Is there a benefit to upgrading to a 64 bit operating system...

[Syringer]

Is there a benefit to upgrading to a 64 bit operating system if you have a computer with less than 4 gigs of RAM and you do not plan on upgrading your RAM in the near future?

 

[Nothinman]

With Windows you need a 64-bit OS (or 32-bit Server Enterprise) to get the full 4G anyway.

But really you should be looking at it from the opposite perspective, i.e. why not 64-bit? Unless you've got some crappy device that has no 64-bit drivers then you don't really have a reason to install a 32-bit OS these days.

With Linux I can kind of see installing a 32-bit system and running a 64-bit kernel so that you get all of your memory and the ability to run 64-bit binaries as necessary. But that's not possible with Windows.

 

[Syringer]

Okay redid thread with a poll.

 

[Nothinman]

And even if you only have <4G right now, why force yourself to do a reinstall later on when you add more?

 

[lxskllr]

Sure is, especially with Vista and Win7. They'll put unused ram to use, so it doesn't get wasted like it did in XP.

 

[Nothinman]

XP would use all the memory in your system, infact I think it would cache too aggressively in some cases, it just wasn't as proactive as filling it as Vista and Win7 are with SuperFetch.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm running Win7 64-bit, previously with 1GB, now with 3GB.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Syringer
Is there a benefit to upgrading to a 64 bit operating system if you have a computer with less than 4 gigs of RAM and you do not plan on upgrading your RAM in the near future?

Yes, namely Kernel Patch Protection. If in doubt, first check to ensure your devices have 64-bit drivers available, then go with 64-bit unless there's a particular reason not to.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

While not the only reason, 64 bit operating systems primarily benefit those applications that take advantage of 64 bit operations. If you do not use such applications, the benefit is minimal.

 

[Nothinman]

While not the only reason, 64 bit operating systems primarily benefit those applications that take advantage of 64 bit operations. If you do not use such applications, the benefit is minimal.

No, as mechBgon mentions there's security benefits and you're not limited to <4G of memory. The only valid reason for not using a 64-bit OS is lack of 64-bit hardware/drivers.

 

[rudder]

There is really no reason not to run a 64 bit version. Ever since I have loaded vista64 and now at w7 x64... I have never had a problem finding drivers. The only annoyance I have is that the cisco vpn client has to be run on a VM.

There are very few programs that people use on a daily that take advantage of 64 bit though. There is photoshop... but nearly all of the plugins only work only in the 32 bit version. With gobs of ram it does make the system feel snappier though.

But this is slowly changing... I don't imagine it will be too long before games are released with 64 bit add-ons and more every software is 64 bit. Of course I could be wrong and it will be years before this happens... but I bet the majority of new systems being built come with 6 gigs of ram so maybe that will accelerate things

 

[drum]

you may as well get used to it as 7 is the last 32 bit OS

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I'm absolutely convinced that I observe a significant improvement in performance -- even when many applications are still 32-bit. All of the various services and bundled apps with the 64-bit OS run faster. I've seen bottlenecks opened wide, whereas XP 32-bit was choking my system -- or running significantly slower. For instance, I don't have problems with the occasional stutter in video playback that would occur with XP MCE. My TV application would halt momentarily when I'd open my e-mail browser. There may be other aspects or explanations to that shortcoming, but it doesn't occur at all with my 64-bit VISTA OS. And that's for comparing Media Center for each OS on the same quad-core system.

So far, there've been two software applications I've needed to upgrade for failure to run well in the 64-bit OS. And I can no longer use my 13-year-old inkjet printer -- which had taken a licking and kept on ticking -- a workhorse. I can still get the cartridges for that printer and get them easily. But it has a parallel-centronics interface. And the worst of it was the total failure of the driver bundled in VISTA-64 for that particular printer.

On the printer angle, it cost me $750 in 1996 dollars. The replacement does everything as well or better than the antique -- and I picked it up last week for $220 in 2009 dollars.

I don't think I'll ever use a 64-bit OS again, at least -- for a workstation machine. WHS 32-bit is fine -- for what it does. But on the client/workstation end? The only reasons to avoid a 64-bit OS are such as I've shown here, and -- really -- it's about time to upgrade a couple $60 software packages and chuck a 13-year-old printer . . . . isn't it?