get close to maxing out your ram, then it is time to upgrade your ram. Perfect example of this is that CAD programs and inroute software for a CNC machine chews XP and 3 GB of ram up and laughs at it.

Most people that have made the switch to Vista 64 and are running Windows 7 64 bit that have really worked with it, have found it to be a very easy OS to work with. Does it have faults, sure it does, but they can be over come and it is the step in the right direction and I for one as alot of other Vista 64 bit users have found that it is a good OS to work with. It is responsive, and fast, and I am glad I made the switch from XP 32bit given the fact that XP 64 bit is a joke as a OS.

If you are happy with Xp 32 bit, good for you, use it till 2020 if you like, after all "it is going to be around for a long while", and "its not going nowhere" enjoy your computer, and I will enjoy mine with 64 bit vista and windows 7. I can tell the difference that newer hardware and these OS make, so I don't feel a need to provide you with links on anything. I believe there have been Plenty of others on here that have said the same thing to you about Vista 64 bit and Window 7 64 bit and the difference's they notice running a min. of 4 gb of ram during certain games, programs and software that they run.

Not sure if it was a joke on your end or not, but you had stated your thinking of getting a older Mac, and running there new OS on it. That right there tells me alot, maybe its time to upgrade you hardware.... :hello:

 


Very true, at least untill MS pulls the plug on support then some will chose to upgrade at that time or will stick with XP.

Some companies still use Dos but that does not make Dos a good choice to install or keep an OS just that it works with some custom aplication they use and are too invested in keeping it or have no reason to change.

Wich is the same thing that will happen to XP either companies will have aplications that refuse to run on a newer OS and they will do a cost to benifit of keeping old hardware and software running or they will recode the ap...

Companies VS home user's are two different worlds and thankfully from a tech standpoint thats a wonderfull thing.

I for one am glad that home PC's outsell buisness PC's, home users are driving tech foreward. I wonder how much spyware is responsible for this.... I cant remember how many times I have heard "My computer is slow now I am just going to buy a new one" Its almost cheaper to buy a new machine then to have an old one repaired 🙁 Then when you consider they get something faster and with more RAM its even harder to justify spending the money on repair.
 
I am sorry your think that for most users 512 mb is OK. I have seen to many people on XP running 512mb of ram, and seen how sloooooooooooooooow there computers are. I would die if I had to run on that little of ram, no way!

I have also read what your saying about no performance gains with 8 gb of ram, and how most and the software most people use will not use such high amounts of ram or see gains from it. However, as cheap as good DDR2 Ram is now it helps in some games, and CAD programs, so it does help for some, and there is no reason not to get 8 gb IMO if your close to maxing out your ram with the software, games you run.


What kind of computer does your friend have Hab, you know the one that hates Vista

Full Specs please if you don't mind.
 



LOL I was not going to go there.....

You do bring up a good point though.

You have to target the OS to the hardware somewhat.

My machine would run XP just fine but XP would not take advantage of all it has to offer, so for my machine XP would actually be slower then Vista. Unless I went with XP 64 and even then Vista has much better memory management.


I would not dream of trying to run Vista or XP on my notebook machine (an old Gateway with 256MB's of RAM)
But Puppy Linux runs like a champ.

I remember when Windows 95 was awesome (hell 3.11 sucked so much ass in my mind....) Then Win98 came out and it was good, ME hit and I bought it (yes I paid for it....) XP was like a godsend after the hell that was ME... lol Vista was middle of the road it had some great features and some crap that got ironed out and now is pretty good.
Windows 7 from the bit I have been playing with it seems like Vista with all my tweaks already in place.

Before some one says "Oh you need to tweak Vista to get it where you like it?" yes you do and I did with XP too, the whole fisher price theme makes me want to punch babies... Windows is very customizable considering its closed source.
 



I have to change Vista's theme to Windows Classic as well, but even the default theme in Vista is far and away better then XP's default theme.

But both are just a right click on the desktop away so I do not quite get where the "theme changer" is better on XP then Vista ?
 




Ok 4450e processor, not the strongest processor in the computer world, 3 gb of ram what brand and speed rating?, Is this a store bought computer or a custom build? What kind of hard drive? GB rating, brand, cach size, spindle speed?

If your friend is running on a bestbuy computer, or store bought, I had the same problem when I bought a x2 4800 with a 320 gb seagate 7200 rpm 16 mb cach with 3 gb of ram emachine from best buy. It ran like $hit! I returned that crap, I didn't give up on vista, I researched everything I could on building custom computers, found toms shortly after picking my parts for my first build, I heard all the people talking bad about Vista before service pack 1, and almost went with XP again because of my bad experience with best buy emachine. However, I went with my gut after reading alot about Vista 64 bit, and that is what I picked with my first x 2 6400 b.e build with 4 gb of OCZ gold ram at 800mhz, and a 32 mb cach seagate hardrive with a Asus M2N32 sli, wifi deluxe board. I couldn't of been happier with my new build, I had about $ 400 more into it then the Emachine system from best buy, however the way it ran was like night and day different from the crappy Best buy computer. I have since given this build to my girlfriend and It is still very responsive, very Quick and no problems with Vista 64 running in it. And it was this way before service pack 1.

 


Use whatever floats your boat... But don't think for even a minute that what works for you will work equally well for everybody else.
 
i think the reason why alot of peope say that vista and 7 are quicker, is thanks to the fact that v+7 use superfetch/prefetch, but disable this and im sure it will be a different story, it could also e due to the fact that the average pc that comes with vista is atleast twice as powerfull as one that comes with xp.
 
No where did I say that it was nessary to have that system to run Vista with out problems.

your friend has a very week system at best, basic web surfer, that you didn't give info on other then the processor, no specs on the ram(quality) and mhz rating, or the hardrive, motherboard maker and model, Really no info other then the processor that can be checked into. Is his system a store bought or custom build?

That type of thinking is why I responded to your post the way I did when I first started reading your post. I have a x 2 3800 939 socket build and Vista 64 bit on it. I had problems with the Nvida 6100 on board and it running Vista 64 bit. It would lock up all the time. Is that Vista's fault? Of course not, the 6100 Nvida onboard had trouble running Vista. I have since installed a better grafix card instead, problem solved. I am also testing Windows 7 RC 32 bit on this x 2 3800 939 socket build, and I have had no driver issues or problems that you speak of with Vista 64 bit or Windows 7 with this older system, and the mother board is flaky IMO, it is a Biostar 6100-m9, which is know for having all kinds of problems to begin with.

I am not saying Vista does take longer to boot up then XP or windows 7 because it does take a few more seconds. With my raid 0 setup, it really doesn't take me longer then 45 secs to enter the OS and all my apps are ready for me to use, no waiting. I have never had XP on my Quad builds, so I really don't know how much faster it would boot into the OS, however I have Windows 7 64 bit and it is a few seconds faster booting into the OS then vista.

Once again I have not run into any driver problems you speak of, but then again my oldest system is the x 2 3800 939 socket build.
 
Well seeing how XP really wasn't geared for Quads, nor can I play some of the games I like to play, like shadowrun, nor can I use the 64 bit version of XP, because it is a joke, which means I would be stuck at only 3 gb of ram, and given that it is a very old OS that has very questionable support for the newer grafix cards coming out, if any at all,

Better is a matter of opinion and everyone has one. Other then the boot time required for Vista to get into the OS, I would say XP is no faster then Vista on hardware that is newer and of good quality. That is not opinion that statement comes from first hands experience running both OS. I Have a extra partition on my Raid setup, I believe I might just install my extra XP 32 bit OS on my Main Quad build just put it to rest.
 
It's all in the definition of 'faster'. For me, boot time is not an issue. I turn on my PC in the morning, then go make a cup of coffee. By the time I am ready to work, so is my PC.

I've got an 8GB acad test file, and have tested the redraw times in XP 32 bit, Vista 64 bit and win7 RC 64 bit. It is over thirty minutes in XP. under 10 in Vista and down to 9 in Win 7. I could use more ram... all 6GB are used, and all four cores are over 80%.
 
Boot times to me only made a difference back in the Win9X days when it was not uncommon to reboot a system 3-4 times or more a day. These days if I turn my system off at all its only because of a patch or I changed some registry setting.

Faster better computer makes newer more feature laden OS run as fast as an old OS with less features ? News at 11 and pictures at 12 OMG !!!! lol

You would think its almost as if the programmers where trying to take advantage of newer hardware or something....

Sure Vista is slower then XP and XP is Slower then Windows 95 and Dos... My Commadore 64 boots up in less then a second... Of course I would not trade the load times of the latest DX10 game for the load times of an old 1541 drive...

Want to see something realy fast ? Run Windows 95 on a new machine. You will cry that XP is bloated and slow...

Besides everyone knows Linux is better then all other OS's out right now 😛 lol
 



+1^^^^ I feel the same, boot time is not an issue for me, what is 45-75 secs, I go get the Starbucks going, and long before Its done my computer is ready to go. I also notice 10 to 15 min shave off times in burning things to disc easy with Vista 64 bit vs XP 32 bit. So there are improvements there, and sure some has to with the hardware, however point is that Vista 64 bit and Windows 7 64 bit is geared towards taking advantage of the new hardware, XP 32 bit is not.

However though if your stuck in the past, with no hope of upgrading your hardware for whatever reason then you to can become a advicate for XP also, because they are just the best, most stable, Operating systems out there!!!! 😴 :sarcastic:
 



Yep I sure did, you used your friends system as an example of another vista hater.


What made me respond the way I did, has to do with the one forum that got locked, the very first time I responded to you and why I said what I said in another post is about Windows 7 Vs Vista is because of your opinions.

You really must not read what I have posted, because if you did, you would not make little remarks that are not true, yes I can change it, I have XP 32 bit, from my original emachine 939 socket build that I upgraded to Vista 64 and windows 7 32 bit. So if I wanted to I could install XP 32 on my main Quad build, on a 400 gb partition in my Raid 0 array.

I am not being misleading at all, I am being sarcastic towards your opinions on Vista 64 bit having all these driver problems that I have not experienced. Good, not good is all a matter of ones own personal needs and opinion. The facts remain the same, and fact is that it is a step forward not backwards like XP 32 bit.

I believe I am right on topic here about 32 bit Vs. 64 bit, and the only thing that is funny if XP 64 bit wasn't a total flop you might have real case for staying with XP, however you don't. :cry:
 




Further more, It looks like Croc just gave you some hard facts about which system performs faster, I have noticed however, you seem to not respond with some links or something to prove that he must be making these times up.

IT CAN'T BE, XP IS THE BEST, XP IS FASTER, XP 😍 :cry:
 
Not sure were you get the misleading part, I have read alot of your post on the other topic that got locked. Your opinions while you are justified to have them, after reading all your comments on that thread and almost any thread that has to do with Vista and Windows 7, it becomes very clear, you are a vista hater.

Thats fine, your opinion, however after reading your post regarding your opinions on Vista, and some of the crazy little things you say, that from time to time I quote just to be sarcastic.

Kinda like,

*please notice all small case to show lack of real meaning*

the nail in the coffin

and the famous "fact" behind opinions expressed by you. and lets see the famous "thank you"

sorry I just found these little things to be funny, and got a laugh out of them.

Like I said,

Croc made a valid point on times with his system, and no responce from you regarding it. You say XP is faster, however it must not take advantage of the new Quad cores, or Ram if your running 32 bit, and XP 64 bit is a joke so no advantage in have better then 4 gb with XP either. Some of us out here in the computing world do require systems with better then 512 mb - 4 gb of ram, so XP 32 bit is not a option for us.

Some of us have looked past all the smack talk about Vista 64 bit and have decided to build a system that can run very smooth and fast with Vista 64 bit, and have no driver issues that we could not work out. This is not misleading just facts Hab.
 



I think I have already made my point about Vista and hardware requirements. You seem to have a problem with not being able to run a " single core with 512mb of ram" with Vista and that is sad to me be because this thread had to do with 32 bit any OS vs any 64 bit os.

I can not even think of running a single core, with only 512mb of ram in Xp or Vista. Like I have stated before, anything less then 2 gb with Todays software even in XP, and is a waste of time. Example: I have a friend who is running a dell, boot times are horrible, her computer is slow, very slow, It is a 521 dell, with a am2 64 single core 5000 I think, and had 512 mb of ram. It is running Windows XP, I first installed 1 gb of OCZ 1066 reaper ram I had in it, (I just had it laying around, over kill for a 533mhz dell I know) but it flies compared to what speeds it was running at. I then installed Windows 7 RC 32 bit for her and upgraded the ram to 2 gb. Next upgrade will be a dual core 5000. However, her computer is now flying compared what it used to be. I did this for free because I felt sorry for her, she does work at home and school studies on it, and I couldn't deal with seeing her working on a computer that was so slow.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom