Ready to jump off the 64 Bit bandwagon

[thatsright]

Well, maybe...and I haven't even gotten on yet!!

Using XP and building new rig which is pretty much based around 64-Bit'ness. I want to use beyond 4GB of ram, so I must use Windows 7 64-Bit. The main tasks I do seem to be completly blocked and I will have a thoroughly 32 bit experience. To wit:

-Photoshop 64 Bit: NO GO. I have very important plugin that is only 32 bit, so can't use PS 64Bit. And PSP is about 75% of my systems usage.
-Internet. I frequently have dozens of IE/FF tabs oven at once so using a 64-Bit version of IE or FireFox would be welcome. NO GO. Without a 64-Bit version of Adobe Flash, I will be stuck using the old school, 32-Bit version of IE or Firefox.
-Audio: I have 7 year old Audigy 2 ZS soundcard. A bunch of people reporting the Creative drivers don't really work. The only other option would be the on board audio of my new mobo. YIKES!!
-Storage: I have WD My book Studio II 2TB external HD. WD is VERY vague (if not misleading) on their website about Win 7 64-Bit support. (They say they support Win 7, but do not make the distinction between 32/64 bit.)
-Performance: Without using Photoshop 64-Bit, where is the performance advantage in all things Win 7 64-Bit? Other applications? I just don't see it.


I just bought the i7-920 CPU, so I will need to get a X58 Mobo, which has tri-channel memory and needs at least 6GB of RAM. So, you really need a 64 Bit O/S when on this platform...so you can see why I'm frustrated. ( I still have time to get a i7-860 CPU and P55 mobo based 32-Bit system if I must.)

So what am I to do? Is it worth all the aggravation now? I think I could make this all 'work,' but a bit less fun in doing so. Is my experience typical for those moving to Win 7 64-Bit? Given my above comments, would you just go with Win 7 32-Bit?

 

[mxnerd]

What's the reason to run everything in 64bit? 32bit programs mostly run well on 64bit O.S.

All you need is an O.S. that runs in 64bit so the whole system can use more than 4GB, that's it.

Unless your program needs more than 4GB memory, you absolutely have no reason to force yourself to run 64bit programs.

 

[thatsright]

What's the reason to run everything in 64bit? 32bit programs mostly run well on 64bit O.S.

All you need is an O.S. that runs in 64bit so the whole system can use more than 4GB, that's it.

Unless your program needs more than 4GB memory, you absolutely have no reason to force yourself to run 64bit programs.

I wouldn't say I'm forcing myself to use 64-Bit programs, I guess I'm forcing myself (well, that's an unkind way to put it) to use a 64-Bit OS. Sorry guys, I didn't mean to sound like I'm whining. Just curious if anyone else has faced these hurdles.

 

[dguy6789]

You can use the 32 bit version of all of those programs on a 64 bit OS. I don't see the problem. The best advantage to running a 64 bit OS is a greatly increased memory cap. Aside from that, some programs benefit from a 64 bit version and some do not. You can still run 32 bit programs for those with no benefit and you can also run 64 bit programs if that is the desirable choice. Do it case by case.

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

Photoshop
Use the 32-bit version until Photoshop supports more or better 64-bit plugins.

IE
Use the 32-bit version until Adobe supports 64-bit Flash.

Audigy 2 ZS
This works as well as any piece of Creative hardware can, I have one in my system now. And what's "Yikes" about onboard audio? Stuff should work just fine.

Storage
What is trying to say is that the drive supports Windows 7 and that 32/64-bit is entirely irrelevent as both can read and write to NTFS.

 

[thatsright]

Photoshop
Use the 32-bit version until Photoshop supports more or better 64-bit plugins.

IE
Use the 32-bit version until Adobe supports 64-bit Flash.

Audigy 2 ZS
This works as well as any piece of Creative hardware can, I have one in my system now. And what's "Yikes" about onboard audio? Stuff should work just fine.

Storage
What is trying to say is that the drive supports Windows 7 and that 32/64-bit is entirely irrelevant as both can read and write to NTFS.

For my Storage part, yes the hard drives themselves will work with Win 7 and NTFS, but western digital's software/firmware support to run them in RAID in the enclosure is a different story altogether.

 

[yinan]

The drive will work perfectly fine under x64.

 

[wwswimming]

You can use the 32 bit version of all of those programs on a 64 bit OS.

You can still run 32 bit programs for those with no benefit and you can also run 64 bit programs if that is the desirable choice. Do it case by case.

it doesn't always work that way. i have XP64, also with a Q9550.

would elaborate but not enough coffee yet.

 

[thedosbox]

it doesn't always work that way. i have XP64, also with a Q9550.

It certainly does under Windows 7 - at least for applications.

XP64 is the unloved stepchild of Microsoft OS's. It had poor driver support and continues to largely be ignored by manufacturers. The only people running it are those who wanted to show they had more than 4GB of memory in the system properties tab

 

[Meghan54]

It certainly does under Windows 7 - at least for applications.

XP64 is the unloved stepchild of Microsoft OS's. It had poor driver support and continues to largely be ignored by manufacturers. The only people running it are those who wanted to show they had more than 4GB of memory in the system properties tab

Exactly. I wouldn't point to problems with XP 64 as being all inclusive for all 64-bit OS's. It's more the exception than the rule.

 

[dguy6789]

it doesn't always work that way. i have XP64, also with a Q9550.

would elaborate but not enough coffee yet.

Drivers and niche programs like anti virus must have 64 bit support. 16 bit programs will not work in a 64 bit OS. That's it. All other 32 bit programs will work on a 32 or 64 bit OS. If for some reason a program isn't working in Windows 7 x64, it is almost certain that the program has a problem with the OS itself, not a problem with it being 64 or 32 bit. XP 64 is also the least compatible and least supported version of Windows Microsoft has ever made.

I challenge anyone to find a non 16 bit program that will run on Windows 7 x86 but not on Windows 7 x64.

 

[yuppiejr]

Sounds like a lot of the bad 64-bit experience could have been avoided with some research before making the leap.

As a previous poster mentioned XP x64 is a redheaded stepchild of an O/S that bridged the gap between Microsoft releasing a mainstream 64-bit OS and XP. Why they bothered releasing 32-bit x86 versions of Vista and 7 at all is beyond me, any PC on which you are going to want to run Windows 7 is going to have a 64 bit CPU.

 

[abaez]

I've given x64 RC to four people, and three of them tried to install it and said that they didn't have a 64bit CPU. There seems to still be alot of older computers out there, and MS would have cut themselves off alot of the market if they didn't make x32.

 

[thatsright]

I know it will sound like I'm doing a 180 here, but what I know about app compatibility now has not really changed since before I decided to go to a 64-Bit OS. No new surprises. But where I get a bitter taste is in terms of drivers. Specifically my Audigy 2 ZS sound card and my external RAID Western Digital My Book Studio II. WD says its 'Win 7 compatible' but they don't mention if the firmware of the unit or the software for it (WD Drive Manager) is 64-Bit compatible. Ughhh...... But remember the old saying, when your on the cutting edge, your gonna bleed some...

But, this rig will probably last 5+ years for me and I'M SURE there will be many 64-Bit apps available starting in about 2-3 years. I hear that Photoshop CS5 will have native 64-Bit support and its coming in April.

On a bit of a different note, are there any Windows applications out there that are MUCH better in 64-Bit compared to their 32-Bit version?

 

[theevilsharpie]

The XP 64-bit bashing in this thread is hilarious. XP 64-bit is the "desktop" version of Windows Server 2003, which I can assure you receives the same amount of support from Microsoft (if not more so) as pure desktop operating systems like XP or Vista. In addition, 64-bit libraries in XP 64-bit are the same as those in later operating systems, so with the exception of features exclusive to later OS's (e.g., DirectX 10/11, WDDM, etc.), the compatibility is the same.

XP 64-bit might be the "red-headed stepchild" of operating systems for 3rd party application vendors (Apple, I'm looking at you), but Microsoft still fully supports it, and will continue to support it alongside their Server 2003 line.

 

[dguy6789]

It's not a problem of Microsoft supporting it, it's a problem of everyone else supporting it. Far too often I see drivers and programs have support for Windows 7 x64, Windows Vista x64, then 7, Vista, and XP 32 bit versions, with no 64 bit XP in sight.

I used XP 64 for quite a long time too.

 

[Modelworks]

The XP 64-bit bashing in this thread is hilarious. XP 64-bit is the "desktop" version of Windows Server 2003, which I can assure you receives the same amount of support from Microsoft (if not more so) as pure desktop operating systems like XP or Vista. In addition, 64-bit libraries in XP 64-bit are the same as those in later operating systems, so with the exception of features exclusive to later OS's (e.g., DirectX 10/11, WDDM, etc.), the compatibility is the same.

XP 64-bit might be the "red-headed stepchild" of operating systems for 3rd party application vendors (Apple, I'm looking at you), but Microsoft still fully supports it, and will continue to support it alongside their Server 2003 line.

You have to forgive the majority of posters here . They have no real world experience with xp x64. They installed it, it didn't run their games right so they complain about it when they were never the intended market to start with. XP x64 was NOT meant as a way for home users with 32 bit xp to install and use for general home use. It was targeted at the workstation market where it is still installed and working for thousands of companies. I compare it to the people that ran win95 and installed NT4 then trash talked about how inferior it was.

I just got done working on the movie 2012 . There were no vista or 7 systems there. Everything was XP x64, Redhat Linux 5, Max OSX 10.4 and they have no intention of changing that anytime soon, because it works and it works well. Business does not upgrade the OS because it is new when what you have is very hard to beat. If all my work programs work well in XP x64 why in the world would I move to 7 ? Just because it is new ? I don't think I have seen a 7 box in a studio yet , I saw some vista boxes but they were not production but just used for things like office. When working with lots of memory intensive apps you want all the memory and resources , you really don't care how pretty the OS draws the menus

 

[theevilsharpie]

Completely agree. I used XP 64-bit for years, and I can count the number of compatibility problems I had with it on one hand. I can only conclude that the people bashing it are either blindly repeating what they've heard from others on the Internet, or they're running the worst-supported hardware I've ever seen.

 

[gsaldivar]

Sounds like a lot of the bad 64-bit experience could have been avoided with some research before making the leap.

QFT. Look before leaping...

 

[Tristicus]

I've never had a problem whatsoever with x64. Granted, there have been a few applications that say they won't work on it, but they aren't applications I really need. Photoshop CS3 x32 works fine for me, as do other high end programs like that.