64bit OS - who actually needs it?

[bob4432]

how many of you actually use the difference that a 64bit OS gives vs just having it? how often do you use more than 4GB of ram? how many of your apps are true 64bit apps? what apps are you using that uses the additional memory?

also, why is it on so many computers at the stores when 32bit is still plenty fine for probably 90%+ of the users?

 

[Leros]

I use a 64-bit OS so I can have more RAM available. Its helpful when I want to run a few virtual machines.

 

[sandorski]

32bit should have been dumped with Win 7. There's really no need for it anymore.

 

[notposting]

More memory available..and mostly because that's the way things are moving. Have 32-bit on the HTPC for compatibility and on the laptop because it came with 32-bit vista and that's what the free upgrade was.

 

[Fear No Evil]

There's no real downside I have seen from running a 64bit OS instead of a 32bit OS even with machines with 4gb or less that I have seen. _MAYBE_ some compatibility with older hardware but I don't see why that would stop new computers from all being 64bit. Plus it helps future proof you a bit more when you want to run more ram.

 

[KeypoX]

There's no real downside I have seen from running a 64bit OS instead of a 32bit OS even with machines with 4gb or less that I have seen. _MAYBE_ some compatibility with older hardware but I don't see why that would stop new computers from all being 64bit. Plus it helps future proof you a bit more when you want to run more ram.

there are downsides but usually app specific. Also little things dont work that you wouldnt even think about.

Im good but many people wont be. Lots of people need it that is a very narrow question.

Also 32 bit only gives you about 3GB of ram to use.

 

[JackMDS]

I have few computers running Win 7 bot x32 x64.

For mundane work with little mufti tasking it really does not matter.

For heavy application + multi tasking x64 provides smoother outcome.

If you are a gamer or use special application you have to make sure that your software is x64 compatible.

 

[Aluvus]

also, why is it on so many computers at the stores when 32bit is still plenty fine for probably 90%+ of the users?

So that when users try to upgrade to 4 GB+ of memory, they actually can. And therefore don't come back complaining about being sold a "broken" computer.

 

[Nothinman]

Also 32 bit only gives you about 3GB of ram to use.

Only with regards to Windows. Other OSes have PAE implementations that aren't artificially limited. And we have the option of running a 32-bit userland with a 64-bit kernel for the best of both worlds.

 

[gaidensensei]

2 major security related reasons I can think of.

64bit kernel = at this moment in time; less likely to be targeted by patch and rootkits that plagues the 32bit world due to the randomized memory address.

Number 2, real time data encryption will be quicker!

 

[yinan]

I do. Really helps when running a lot of VMs.

 

[Nothinman]

64bit kernel = at this moment in time; less likely to be targeted by patch and rootkits that plagues the 32bit world due to the randomized memory address.

I'm pretty sure the stack randomization was defeated fairly easily in the Pwn2Own contest where IE was broken into. So I think the bigger win is the requirement for signed modules in kernel-level code. A root-kit can't properly hide itself if it can't install a kernel module to manipulate the process, loaded module and file lists.

Of course all of those people bypassing the signed driver requirement in order to run unofficial drivers and such are eliminating that layer of protection, but there's nothing we can do to stop them from shooting themselves in the foot right now.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

how many of you actually use the difference that a 64bit OS gives vs just having it? how often do you use more than 4GB of ram? how many of your apps are true 64bit apps? what apps are you using that uses the additional memory?

also, why is it on so many computers at the stores when 32bit is still plenty fine for probably 90%+ of the users?

Since when is it about need? I bet half of your belongings (or more) are about want, not need.

 

[pdusen]

It's a simple cost vs. benefit problem. All it costs me to run 64-bit Windows/Linux is exactly what it would cost me to run 32-bit Windows/Linux (I have personally never encountered any problems running any of my apps).

On the other hand, if I stuck with 32-bit, I wouldn't be able to use a chunk of my memory right now (I have about 5 gigs total), as well as the full capabilities of my CPU.

So the better question is, why NOT run a 64-bit OS?

also, why is it on so many computers at the stores when 32bit is still plenty fine for probably 90%+ of the users?

Because 64-bit is also fine for those users, who will probably never notice the difference, and manufacturers are being forward-thinking about it.

You seem to be acting under the assumption that there's some sort of trade-off for using 64-bit operating systems. There really isn't.

 

[fatpat268]

I'm not sure how true this is, but when I had 32-bit vista, I had 4gb of ram, and a 1gb video card.

The 32-bit aspect allowed me to access 3.5gb of ram, but it deducted the 1gb from the video card, allowing me 2.5gb. I swapped out the card for a 512mb one, and my allowance jumped to 3gb.

I don't know how the inner workings of that process works, but its something to consider.

 

[Nothinman]

On the other hand, if I stuck with 32-bit, I wouldn't be able to use a chunk of my memory right now (I have about 5 gigs total), as well as the full capabilities of my CPU.

On Linux you could do both just fine, it's Windows that's artificially limiting you.

I'm not sure how true this is, but when I had 32-bit vista, I had 4gb of ram, and a 1gb video card.

The 32-bit aspect allowed me to access 3.5gb of ram, but it deducted the 1gb from the video card, allowing me 2.5gb. I swapped out the card for a 512mb one, and my allowance jumped to 3gb.

I don't know how the inner workings of that process works, but its something to consider.

Again, that's just a Windows thing. Any 32-bit OS that properly supports PAE would allow you to use all of your physical memory regardless of the hardware installed and it's requirements.

 

[tatteredpotato]

I'm on 32 bit Windows 7 and the reason I am on 32 bit is because I had 64 bit Vista and there were several occasions where I couldn't download or install something because of the 64 bit. Since I don't use over 4 gig of RAM I decided to stick with 32 until Windows 8. If there had been no 32 bit OS I would have been alright with that, but until 64 bit becomes the de facto standard, or I get over 4 gig of RAM, I'll stick with 32 bit.

 

[ElenaP]

We happen to use 64 bit extensively in our software, because it sometimes needs significant amount of memory. Actually, Nothinman, folks say we can get whatever amount of memory with AWE (Address Windowing Extensions?) on Windows, but rumour has it difficult in programming and probably slow.

As a side effect, there are some surprisingly broken things on x64, when something you never even thought about just breaks. Windows Imaging (codecs for digital camera image formats) is the latest one we encountered. For most of the camera native formats x64 decoders are either unavailable or broken.

 

[Leros]

I'm on 32 bit Windows 7 and the reason I am on 32 bit is because I had 64 bit Vista and there were several occasions where I couldn't download or install something because of the 64 bit. Since I don't use over 4 gig of RAM I decided to stick with 32 until Windows 8. If there had been no 32 bit OS I would have been alright with that, but until 64 bit becomes the de facto standard, or I get over 4 gig of RAM, I'll stick with 32 bit.

You can still run 32 bit apps. I've had no problems at all running old 32 bit programs. What have you had problems with?

 

[MJinZ]

how many of you actually use the difference that a 64bit OS gives vs just having it? how often do you use more than 4GB of ram? how many of your apps are true 64bit apps? what apps are you using that uses the additional memory?

also, why is it on so many computers at the stores when 32bit is still plenty fine for probably 90%+ of the users?

Pretty sure any modern game can go 4GB + if you have other stuff open at the same time.

 

[gaidensensei]

I'm pretty sure the stack randomization was defeated fairly easily in the Pwn2Own contest where IE was broken into. So I think the bigger win is the requirement for signed modules in kernel-level code. A root-kit can't properly hide itself if it can't install a kernel module to manipulate the process, loaded module and file lists.

Hopefully they (participants of Pwn2Own, thanks for sharing that - not up to date on security) don't plan on releasing info on how to bypass the 64bit randomization. I'm guessing "true hackers" would want a pretty good reason or ulterior motive in order to hack someone in particular, unlike those mass spyware spam crap.

 

[Nothinman]

Actually, Nothinman, folks say we can get whatever amount of memory with AWE (Address Windowing Extensions?) on Windows, but rumour has it difficult in programming and probably slow.

Yea, I'd guess it would be a bit slower and I don't blame you for wanting to not deal with AWE. I was just pointing out that the physical memory limitations of 32-bit Windows clients are artificial limitations placed there by MS. I wasn't talking about virtual memory at all.

As a side effect, there are some surprisingly broken things on x64, when something you never even thought about just breaks. Windows Imaging (codecs for digital camera image formats) is the latest one we encountered. For most of the camera native formats x64 decoders are either unavailable or broken.

I guess it depends on your perspective because codecs were always at the top of my list of potential things to break because 32-bit apps can't load 64-bit libraries and vice versa so you need 64-bit builds of them if you want a 64-bit app to be able to use those formats.

Hopefully they (participants of Pwn2Own, thanks for sharing that - not up to date on security) don't plan on releasing info on how to bypass the 64bit randomization. I'm guessing "true hackers" would want a pretty good reason or ulterior motive in order to hack someone in particular, unlike those mass spyware spam crap.

I don't keep up much myself, I just saw an article on Ars about it recently.

And you have that backwards, I hope they release all of that info to the public soon if they haven't already. Hiding stuff like that only makes things worse as it ensures that it's only the bad guys that know how to do it.

 

[Mem]

You can still run 32 bit apps. I've had no problems at all running old 32 bit programs. What have you had problems with?

Yep 64 bit fan too,I also game a lot and to be honest see no reason not to use 64 bit OS unless you have a 32 bit cpu or can't find a 64 bit driver,software has been covered before and we all know plenty of 32 bit software runs great on x64 ,also DosBox works great for those old 16 bit games in Vista x64/Win7 x64 plus the added/better security of 64 bit OS is another plus point over its 32 bit brother.

I can see an argument for those that use specialized 32 bit software that will not run on x64 OS and the cost to replace it is too high etc..but for "average Joe" that should not be an issue.

I have been using 64 bit OS since Jan 2007 and I'm not going back, I have no reason too,ironically only my Linux Ubuntu is still on 32 bit OS due to 32 bit CPU.

Bottomline plenty of software that does run great with x64 ,not to meantion good driver support in general.

Software/drivers and gaming wise its not an issue for me,I have yet to find a game that does not run,think oldest game I have played on Win7 x64 was released back in the early 90s.

 

[bob4432]

maybe i am just old skool as when i game, i just have the game and teamspeak on, if i am doing web stuff, i will probably have dreamweaver/golive, a text/hex editor, photoshop and illustrator and maybe flash and when doing 3d stuff, just have solidworks, illustrator and photoshop. vms is where i can see a huge advantage but how many people use vms? i personally love them but i am probably in the minority, along w/ you guys.

w/ the stuff listed above i have never gone over 3GB peak ram useage (virtual and real). i am running a rather old rig - skt775 - e2160 @ 3GHz, 4GB ddr2 and a 4850 and run games @ 1680x1050.

again, maybe because i learned to use computers when ram was expensive so i shut stuff down when not using it, who knows. it just seems overkill for the vast majority of users.

and for a 32bit program that won't work on 64bit - solidworks, at least version 2010 - haven't tried any older ones, plus solidworks 2011 kills off support for xp so that is why i even made the move to win7 and thought i would get some benefit from the extra ram. oh well, maybe i can turn off the pagefile.

but i do see your points after reading premiere cs5, a 64bit os is necessary. it wasn't to be a derogatory post, just wondering what people are doing that needs 8GB of ram aside from science/large server stuff.

 

[Mem]

and for a 32bit program that won't work on 64bit - solidworks, at least version 2010 - haven't tried any older ones, plus solidworks 2011 kills off support for xp so that is why i even made the move to win7 and thought i would get some benefit from the extra ram. oh well, maybe i can turn off the pagefile.

http://www.solidworks.com/sw/support/SystemRequirements.html

Most of it works,however to be fair its really down to software companies to make sure they offer good 64 bit OS support,if they get lazy then its their problem IMHO.