• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

At this point is it foolish to get a 32 bit O.S.?

techs

techs

Lifer
With 32bit O.S.'s version like WinXP and WinVista only seeing about 3.2 gb of ram, is it foolish to still buy these versions? And especially the upcoming Windows 7 32 bit.
After all, with memory so cheap, and bloatware being, well, bloatware, are 32bit O.S.'s archaic at this point?
 
Well it depends on what OS your planning to run as Windows XP 64bit is imo too buggy for normal uses. It gotten much better with Windows Vista 64bit and should be best with the Windows 7 version as more good 64bit drivers will be available. That said I have run a dual boot 32bit system Vista/XP (see my sig for info) with 2gb of ram for 2 yrs and never had problem running newest games, VMWare with every OS from Window 95 and above and I multitask a lot no problem. I ran my system with 4gb of the same ram for a long time too and couldn't notice a measurable difference except want to run more than 1 VM OS like Vista with Server 2008. So in general more ram hepls but vastly overstated on it help IMO for normal desktop users and newest OS will be the best to use for 64bit OS but there maybe more compatibility with older software.
 
If you have modern software with modern peripherals then I would definitely go with 64-bit.

Once in while you won't be able to get an old printer, scanner or sound card to work with 64-bit but most stuff is cheap to upgrade.
 
I don't see it as "foolish". Most people have no need for more than 3.2 GB of memory, and XP x32 is the most compatible with programs and hardware. Those who mostly browse the Internet, send email, play an occasional game, have older programs, printers, or other hardware --- in other words, the vast majority of people in this world ---, then there's no particular reason to use a 64-bit operating system.
 
Originally posted by: BostonMike
I have Vista 32 bit and it sees 4GB of ram. How come some peoples computers don't?
Click to expand...

That was a "fix" pushed out by MS. It can only make use of 3.5 GB but now correctly reports the amount you have installed.
 
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: BostonMike
I have Vista 32 bit and it sees 4GB of ram. How come some peoples computers don't?
Click to expand...

That was a "fix" pushed out by MS. It can only make use of 3.5 GB but now correctly reports the amount you have installed.
Click to expand...

Yea, that update was a load of crap. I liked it *much* better when it showed how much ram was available to the system.
 
Yea, that update was a load of crap. I liked it *much* better when it showed how much ram was available to the system.
Click to expand...

But it's better to quiet people down than to actually fix the problem.
 
Foolish might not be the right word, but there really is no reason not to go with a 64-bit OS today. Last year I still had two programs that I used, (and I use a lot of software of various types) that wouldn't run on a 64-bit OS. One was AVID for editing movies, and one was a little program that allowed my PC to see MAC formatted external HDs. Both programs released 64-bit versions around 6-months ago, or so.

So, 64-bit really is mainstream enough now that pretty much 99% of software has a version for it. It has benefits to it and no downside that I am aware of, so it seems to me to be clearly the best option.

*Obviously I am talking about Vista or Windows 7. 64-bit XP would be a bad choice.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Yea, that update was a load of crap. I liked it *much* better when it showed how much ram was available to the system.
Click to expand...

But it's better to quiet people down than to actually fix the problem.
Click to expand...


./agreed that the shell game isn't wanted/needed/deserved for technical users.


Though my (possibly flawed) understanding is that OEM's pressured Microsoft into making the change in order to not have to explain 32 bit memory limitations to the 9,734,293,991 and 2/3rds people out there who would clog support lines asking why the 4GB of memory they paid for isn't shown.

I don't agree at all with the shell game, and think it's far far better to just own up to the limitations up front. But in this case I can at least see a 'reason' for it, and moreso if you throw doubt in there regarding the viability of x64 Windows in the marketplace.

Though this largely seems to have resolved itself, at least on the OEM side, since time has shown Vista 64 more or less works as it should. So more makers are providing it for 4GB+ memory configurations.




Regarding the OP's questions: Having spent the last two years using a 64 bit OS, my perception on this has reversed: A year or more ago, I would have said to use a 32 bit OS unless you had a reason to go 64 - an aggressive gaming rig being the obvious example for home usage. Now, I'm inclined to advise the usage of 64 bit unless you have a reason to stay with 32. At least as far as Windows, the user experience is the same.
 
Originally posted by: BostonMike
I have Vista 32 bit and it sees 4GB of ram. How come some peoples computers don't?
Click to expand...
If you have SP1, yes, it "sees" 4GB but still will only use 3.5 at the most.

For many of us, that is enough.

 
Originally posted by: corkyg
Originally posted by: BostonMike
I have Vista 32 bit and it sees 4GB of ram. How come some peoples computers don't?
Click to expand...
If you have SP1, yes, it "sees" 4GB but still will only use 3.5 at the most.

For many of us, that is enough.
Click to expand...
If this x86 vs x64 discussion is centered around the OSs recognition of 4 GB RAM, I would agree!

I'm on a Mint 6 x64 machine with 4 GB RAM right now. Take a gander at the stats:

http://VinDSL.com/images/x64_Memory.png

"Is it foolish to get a 32 bit O.S.?"

Not at all, unless losing .2 (dot 2) GB RAM is a deal breaker for you... 😉
 
Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
If you have modern software with modern peripherals then I would definitely go with 64-bit.
Click to expand...
Agreed! :thumbsup:

Modern 32-bit software on modern peripherals runs great too, however.

I judge that most users would be hard-pressed to notice any difference in speed, functionality and so forth, and so on...
 
Originally posted by: coolVariable
As long as MS doesn't even support 64bit ... (and I am looking at you Office OneNote 2007).
Click to expand...

Name one benefit that having OneNote as a native 64bit application would give you...

 
The only frustration I encounter running a 64 bit OS is no 64 bit flash. Renders IE64 pretty much useless.
 
How is support for 32-bit applications in general in MS64_*? Pick one of the following: Flawless/great/good/OK/poor/standard_MS_product. I've always stuck with 32-bit system stacks because I get irritated when I want to run some older 32-bit application that mysteriously dies...
 
Originally posted by: degibson
How is support for 32-bit applications in general in MS64_*? Pick one of the following: Flawless/great/good/OK/poor/standard_MS_product. I've always stuck with 32-bit system stacks because I get irritated when I want to run some older 32-bit application that mysteriously dies...
Click to expand...

32 bit programs don't mysteriously die on 64bit os's, they work fine.
 
Originally posted by: nerp
The only frustration I encounter running a 64 bit OS is no 64 bit flash. Renders IE64 pretty much useless.
Click to expand...
Hrm..

I'm running "64 bit flash" - been running it for a while - runs great!

Unfortunately (for you guys) Adobe is using 'us' for Guinea Pigs... 😀

I don't understand it - don't ask...
 
FWIW, I have two pieces of software that have no 64-bit driver support. DLS-2002 is used to interface with alarm panels made by DSC. No 64-bit support.

In addition, ProntoProEdit NG I use for layout, programming, etc., of my universal remote made by Philips. Again, no 64-bit support.

So, yes there are reasons to get a 32-bit OS.
 
If you have a 32-bit computer, there's not much reason to update.
However, I wouldn't get a new 32-bit computer. Apps already exist that can benefit from greater than 2GB of ram usage (the individual app limit), and having 8GB or more of system ram is quite sweet.
 
Originally posted by: boomerang
FWIW, I have two pieces of software that have no 64-bit driver support. DLS-2002 is used to interface with alarm panels made by DSC. No 64-bit support.

In addition, ProntoProEdit NG I use for layout, programming, etc., of my universal remote made by Philips. Again, no 64-bit support.

So, yes there are reasons to get a 32-bit OS.
Click to expand...

Those are reasons to run a 32bit VM under that 64bit OS 😉
 
The only thing bugging me about 64-bit is that Canon hasn't released a RAW codec for it's first couple formats (.crw) (original Digital Rebel 300D, in my case), so I can't browse my RAW files in Photo Gallery. Dunno about the newer Canon cameras/formats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top