Windows 7 32 bit or 64 bit? What to get?

[KDOG]

So with tax return I'm finally going to get Win 7 for my main machine. (will probably go to a RAID setup as well). So which version is the best to get the 32-bit or 64-bit? I'm thinking the 32-bit version is the "mainstream" version. What benefits does the 64-bit version have over the 32-bit? My machine is Phenom X2 based machine with 4gb of DDR3 on a 790GX mobo.

 

[yinan]

64 gives access to more memory and is a little more secure. It is the version I would go with as most 32 bit apps should run fine.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

64 bit for sure. you will be able to use a lot more RAM and it seems faster to me so far.

 

[BurnItDwn]

No point in getting the 32 bit version. IMO MS made a mistake releasing a 32bit version. If your CPU is slower than an Athlon64, then you have no business running Win 7.

 

[CrimsonWolf]

Vista x64 went a long ways toward making 64 bit mainstream, and Windows 7 carries this on. Nearly all 32 bit applications will work. Exceptions are pretty rare at this point. Drivers need to be 64 bit, but that's not a major issue anymore either.

With 64 bit you'll have access to all 4 GB of ram on that setup. With 32 bit you'd only have access to 3-3.5 GB depending on what you have for a video card. Windows 7 64 bit would give you much more headroom to upgrade memory.

Frankly, new 32 bit OSes need to go the way of the dodo.

 

[jlee]

I would go with x64 unless there's a particular reason you need x32. The only reason I went with x32 on my laptop is because Palm hasn't yet made 64bit USB drivers for my Centro.

 

[JackMDS]

I would go with x64 unless there's a particular reason you need x32. The only reason I went with x32 on my laptop is because Palm hasn't yet made 64bit USB drivers for my Centro.

+1

If you are a gamer check on the games.

.

 

[BlackOmen]

Believe it or not, Microsoft FRX, which is reasonably current, is not 64-bit compatible. Ooops. Oh well, I guess 32-bit lives on in my corporate environment.

 

[tcsenter]

Believe it or not, Microsoft FRX, which is reasonably current, is not 64-bit compatible..

Among numerous numerous other recent or current applications, utilities, and devices.

It cracks me up that some people claim there is no reason to have 32-bit OS anymore and swear that 64-bit is the only real choice, but then all their applications are 32-bit versions because:

- No 64-bit version is available
- If available, its BETA and buggy/glitchy
- If available and stable, its not offered as a free update/upgrade and they don't want to purchase the new version when their current version works perfectly well (for which they might have paid a lot of money just two years ago when no 64-bit version was available)


My personal fav are those who get all emotional about their "64-bit" app when its nothing more than the 32-bit version with pointer handling cleaned up and recompiled to be 64-bit "compatible", which accurately describes at least 50% of so-called 64-bit ready applications on the market.

 

[sportage]

Yeah everything is going 64b.
That question is like asking should you buy XP or Win7?
You can't even buy a pc from bestbuy or most others that
have anything but the 64b os installed.
If you find a 32b new system, its either an old closeout system,
a refurbished, or some unsold display model.

 

[GaryJohnson]

The only reason to run 64-bit windows is if you have or ever plan to have more than 4GB of ram on the machine you're installing it on. 32-bit can only fully utilize 4GB. 64-bit can do more (up to 2TB on some 64-bit versions of windows server).

The only reason to run 32-bit windows is if you have an app, utility, or device that only works with native 32-bit. These are not all that numerous, especially on modern home PCs.
MS has a "compatibility center" where you can check Win 7 64/32 software & hardware compatability:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/en-us/default.aspx

 

[Mem]

I'm a gamer and have no problems with games in Win7 x64,only those very old 16 bit games will cause issues ,however there are ways round that like DOSBox etc....

Basically if you got 64 bit drivers for your hardware then you are good to go Win7 x64,easy to check that,I have not stuck with 32 bit OS since XP days,since Vista onwards stayed on 64 bit versions.

 

[NickelPlate]

I would go with x64 unless there's a particular reason you need x32. The only reason I went with x32 on my laptop is because Palm hasn't yet made 64bit USB drivers for my Centro.

You do know (at least for many old Palm devices) that you can sync via bluetooth using Palm Desktop?

It would be better if Palm would do 64 bit drivers for those of us still clinging to our PDAs (I still use a Tungsten T3) and old smartphones but the the bluetooth syncing is a good workaround. I got one of these:

http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.11866

 

[Jeff7181]

I've been using 64-bit versions of Windows since Vista launched and I'll never purchase a 32-bit OS ever again. There's no reason to... backward compatibility is solid.

 

[charliedavidson]

I have also installed windows7 64-bit.. it definitely utilizes the capabilities of the new multi-core processors, a few software compatibilities here and there.. but for most software you can download an update or patch to make it compatible.. but definitely go for 64-bit.. especially if you have a new multi-core system..

 

[taltamir]

Among numerous numerous other recent or current applications, utilities, and devices.

I find that there are more 64bit only (they exist) programs than 32bit only.

the whole "it can hold more ram" thing is nice... but is usually used as a strawman argument of "it can ONLY hold more ram with no other benefits"...

64bit OS is significantly faster and can run programs which are significantly faster. The AMD64 design includes going from 3 to 8 registers and other benefits. what does that mean?

the theoretical maximum speed gain is between 400 and 500% going from 32bit to 64bit. Now, it is true that some things get 0% increase, they simply do not benefit from 64bit. but you benefit overall.
I personally benchmarked 7z compression as being 23% faster in 64bit, I have also benchmarked programs that were 0% faster. 64bit IE and Firefox was significantly faster, and professionals benchmark sites have observed about 60% increase in divX encoding and 300-400% increase in hash calculation speeds.

 

[tcsenter]

I find that there are more 64bit only (they exist) programs than 32bit only.

Then you look within a very narrow spectrum of applications. If someone intends to newly buy every piece of software that they intend to use with their 64-bit computer, good for them.

I purchased Office 2003, FrontPage 2003, Paint Shop Pro, Adobe Elements, Pinnacle Studio, Acoustica Mixcraft and Beatcraft (pro bundle), Power DVD, Nero 6 Ultra, and at least $500 worth of other perfectly useful applications, in addition to about $150 of those casual games (many of which aren't compatible with 64-bit OS), between 2003 and 2007 that weren't available in "real" 64-bit versions, and no free or heavily discounted upgrades/updates are offered. I'm hardly alone.

 

[taltamir]

Then you look within a very narrow spectrum of applications. If someone intends to newly buy every piece of software that they intend to use with their 64-bit computer, good for them.

I purchased Office 2003, FrontPage 2003, Paint Shop Pro, Adobe Elements, Pinnacle Studio, Acoustica Mixcraft and Beatcraft (pro bundle), Power DVD, Nero 6 Ultra, and at least $500 worth of other perfectly useful applications, in addition to about $150 of those casual games (many of which aren't compatible with 64-bit OS), between 2003 and 2007 that weren't available in "real" 64-bit versions, and no free or heavily discounted upgrades/updates are offered. I'm hardly alone.

1. The only program from your list that doesn't work on 64bit windows is nero 6.
2. nero is at version 9 now... nero is available for 32bit and 64bit, you chose to use an obsolete version. By that note I have plenty of 16bit only apps too lying around.

All but nero of the list you provided have only 32bit executables but they WORK on windows 64bit. Meaning they are not "compatible with 32bit windows only"
A 32bit only programs means that it does not run on 64bit windows.

There are plenty of programs that don't run on windows 32bit and requires 64bit windows... more if you go beyond windows. However saying "my 32bit version from years ago doesn't work on 64bit windows" is a joke.

Since I am nice, I shall help you with your failing argument... Sanboxie is a 32bit only program, there is no version that is compatible with windows 64bit

 

[tcsenter]

As can be gleaned from my post, that's not an all-inclusive list. I'm fairly sure that some plug-ins or modules aren't working in Paint Shop Pro, Adobe Elements, and a few other apps I have under 64-bit OS. And again, several of the games don't run under 64-bit OS and the publisher refuses to provide an update (even though they have a newer build of the same title, which they continue to sell).

But more to the point, all of them are 32-bit apps - perfectly useful with contemporary features - that gain absolutely nothing from running under 64-bit OS, so why bother? In many cases, if they were 64-bit, the benefit would be marginal for 90% of mainstream users.

And "apps from years ago". lol Yeah, these are from the 80's (all of them less than four years old). So basically your position is, everyone needs to replace $2000+ worth of applications every three to four years. Whatever. Have you considered a sales and marketing career in software?

 

[Mem]

I like to point out(I know I meantioned it previously) you can also run 16 bit games with Win7 x64 via DOSBox 0.73,infact I'm playing XCOM :Apocalypse (original retail CD game from 1997) at the moment with sound etc...

Basically there's a lot of software that runs fine on 64 bit OS,for those specific software programs that don't, you can always find a newer version or an alternative software program(sometimes even freeware) from a competitor that does work fine.

 

[tcsenter]

I like to point out you can also run 16 bit games with Win7 x64 via DOSBox 0.73,infact I'm playing XCOM :Apocalypse (original retail CD game from 1997) at the moment.

Cool! How much faster/better does it run under 64-bit OS? Oh that's right...

 

[Mem]

Cool! How much faster/better does it run under 64-bit OS? Oh that's right...

I last played it back in 1997/98,I'm still early in the game but so far it plays about the same so smooth enough and the game save files work fine(first thing I tested hehe).

The main problem is learning all the controls again since there are lots of buttons and menus in Apocalypse(fun replaying old classics ).

 

[taltamir]

And "apps from years ago". lol Yeah, these are from the 80's (all of them less than four years old). So basically your position is, everyone needs to replace $2000+ worth of applications every three to four years. Whatever. Have you considered a sales and marketing career in software?

how many of your vaunted 32bit only apps (so far you were only able to name nero6) that are not compatible with windows 64bit versions are compatible with windows vista? much less windows 7?
You use windows XP for a reason...

and that "not all inclusive list" you made had ONE SINGLE TITLE that doesn't actually work on 64bit (I have been running office 2003 perfectly on 64bit windows for years for example) and that title is nero 6... where we are now up to 9, and there are perfectly good and working free alternatives like imgburn if you cannot afford to update.

Cool! How much faster/better does it run under 64-bit OS? Oh that's right...

What are you smoking? DOSbox works on 64bit windows perfectly. And you need to use dosbox 16bit dos emulation for old 16bit games on any 32bit windows as well. Your windows XP is not gonna run any of those programs (frankly, you will have problems running it on windows 95 or 98).. certainly not your windows 7 32bit edition.

Or is your argument actually "sure 64bit is faster on most programs; several times the speed on some. But it is exactly the same speed on emulating 16bit dos games via dosbox therefore there is no reason to get it"?

 

[tcsenter]

Or is your argument actually "sure 64bit is faster on most programs; several times the speed on some. But it is exactly the same speed on emulating 16bit dos games via dosbox therefore there is no reason to get it"?

Actually, my argument as confirmed by numerous reviews and comparisons is that under mainstream usage scenarios with mainstream applications, 64-bit is NOT appreciably faster on most programs.

By mainstream usage, I mean testing methodology that does not require opening 100+ browser tabs or windows at once, compressing/uncompressing gigabytes worth of files at once, having 20+ applications running, in order to show a difference. You know, those things that 90% of the computing universe does NOT do with their computers.

Your windows XP is not gonna run any of those programs (frankly, you will have problems running it on windows 95 or 98).. certainly not your windows 7 32bit edition.

All the 16-bit utilities I use work fine under XP and Vista 32-bit (haven't tested them on Windows 7 but I presume they will).

 

[taltamir]

Actually, my argument as confirmed by numerous reviews and comparisons is that under mainstream usage scenarios with mainstream applications, 64-bit is NOT appreciably fast on most programs.

By mainstream usage, I mean testing methodology that does not require opening 100 browser tabs or windows at once, compressing/uncompressing gigabytes worth of files at once, having 20 applications running, in order to show a difference. You know, those things that 95% of the computing universe does NOT do with their computers.

Strawman argument.

1. You don't have to compress gigabytes of files at once or do other benchmark activities to see the benefits. you will be getting your speedup whether you compress a 10MB file or 100MB or 1GB... the speed benefit in in percentage. It is the TYPE of program you use that matters. And everyone uses at least SOME programs that benefit from 64bit.

2. How is this an argument against using 64bit?

Actually, all the 16-bit utilities I use work fine under XP and Vista 32-bit (haven't tested them on Windows 7 but I presume they will).

1. Don't assume.
2. You said 16bit dos games... when did it become utilities? and why can't you name a single one? your list had nero 6 (use freeware alternative, or newer version), office 2003 (works perfectly), adobe (works perfectly; actually one of their programs is 64bit bit only; I don't mean photoshop which is available in 32bit and 64bit; IIRC its called after effects, latest version is 64bit only.. I found the hard way when I tried to install it on a 32bit system and it wouldn't), 16bit dos games (don't even work on windows95; you need dosbox, which works perfectly on 64bit windows 7)...
now you are adding some unnamed "16bit utilities"... without actually saying which.

I on the other hand can name sanboxie as a 32bit only utility. I can say that programs like fedex and UPS software used to be windows XP only until very recently when they added windows vista support (not a 64bit issue).
so what are those utilities... for that matter, that isn't a 32bit vs 64bit issue since those utilities are 16 bit (dear science they must be at least 10 years old...)

http://www.adobe.com/products/aftereffects/faq/
and click on Support for 64-bit operating systems