ok, so tell me, why do i need 64 bit os?

[heymrdj]

well i am asking for specifics.


you can walk by, you don't have to respond. i raised a thread and i'm askin'


i'm already using it.


i asked why do i need a 64-bit os.


yeah i got 1 good answer..but even that was without links..


funny, if this was so obvious, there'd be links all over the place, whjich is kinda why i think, APART from the extra ram available, it provide little benefit..after having been on it for a while, i can say it seems to boot up quicker..


i would say idk, hence this thread..


i'm not worried about software, just how the os works, what it ACTUALLY does that is better than 32-bit..

i'm still of the mind that there is little benefit..

The key word, as I told you earlier is *NOW*, there is little benefit *NOW*. The powers that be over the computing world have deemed it a necessity to move to 64 bit, I'm sorry for your little programs that the developer has apparently abandoned, but it's simply the way it goes. Look at the engineering charts for processors, look how far out they go, what nm they plan to be at, what architecture ect. In the end the computer game is far bigger than your piddly software and nothing more but a casualty of progress to them. The engineers of the world know where they want to be and the injection of tech slowly but steadily in "buy and throw away fashion" will ensure that it happens over time. Believe me, I hate time based obsolesence as well, but you and I have no control over that, we're simply using the tools that the greater computing powers give us liberty to have.

 

[Zargon]

you should really take the time to migrate it now while you still have a choice

laziness is not a good reason to not do something.

I still support on occasion some win 3.1 stuff but its tied to half million dollar pieces of equipment, so its understandable

 

[Muse]

you should really take the time to migrate it now while you still have a choice

laziness is not a good reason to not do something.

I still support on occasion some win 3.1 stuff but its tied to half million dollar pieces of equipment, so its understandable

This is not pure poetry. Do you do things for reasons or because you want to? Just because I don't do something doesn't mean I'm lazy, it can mean it isn't a priority for me or I am not inspired to do it. I don't want to waste my time keeping up with the Jonses. Honestly, I don't particularly like my 64 bit machine better than my 32 bit machines other than the fact that among my laptops, it has the best screen.

 

[Anteaus]

This is not pure poetry. Do you do things for reasons or because you want to? Just because I don't do something doesn't mean I'm lazy, it can mean it isn't a priority for me or I am not inspired to do it. I don't want to waste my time keeping up with the Jonses. Honestly, I don't particularly like my 64 bit machine better than my 32 bit machines other than the fact that among my laptops, it has the best screen.

It's about context. No one is telling you that you need to upgrade today. I'm not sure where this thread went off the rails. The comment about migrating was directed at people who have software that won't work with Windows 64-bit and is critical to their productivity, whether business or personal.

If you own a business that falls into this category, migrating sooner than later means that you're in control and can try to make as smooth a transition as possible. Any decision to delay this until stuff simply stops working is simply ridiculous, especially when the consequences are well known. Obviously there is a financial component to this, so no one is saying you gotta run out tomorrow and do all this, but it should be kept in mind.

Average Joe isn't being compelled to upgrade at this point, but no matter what opinions people hold on the matter, 64-bit is inevitable. At some point it will be the only thing you can buy. Upgrade now, upgrade later...that's your prerogative. It's not about keeping up with the Joneses. It's about one day walking into a store and finding out that you can't buy a computer with a 32-bit OS or finding the latest software version requires 64-bit to operate.

All things being equal, if your hardware supports 64-bit and your software works fine in 64-bit, there is no tangible reason not to upgrade other than financial. All the advice people have been giving here is from a technical perspective and not about cost, which is where I think your opinion differs.

If someone offered you a free 64-bit license and you knew your hardware/software were compatible, are you telling me you'd refuse to install it? Doubtful.

People can try to be the 32-bit martyrs all they want, but denial is not the best way to combat our argument.

 

[Muse]

If someone offered you a free 64-bit license and you knew your hardware/software were compatible, are you telling me you'd refuse to install it? Doubtful.

People can try to be the 32-bit martyrs all they want, but denial is not the best way to combat our argument.

As a matter of fact I did get my Windows 7 64 bit Ultimate free, it was a raffle prize at a computer user group. I installed it on a laptop that supports it instead of the Vista Business 32 bit that it was licensed for. However, I do run some software that doesn't work as well in this OS as it did in XP. It's a royal PITA to try to use it, so I either do not use it or use it on my other machines, or I run a virtual machine, if I want to go to that not inconsiderable bother. Myself, I like backward compatibility in an OS. Now Microsoft seems to have a vested interest on keeping people on the upgrade train and they have working relationships with huge computer manufacturers who have even greater vested interest in this.

 

[Zxian]

If the OP is asking what the difference in terms of usability between Win7 32-bit and Win7 64-bit - there's essentially none. Some very old legacy software may be incompatible in Win7 64-bit, as indicated by Muse and Adobe Pagemaker. There is no difference in what you do on a day-to-day basis if you are using 32-bit or 64-bit.

What you do get with 64-bit is better performance for certain 64-bit compiled applications and support for more system memory. Plain and simple.

The question for you is the following - unless you have a reason not to move forward with 64-bit (given the two simple, but fundamental, reasons I provided), why would you not use what is quicky becoming the standard? Windows7 licenses are architecture independent, meaning that your Win7 Home Premium license can be used to install either 32-bit or 64-bit versions.

 

[Zxian]

@Muse - Microsoft has a FAR better track record of legacy support than any alternative I've found. Try using anything made for OS8 on a current OSX installation (or even most software developed for OS9). Your scenario is not typical and does not indicate anything regarding the state of Microsoft's backwards compatibility support. I can happily install just about any piece of software developed for Windows XP onwards (i.e. anything in the past 10 years) on my Win7 machine.

Do you have any idea how much time and testing it takes for legacy support? Read through this article for just a hint of what you're asking for.

If you haven't taken the time in the past 15 years to consider the future of your software support, then the only person you have to blame for the pigeonhole you are in is yourself.