Is there any reason to install 64 bit if you don't have to?

[desura]

desura, I am sorry your thread got so derailed. Did we answer your question?

pretty much.

Conclusion is that only thing that matters is >4gb ram.

I was worried that there might be like software incompatibility. Like, I sorta remember the transition from 16 bit to 32bit.

 

[hamunaptra]

Well afaik, 16bit programs wont work in 64bit =P

 

[HeXen]

pretty much.

Conclusion is that only thing that matters is >4gb ram.

I was worried that there might be like software incompatibility. Like, I sorta remember the transition from 16 bit to 32bit.

Vast majority of software and games are 32bit or has an installer that includes both.
I don't think i have one single thing on my PC that is 64bit only, outside of my OS that is.

Well afaik, 16bit programs wont work in 64bit =P

unless you emulate it, i think you can in Dosbox.

 

[hamunaptra]

To bounce off of what HeXen stated... yeah the way windows runs 32bit programs in 64bit windows is very elegant. Very impressive to see how its done, since Ive been reading the in depth book windows internals. It explains very verbosely how its implemented.

 

[HeXen]

To bounce off of what HeXen stated... yeah the way windows runs 32bit programs in 64bit windows is very elegant. Very impressive to see how its done, since Ive been reading the in depth book windows internals. It explains very verbosely how its implemented.

I'm curious how WOW64 works, that is what makes 32bit apps work in Windows 64bit isn't it? If so it works so good it's hard to tell the difference from which OS version you use.

 

[hamunaptra]

I'm curious how WOW64 works, that is what makes 32bit apps work in Windows 64bit isn't it? If so it works so good it's hard to tell the difference from which OS version you use.

Yeahp, thats what allows them to work. The innards all all laid out on the table in windows interals book... Would highly suggest that read if you want to know exactly how it works.

 

[JAG87]

Win7 is light years more stable and better than Vista. No comparison. Vista could not even carry Windows 7's jock strap.

At release, 7 was practically identical to Vista SP2

If you didn't see that, then you must have never used Vista.

Even now after SP1 there isn't much of a difference.

 

[Ketchup]

At release, 7 was practically identical to Vista SP2

If you didn't see that, then you must have never used Vista.

Even now after SP1 there isn't much of a difference.

I can understand why people say that. If you remember when Vista came out, manufacturers were pairing it out with really crappy hardware (min amounts of RAM, etc). If you combine the fact that the UI took a pretty strong leap over XP, a speed different would definitely be noticed.

 

[hamunaptra]

At release, 7 was practically identical to Vista SP2

If you didn't see that, then you must have never used Vista.

Even now after SP1 there isn't much of a difference.

Actually, thats kinda a deception. Many components of 7 were highly optimized versions of what was in vista. I still use vista over 7 because I prefer the more traditional UI layout / components of vista. But, there are lots of differences between the 2.
The kernel & kernel components from both OS's perform very well.
But, a few subsystems of 7 are much higher performing in comparison to vista such as, VSS management, DWM uses less resources, you can use more than 1 diff video vendor drivers, cpu power management abilities further optimized(cpu core parking n stuff), cpu thread scheduling, the ability to boot from dynamic volumes;spanned;raid1;raid0;raid10, and some other things escaping me atm....

But, if ur comparing XP to vista/7 then yes... vista & 7 are much one in the same when compared to XP.... it was drastic going from XP to vista, vs vista to 7.
Vista, just unfortunately took the blame(and consequently its bad rep) for the faults of shitty drivers being written at the time due to the drastic changes in the driver model for vista, also Vista took the brunt of the 64bit growing pains(thereagain which were mostly due to 64bit drivers being so new).

 

[HeXen]

It's crazy for a fresh install of an OS to take up some 20 gigs and just keep expanding. I think when i had Vista, i installed like 4 or 5 3rd party apps and in a month Vista expanded to 40 gigs, some was system restore, winsxs..etc but sucks when you have SSD and XP ate a fraction of that size yet did much all of the same things with the right 3rd party software.

 

[hamunaptra]

It's crazy for a fresh install of an OS to take up some 20 gigs and just keep expanding. I think when i had Vista, i installed like 4 or 5 3rd party apps and in a month Vista expanded to 40 gigs, some was system restore, winsxs..etc but sucks when you have SSD and XP ate a fraction of that size yet did much all of the same things with the right 3rd party software.

Such is the nature of OSs that have more feature rich subsystems & ever expanding features to work on newer n newer hardware =P

 

[beginner99]

Thats incorrect. x86-PAE can address and use up to 64GB of RAM(pae is used by default on any processor that supports the nx bit).
I wrote a script that allows client versions of windows vista & 7 32bit to use up to 64GB of RAM.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2304381

Ive been using 8GB of RAM in my vista 32bit for the last month... its running awesome!

So this is possible on a current install or is a reinstall needed?

I'm interested because my company laptop has 32-bit Win 7 and no, they don't to any 64-bit installs. there is only 32-bit...

 

[HeXen]

Such is the nature of OSs that have more feature rich subsystems & ever expanding features to work on newer n newer hardware =P

Few of it's size has anything to do with expansion of features. A lot of it is compatability and legacy crap, WinSXS, hoarding backups of Windows updates, hibersys...etc. While others is stuff you may not want or ever use.
Every modern feature for an OS could be found via 3rd party software, from sharing to even the UI.
64 bit doesn't help size either, if XP was remade using a modern tickless kernal and some under hood changes, you could use 3rd party and do anything you are doing now at a fraction of the footprint size.
OSX snow leopard took 7 GB's less space than previous, their also not as afraid to break compatibility now and then.

So you can use RT7lite, slim Windows 7 down to bare minimum and with some 3rd party apps, i could do everything needed that is modern and had it down to just over 6 gigs.

 

[joshcloud9]

I have an old T60 laptop and it currently dual boots XP and Win 7 Pro.
When I went to install Win 7 I tried to use 64 bit but it could only take the 32 bit version.

Now your T61 may be able to accept 64bit but I would suspect that you will also be stuck with 32 bit. Works fine on mine, which I only use occasionally.

It runs a Core 2 Duo T5600 (1.83 GHz) w/ 3GB of RAM.