W7 64-bit or 32-bit

Hi

I know the main difference is how much memory 64-bit can see but is there any gain in having 64-bit over 32-bit, I have 64-bit on my main PC because I have 8gig of RAM so I need to have it, very rare do I get a compatibility issue when installing programs these days

Even if I had 3 gig of memory I would still go with the 64-bit because eventually every OS will be 64-bit

Does anyone else have 64-bit windows with less than 4 gig memory

Your opinion please...

Thanks

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

SteveLord

I've run it with 2 before, but only briefly. I would still go 64bit just because out of all the Winodows 7 machines I deal with...64 just seems to be more stable and run smoother all around.

tiersten

Read KB946765

Devilsbane

On my old laptop I was running 32 bit with 4GB of RAM (only registered like 3.5GB). I upgraded to 64 and didn't notice any real differences other than it now listing that I had 4GB.

RTmarc

64 bit

/thread

JDMurray

Every Win7 machine I use is 64-bit regardless of the amount of RAM. However, I do consider 4GB to be the minimum RAM now. I even have an inexpensive Asus Netbook with a dual core Atom processor, Win7 Pro 64-bit, and 4GB RAM. Seems like overkill, but it runs VMware Player well.

RobertKaucher

I don't have any 64 bit systems with less than 4 GB RAM - but that's just because I don't have any x64 systems with less than 4 GB. I do however want to suggest the use of ReadyBoost. Back when I ran x86 Vista on 2 GB RAM I did not notice much of a change. But on my 64 bit Win 7 with 4 GB RAM (same laptop, same HDD) I do notice a difference. A 2 GB SD card is a small price to pay.

tiersten

Whether ReadyBoost is useful or not depends on how fast your HD is and how much free RAM you have. If you've got less than 4GB or if its a laptop then I'd say ReadyBoost is a decent performance increase for most people. If you've got more than that or you've got a very fast HD then I've found the performance increases not to be that great.

I used to use ReadyBoost with a fast USB stick back in the Vista days but I stopped because it did weird things with QuickTime. It just wouldn't play files correctly but once I disabled ReadyBoost, it would work fine. The hardware checked out so it wasn't a hardware fault either.

Vista used to limit ReadyBoost to a single 4GB flash but in 7, you can use much more now. Vista ReadyBoost was really buggy before SP1 as it would invalidate the entire ReadyBoost cache everytime you restarted or resumed.

Devilsbane

I used readyboost with my windows vista 64 machine. 4GB RAM and a 4GB SD card and I noticed no differences.

To go off what Tiersten said, if you are running windows on a SSD, then readyboost can't be enabled because windows has determined there will be little or no performance increase. You also can't enable readyboost on a SD card that doesn't meet certain speed requirements.

Priston

I was using 64-bit Vista until I got Pro Tools Digidesign MBox 2 Pro. I then had to downgrade to the only 32-bit OS I had which is Windows XP. Once I get a new job I'm going to build a new machine and get Windows 7 64-bit though.

michaelcox

64-bit. If I have a problem, use XP Mode or load 32-bit in Virtual PC.

Lee H

So is it a case of more sounds better, 64-bit is double 32-bit so that must be better

Only arguable reason is memory, but like others have said they prefer 64-bit and I do to

If you buy a PC and it has 4Gig memory it automatically comes with 64-bit windows (sure this is HP might be wrong) because 4Gig memory if not standard now will be very soon

So when will 32-bit windows be obsolete?

Server 2008R2 is no longer available in 32-bit so it wont be long before the OS is too

tiersten

Lee H wrote: »

So is it a case of more sounds better, 64-bit is double 32-bit so that must be better

Only arguable reason is memory, but like others have said they prefer 64-bit and I do to

No. Go read the KB article I linked to.

Lee H wrote: »

So when will 32-bit windows be obsolete?

Server 2008R2 is no longer available in 32-bit so it wont be long before the OS is too

No. 32 bit consumer Windows will be available for ages still as the installed base of home/office 32 bit only machines out there is huge.

JDMurray

Lee H wrote: »

So when will 32-bit windows be obsolete?

The obsolescence of 32-bit Windows started when most PC manufacturers started offering only machines with 64-bit CPUs and Windows.

Looking back I remember that 16-bit Windows started to become obsolete when the first true 32-bit Windows (Windows 95) was released. By then PC manufacturers had stopped using 16-bit CPUs (8088, 80286). Your new machine back in 1995 was a 80486 or 80586 with Windows 95 (the 80386 was a toy by then, and the 80686 was never a consumer CPU).

When the 64-bit CPU was introduced there were no consumer 64-bit OSes, and consumers were given the advice to buy 64-bit hardware and run a 32-bit OS on it until a true consumer 64-bit OS comes along. (Windows Server 2003 x64, WinXP x64, and Linux x64 aren't "consumer" OSes.)

Now that Windows 7 64-bit has been in use on consumer x64 hardware for 18 months now, I'd say 32-bit Windows is officially on it way to becoming Windows 3.1.

tiersten wrote: »

No. 32 bit consumer Windows will be available for ages still as the installed base of home/office 32 bit only machines out there is huge.

I know people that still use Windows 9x and 2000, but that doesn't means they're not obsolete.

RobertKaucher

tiersten wrote: »

Whether ReadyBoost is useful or not depends on how fast your HD is and how much free RAM you have. If you've got less than 4GB or if its a laptop then I'd say ReadyBoost is a decent performance increase for most people. If you've got more than that or you've got a very fast HD then I've found the performance increases not to be that great.

I used to use ReadyBoost with a fast USB stick back in the Vista days but I stopped because it did weird things with QuickTime. It just wouldn't play files correctly but once I disabled ReadyBoost, it would work fine. The hardware checked out so it wasn't a hardware fault either.

Vista used to limit ReadyBoost to a single 4GB flash but in 7, you can use much more now. Vista ReadyBoost was really buggy before SP1 as it would invalidate the entire ReadyBoost cache everytime you restarted or resumed.

Yes, that's why I mentioned same HDD. Mine is a 7200 now (was 5400) and I can still tell when the SD card comes out by accident.

Lee H

Is it possible on older machines that 64-bit windows will decrease the performance, or should the same PC perform exactly the same regardless of 32bit or 64bit

Is there anything that 64bit does that would or could use more CPU/RAM

N2IT

32 Bit and 64 Bit here

I perfer the 64 it seems to snap a little more than the 32 bit. I run 4 GB DDR3 on both. I do have a nice graphics card on my 64 bit machine.

msteinhilber

Security enhancements, more accessible RAM, and basically the fact that I have failed to find a single instance of any software and/or hardware within my personal use or my organizations use that wouldn't operate on Windows 7 64-bit basically make it a no brainer to me.

The only time I have ever spent on a 32-bit installation of Windows 7 has been oddball repairs or setup of end-user computers (our real estate agents roll their own equipment for the most part) and they are frankly usually so sub-par to what I use that I wouldn't be at all able to judge speed differences.

That said, we have many corporate owned machines that are Windows 7 64-bit running with 2gb of ram and many of those are running on dual-core Atom platforms. Granted, they are mostly web-browser terminals, we receive zero complaints with speed or otherwise from them.