QOTD: Are You Going 32 or 64-bit for Win 7?

Page 7 - 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.
If Windows 7 64-bit corrects my problem with my various 32-bit applications like my internet browsers locking up. Then I will go with the 64-bit version. If not I will go back to 32-bit on all my PC's but my gaming system.
 
jarnail24
Why wouldn't you. Even a new $600 computer at frys comes with 8gigs of ram.
Click to expand...

Because most PC users don't play 3D games and a $300 PC would be just as fast with Windows7, to such people... who don't need 8GB to use MySpace.

asdfh23hrlaskdjfkl2

There is no reason for a 32 bit version. Anyoen who doesnt have 4 gigs of ran has no business installing windows 7 or vista anyway. Stick with xp, it will be faster on your old computer anyway, 7 or vista will jsut make your old computer run like crap.
Click to expand...

Funny! Windows7 runs great on my 1GB notebook, better than XP. So you're logic fails. If we're talking Vista, I'd have to have a 64bit version and 6~8GB to make it usable.

I'll see how Windows7 runs... but so far, it looks like I won't need to spend $20 for another 1GB module. And Windows7 runs pretty good on a 5 year old computer, especially when I added an old dusty 512mb ram stick to the PC for a total of 1GB.

-PS Not against people going 64bit/ 8GB of RAM. But most people won't need to.

 
64bit, ofcourse.
64bit Win7 Beta was dual booting with XP SP3 (32bit), while Win 7 RC (64bit again) is my only OS since few days BEFORE it was officialy released.

Win7 64bit in its final form will be going to this computer the moment it appears on Technet/MSDN.

So to conclude - choice is clear: 64bit or nothing :)
 
64bit - of course.

64bit Win7 Beta was dual booting with XP SP3 (32bit), while Win 7 RC (64bit again) is my only OS since few days BEFORE it was officially released.

Win7 64bit in its final form will be going to this computer the moment it appears on TechNet/MSDN.

So to conclude - choice is clear: 64bit or nothing :)
 
In my opinion Microsoft shouldn't even offer a 32-bit version. It just forces hardware manufacturers to write two drivers. I've used 64-bit XP and I've had 64-bit Vista ever since SP1 came out. The 64-bit drivers work flawlessly and I haven't had any piece of hardware not work with it. Plus, who wants to switch to 32-bit Windows 7 and then switch *again* to 64-bit Window 7. That's just a pointless PITA. I'm going 64-bit all the way. :)
 
apache_lives

Were all looking at things incorrectly - 4gb today costs LESS then 512mb years back - as technology advances, so does the figures/specs etc

Vista is not a resource hog when the "resources" are so damn cheap its not funny! Yes it uses more resources then XP, but those resources once given to a system makes the system so much more responsive, and feeding XP ~3gb doesnt make it any different from 1.5gb, giving vista 8gb makes it roar, and those "resources" can be had for ~50 US easily if you look - 50!.
Click to expand...

The CPU has to chew through all that code and garbage. So in a severe sense, you contradicted your self. You said basically "Vista isn't slow - with 8GB it roars!" Wow... the same hardware with 2GB would "Roar" just as fast with XP. If we're talking using 3D CAD /Rendering - then 64bit with 8GB makes sense. For gaming / everyday use... not impressive.

Vista is CRAP. When a 2GB PC is viewed as a POS... theres a problem. Sure memory is cheap. Supply and demand... so thank Vista for making 4GB costing $25~45. Yeah, Corsairs after rebate! :)

VioMeTriX

why does everyone rag on vista, sure it had a crappy launch, but it did round out to a very good os and much better than xp in the long run... win 7 is just a good release without all the bugs, minimized bloat, and a few gui enhancements.... plus consider vista was released the same time as hardware itself went thorugh some major changes across the board.. so yes in the beginning it was $hit, but its fixed now so stop raggin on the past
Click to expand...

No, Vista is still crap. Brand new notebook w/2GB - weeks old (with Win7 coupon) - still lame. It boots up SLOWER than a 5year old PC with 512mb running Windows7. Win7 on my ThinkPad 1/GB is much faster still. Windows7 is refined, fixed, a bit less-bloated, more thought-out, cleaned up, updated and modernized version of Vista. MS will never make Vista run as good as Windows7. Why would they? I have installed Win7RC over two of my 3 XP PCs, so in 2010 they'll all be final versions.
 
32-bit because my applications are 32-bit native; 2GB of RAM is all they need; and anything else is a waste. This includes MS Office 2007, which is only 32-bit native and only allows internet faxing (crucial) on 32-bit systems, and I prefer to step away from the MS Tech forums of folks who have numerous problems that have been well documented.

When applications are predominantly 64-bit in the marketplace to take advantage of the attributes of a 64-bit OS, then sure, I'll gladly join. Until then, it's a bunch of conjecture and hype because 32-bit apps do not use the RAM requirement necessary to invoke 64-bit goodness; performance gains are minimal; and the only outstanding reason for having a 64-bit OS is not for the end user, but for the manufacturers building these systems today.
 
[citation][nom]doomsdaydave11[/nom]Although I love my Ubuntu, I have to disagree. Windows 7 64-bit is nothing short of awesome.It improves on XP and vista in every way:-Faster-Runs on older machines-Easier to use-[/citation]

Fast?
There is at least a few videos on youtube showing AmigaOS 4.1 resetting in about 5seconds. (CTL-ALT-ALT) And it has a GUI desktop as advanced as Windows7 (Icon dock, transparent windows, etc). It came out in 2004 - still being updated running on a PPC CPU running about 500mhz.

Sure 5 seconds totally blows away Windows7 re-booting in about 20~25 seconds, but how often to we reboot? Also, AmigaOS - there is NO shutdown button (still?). Just turn it off - no STUPID registry!

But of course, with so little software and hardware support - such an OS doesn't mean much. But it WOULD be nice if the #1 OS, by market share was that good.

Those Amiga-fanboys should have coded the OS for x86 hardware, rather than PPC. It would have made their OS far more usable. Why didn't they? Their hate for MS & intel... 🙁

 
[citation][nom]Trifler[/nom]In my opinion Microsoft shouldn't even offer a 32-bit version. It just forces hardware manufacturers to write two drivers.[/citation]

To a large degree, I agree with you. In the past, I even posted that MS shouldn't bother with 32bit Win7. But in reality, the hardware/costs and software isn't there yet. As it is, MS is trying to get Win7-basic onto netbooks with 1GB of RAM. The memory isn't the issue so much as the CPU power of the ATOM. But a 64bit OS on 1GB of RAM would be murder.

In 2-3 years, Netbooks should be at least 2~4GB /dual core for $250~300 and the next OS by MS *WILL* only be in 64bit.

But as of now, Win7 runs very good on 1GB... the way Vista never did. I have nothing against having 4~12GB of RAM. But its simply takes more time to fill up the memory & the CPU to address it all. So for a basic home-user, a ton of memory shouldn't be required... even if it IS cheap. A smaller foot-print OS loads faster and performances actions faster - and this is IMPORTANT as more multi-tasking is being thrown at the OS. Look at a typical HD which moved about 50~80MB/s on a desktop. To fill up 4GB of RAM would take about 80~100 seconds, with hard-drive usage comes system slow-down until its done.

AS Proven - More apps running on Vista, it gets slower and slow. Win7 handles memory far better. So the NEED for 4GB or more is reduced.

Now, for gamers - they should have 64bit, even with 4GB of RAM so that the video card memory addressing issue doesn't come into play. So my main desktop will be 64bit. My notebook and other PCs with 1~2GB will do just fine with 32bit.
 
While I dabbled with 64-bit with Linux years ago, I didn't fully go 64-bit until Vista. Currently, I'm using 64-bit Windows 7 (RC:7100).

I agree with what others have said - we just now need more 64-bit applications. I'm running 8GB in my system currently, and for the first time ever, I actually have no desire get any more RAM. Unless I decide to run more Virtual Machines again (which is problematic with the Gigabyte board I have currently), I'm not really fully utilizing the 8GB I have currently.
 
LOL! Yea I'm a gamer. FSX (Flight Simulator X) that is - 24k airports, real world weather, real world traffic, real world terrain, real world avionics systems modeling, real world terrain all for the entire planet. Not to mention accurate terrrestrial (stars, planets ect) modeling. We couldn't run this baby on a cray in the 80's. Give me 64 bit Win 7 with a SSD drive and 8 core CPU and I'll be happy.
 
I am (and will be) running 64-bit on my C2D desktop w/8GB RAM, 32-bit on my 4-year-old Latitude D810, and 32-bit on my Acer Aspire One. I'm also running 32-bit in VMWare on my work laptop (IT-locked into XP).
 
[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom] As it is, MS is trying to get Win7-basic onto netbooks with 1GB of RAM. The memory isn't the issue so much as the CPU power of the ATOM.[/citation]

Today's netbooks can run Windows 7 without a problem. I installed Ultimate (the RC, of course) on an Acer Aspire One with the N270 processor and 1 GB of RAM, and it runs flawlessly, including full-blown Aero functionality. Overall, it's a much better experience than XP, and I can honestly say that the system feels faster and more responsive with Windows 7. Overall memory use stays at a high percentage, but it is handled intelligently enough The issue at hand, however, is 32- vs. 64- bit, and the N270 simply does not support EM64T. Case pretty much closed on that.
 
x64, I'm using it now. I have a tonne of 32bit apps and not 1 prob, I have a mix of x86 and x64 server apps working together seemlessly: apache, mysql, tomcat, james email server and php, no troubles. I'm using all the same 32 bit apps from my old XP and won't go back to 16 bit Windows nor 32 bit.
 
x64, I'm using it now. I have a tonne of 32bit apps and not 1 prob, I have a mix of x86 and x64 server apps working together seemlessly: apache, mysql, tomcat, james email server and php, no troubles. I'm using all the same 32 bit apps from my old XP and won't go back to 16 bit Windows nor 32 bit.
 
[citation][nom]swright4641[/nom]32-bit because my applications are 32-bit native; 2GB of RAM is all they need; and anything else is a waste. This includes MS Office 2007, which is only 32-bit native and only allows internet faxing (crucial) on 32-bit systems, and I prefer to step away from the MS Tech forums of folks who have numerous problems that have been well documented.When applications are predominantly 64-bit in the marketplace to take advantage of the attributes of a 64-bit OS, then sure, I'll gladly join. Until then, it's a bunch of conjecture and hype because 32-bit apps do not use the RAM requirement necessary to invoke 64-bit goodness; performance gains are minimal; and the only outstanding reason for having a 64-bit OS is not for the end user, but for the manufacturers building these systems today.[/citation]


hmmm from what i can see you read the article, all the reasponses and made a guess....shut the hell up you have no idea what you are talking about....
 
x64, I'm using it now. I have a tonne of 32bit apps and not 1 prob, I have a mix of x86 and x64 server apps working together seemlessly: apache, mysql, tomcat, james email server and php, no troubles. I'm using all the same 32 bit apps from my old XP and won't go back to 16 bit Windows nor 32 bit.
 
swright4641...im on win 7 64 and i just sent an internet fax without fail using my office 2007... its not the programs or versions that are the problem, it is the uneducated users.... poor example here, but does a cancer patient tell the doctor how to do is job.... people we are techs, i have been for 25 years now, how bout you others that are all talking how 32bit is all you need?....shut up
 
[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom]The CPU has to chew through all that code and garbage. So in a severe sense, you contradicted your self. You said basically "Vista isn't slow - with 8GB it roars!" Wow... the same hardware with 2GB would "Roar" just as fast with XP. If we're talking using 3D CAD /Rendering - then 64bit with 8GB makes sense. For gaming / everyday use... not impressive.Vista is CRAP. When a 2GB PC is viewed as a POS... theres a problem. Sure memory is cheap. Supply and demand... so thank Vista for making 4GB costing $25~45. Yeah, Corsairs after rebate! No, Vista is still crap. Brand new notebook w/2GB - weeks old (with Win7 coupon) - still lame. It boots up SLOWER than a 5year old PC with 512mb running Windows7. Win7 on my ThinkPad 1/GB is much faster still. Windows7 is refined, fixed, a bit less-bloated, more thought-out, cleaned up, updated and modernized version of Vista. MS will never make Vista run as good as Windows7. Why would they? I have installed Win7RC over two of my 3 XP PCs, so in 2010 they'll all be final versions.[/citation]

Im sorry but i dont use hardware from 2001, i use new hardware with a new OS - the way it should be, id prefer the extra features, smooth performance and better looks to an extra ~1% performance - dont care about that factor at all.

Vista is crap for low end pcs, and im not saying windows 7 is worse (or better for that matter) - its still not 100% completed but is looking good yes.

I also dont care about laptops and pcs pre-installed with bloatware - if you bother doing a fresh install, raising pagefile manually to ~4gb (both figures - max and min to stop fragmentation), disable uac and sec. sentre, disable system restore, enable caching and the sidebar that OS is fkn sweet - it is not a bad OS.
 
I am currently running the 32bit version of Windows 7 RC in dual boot on my MacBook Pro, and I use it almost entirely for older PC games that I still like to play on occasion, I will probably not be going 64 bit with windows simply because I do not have any pressing need. After 8 years of being an OS X user and seeing how Microsoft is still behind the curve on everything in OS X I may go away from windows altogether.
 
I've been using an x64 OS since Vista was released. Other than the rare issue with old or homebrew software not working properly (which I haven't come across in over a year) I have had zero issues. I also like being able to utilize all 4 GB of RAM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom