Windows 7 64-bit Creeping Up on 32-bit Installs

[victomofreality]

I can't wait for the 192g of ram lol...

 

[sebastienm]

My main reason is hardware compatibility:
- My main computer is win7 64bit.
- My virtual machines are 32bits
This is due to my dual Opterons 248, their stepping is a couple versions too early: they don't support 64bit guests with VMWare.

Also, my main physical machine is 64bit Win7 and I get a blue sceen here and there, due to hardware compatibility: most parts were bought in 2003 or prior.

Now, when I get a new computer, hopefuly within a year, I'll definitely go with win7 (or 8) and 64bits.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]arokia[/nom]i bought a new copy of window 7 and installed the 64bit version, it worked fine for two days but later i started getting this irritating blue screen problem which causes immediate restart. This started happening every 10 minutes. I think its mainly due to the incompatibility of windows 7 64bit with my X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Pro Series creative sound card. So i tried to reinstall 64bit and got the same problem. Then i installed 32bit windows 7 and the problem was solved.[/citation]

Sorry but thats completley wrong. I have a Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatality Pro edition in my system and I am running 7 Ultimate 64. I don't get this "blue" screen that causes a restart. You sure you were installing the correct drivers?

I was running Vista x86 befor 7 came out and the funny thing is that my sound card go MC signed and verified drivers for Windows 7 64 and nothing new ever came out for Vista.

BTW, they just released new drivers on June 16th:

http://support.creative.com/Products/ProductDetails.aspx?catID=1&CatName=Sound+Blaster&subCatID=208&subCatName=X-Fi&prodID=15854&prodName=X-Fi+XtremeGamer+Fatal1ty+Pro+Series&bTopTwenty=1&VARSET=prodfaqRODFAQ_15854,VARSET=CategoryID:1

 

[pollom]

I use only 64 bits OS since 2005 (Windows xp x64), then windows vista ultimate x64 and now windows 7 pro x64.
System configuration:
Athlon x2 3800+
1GB DDR pc 3200
WD raptor 74 gb’s
HD4870 with 512 GDRR5
X64 runs much better than x32, the ram limitation isn’t the only reason.

 

[Hellbound]

[citation][nom]Lord_gandalf[/nom]because we dont have that kind of money[/citation]

Win 7 32bit costs the same as the 64bit version. Just because you cant afford more ram doesnt mean you should'nt buy the 64bit version. I encourage everyone to purchase Win 7 64bit even if they only have 2 gigs of ram. Because eventually they will get more ram.

 

[drwho1]

I got both versions Windows 7 Professional OEM 32 bit for my tower and Windows 7 home premium 64 bit on my notebook (this version came pre-installed).

 

[bison88]

64 bit since Windows Vista (I was one of those 11%'ers). I really wish everyone would make the switch to 64 bit. It is the future after all and has had half a decade to make the change we all hoped would be quicker. Also there are select softwares out there that still lag in creating a fully functional 64 bit environment, some give up all together .

 

[TheDuke]

down with 32-bit
I would love to see more 64-bit programs and once it takes a good lead it will finally happen. Shouldn't have even been a 32-bit version

 

[codewarriorfx]

My system:
-Core 2 Quad Q9400
-nForce 680i
-8GB RAM DDR2 800MHz SLI-Enabled
-Graphics: GF GTX 260 896MB, PhysX: GF 8600GT 256MB
-Auzentech X-Fi Prelude 7.1
-Windows 7 Pro 64-bit

One of my top reasons to have Windows 7 x64 is:
-SolidWorks 2010 x64
-Windows XP Mode (2GB Virtual RAM)
-Ubuntu Linux 10.04 on VMware Workstation (2GB Virtual RAM)
-Visual Studio 2008 x64 with NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit 64-bit edition and Windows Embedded Tools
-Adobe Audition 3 with Vista fix (Yes is old, but very useful application)

And of course, games specially UT3, Dirt2, NFS Shift and Crysis at 64-bit binary. It has never been unstable netheir crashed, even having less than 512MB of available RAM when using the system at full potential (SolidWorks simulations and virtual machines). Windows 7 64-bit is the best 64-bit operating system I ever used.

 

[falchard]

Why gimp yourself with 32-bit Windows 7? They cost the same. The only difference is the 64-bit version can do more.

 

[danbfree]

It's really not about how much RAM you have as it is as much if your processor supports 64-bit or not... If you have 2GB RAM or more and your proc supports 64-bit, then run 64-bit. I had 4GB of RAM and ran Vista 64 and nor Win 7 64 and had a stick of RAM die and cannot afford to replace ATM. With only 2GB of RAM, Win 7 runs great, even for games. Just keep the number of processes and extra bloatware to a bare minimum.

 

[MxM]

"Why 32 bit windows?" Old drivers and legacy software. I was able to install XP drivers for things like old cameras, scanners and use old software for my camera (no need to buy new, it is still good one). I am not sure that you can do the same on 64 bit system.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

Sweet, here's hoping that Windows 8 will be 64-bit exclusive, with backwards compatibility.

 

[scifi9000]

I install and bild a lot of OS/Computers and always install 64 bit version, which is fine for desktops, but I encounter many driver headaches for notebooks/laptops. I am about to roll back to 32 bit an an Asus laptop due to no 64 bit driver for the stupid built in camera. I offered a clip on replacement camera, but no, it wasn't acceptable to the owner. The other issue of course is current Atom processors in netbooks only support 32 bit.

 

[palladin9479]

Like I mentioned before, drivers are the HW manufactures responsibility. The drivers MUST be x64 in order to work on a x64 kernel, you can't mix and match code types in a kernel or all hell will break loose.

MS has had the NT x64 kernel out since Windows Server 2003, Windows XP Pro x64 is actually based on the Server 2003 x64 code tree and not the original Windows XP code tree. MS wanted "power users" to start using Win XP Pro x64 for their workstations and development machines but it didn't get much traction due to HW manufactures not making 64-bit drivers.

When MS released Vista they made x64 drivers a requirement to obtain MS WHQL which is the gold stamp required for the "Vista Ready" logo. Some peripheral device manufactures refused to make new drivers and instead just made drivers for their "new" products. They used it as a selling point for people to buy the latest shiny model of camera / scanner / printer. That is the device manufactures problem not MS's.

My personal story is that I started working with XP x64 on my main system cause I wanted to see how it worked. I was so impressed with the system stability, the thing just didn't crash and ran rock stable no matter what I did on it. Applications ran no problem, and all was well.

Those people screaming about "my app isn't 64 bit it won't work" are dead wrong. 32-bit Applications running inside a NT x64 system are executed inside a 32-bit environment through WoW64. To the application the system is 32-bit. NT x64 even has a special directory under windows\system32\wow64 that contains all the 32-bit library's and other sum-such required for those programs. If your 32-bit app runs in Windows 7 x32, then it'll run in Windows 7 x64. The only exception is if you app has some kernel mode interface involved. These are things like anti-virus, anti-spyware and system tools / registry cleaners and such. These apps need to be updated to run / recognize the NT x64 kernel. NT x64 is not the same kernel as NT x86 really important that people make that note. The NT x86 kernel is basically emulated inside the NT x64 one, so anything kernel level isn't guaranteed to work.

 

[mr_tuel]

At my work, all but the netbooks and any computer with less than 3GB of ram has x64 pre-installed.

 

[rlobbia]

My 3 year old laptop only supports up to 4GB RAM so there's no reason to go the 64bit route for that device - especially since my scanner only has 32bit drivers out (that while 8 years old, still work with win7 32x, but not 64x)...However my recently assembled (Feb 2010) 48 GB workstations really needed a modern (non-1990's) OS...

 

[ctmk]

ram price is.... well, expansive right now... I still remember the days where rams are 1/2 priced.

 

[surfer1337dude]

[citation][nom]CoryInJapan[/nom]It only cost like 25-30 bucks on new egg to add the extra 2gigs.unless u talking about the extra ram and buying the whole new OS..then yea.I hear yuh. Luckily I upgraded when I did have the money lol.God is good.[/citation]
That all comes down to the ram you are using. If your using dual channel then you really need 2 sticks, which if you dont have the room (for example 4 sticks of 1 gigs) then you need to upgrade using larger size ram which costs more. Plus the speed of the ram and kind (ddr2 vs ddr3, etc).

 

[Guest]

I have one 32-bit Win 7 system (core 2 duo, 3GB RAM), one 64-bit Win 7 system (overclocked Phenom II x2 at 3.8GHz, 4GB RAM), and a couple of Win XP Pro systems. So far mostly everything has run fine on 64-bit Win 7, although I have avoided buying some products when reviewers say the drivers don't support 64-bit well. The performance difference seems minor compared to differences in the hardware.

 

[eddieroolz]

64bit is good. I'd wish more developers would move on towards that.

 

[NuclearShadow]

I've been on 64bit ever since Vista came out and one of my computers is now on Windows 7 64bit. Other than really old programs and games out there most things run fine. Worst case scenario if you really must use a old program or play a old game that refuses to work no matter what then using a virtual PC or even just using a duel boot system fixes the problem.

What I would like to see if more programs and games actually take advantage of the 64bit capabilities however. It's sad to see things like games being released that don't take such advantages today despite the fact that the performance would really increase.

 

[lathe26]

[citation][nom]dacman61[/nom]They should've never released a 32-bit version of Windows 7. Sometimes you just got to cut the cord on older systems. I hope they finally do this for Windows 8 in the future.[/citation]

Rumor has it that Microsoft was considering Windows 8 to either be the last OS that supported 32-bit or the first that was 64-bit only. However, then netbooks got out. Many have an Atom CPU that only supports 32-bit mode. Thus, netbooks might delay when MS releases on a 64-bit version of Windows.

 

[doped]

[citation][nom]JimmyTheGeek[/nom]"Installing 64bit OS is stupid. No one needs more than 4gb of RAM except people who suffer from a chronic lack of sex."How many of us remember why the first PC's were DESIGNED for only ONE MB of memory? It was times as much memory as the first consumer computers (64K) and they thought that would be more than anyone would ever need....As memory gets cheaper, programmers concentrate more on adding features than minimizing code requirements...[/citation]
which is a shame. Code should never be bloatware. it's only bloatware because it can be it on new super fast and capable machines, but in fact, if all the software was written with a sense of sensible requirements and optimization, it would still run blazing fast on 10year old machines with amdk6's and pIII's.
it's the same about your video card. they can only sell if if you "need" it, which you really don't if they did some real programming and used all the resources right. instead they produce such bloat as crysis with STILL don't run at a respectable 60hz. that's bloatware 1st class for you.

 

[Guest]

Hi, I dont like 64 bit because I had lot of problems installing few applications on it. The main is Adobe Acrobat. And after lot of efforts, when I was able to install it successfully, it closes every time when I access it from MS Word 2010. I agree, technically it might be advanced than the 32 bit version and might have slight benefits over 32 bit. But I think that it needs some time for 64 Bit version to become very stable and for its benefits to be practically visible... Thanks. SUBY.