32bit vs 64bit

[enaberif]

Originally Posted by Farmrush

Then why the 64-bit OS?

Do you REALLY need to ask this?

What about memory exhaustive programs? Virtual Machines? etc.

[Gellidius]

very interesting thread, this one.

Tks all. :-D

[rjbarker]

I've seen this one re-surface a number of times over this past year and thier are always some very valid points on both sides.....its never black n white...and always is interesting!!
My personal opinion has changed considerably since installing Vista 64 Bit on one Rig 9 mos ago....I still prefer XP 32 Bit as my OS on my other Rig...although that may very well change, but no, I don't need the additional RAM on that Rig.....I'll likley just get bored and do it...

[Perineum]

Originally Posted by enaberif

But will that person NEED 4gb or will 2gb suffice for them?

Why is it people figure EVERYONE needs 4gb?

Isn't one of the selling points to Windows 7 the fact it has LOWER requirements hardware wise?

If all someone does is web surf and email.. 2gb is PLENTY.

I agree, but in that case I would give them Windows 7 32bit.... not 64bit.

Having 2 gigs of ram running 32 bit applications using WOW64 to emulate seems rather stupid to me.

I'd like to see some actual numbers of the % hit in performance loss (I'm betting small) and the RAM usage % (this is the one I expect to be noticable)

Anyway, if anyone has solid numbers.....

[enaberif]

Originally Posted by Perineum

I agree, but in that case I would give them Windows 7 32bit.... not 64bit.

BINGO!

You just proved why 32bit is STILL around.

[Perineum]

Yessir!

If customer absolutely wanted 64 bit windows, then one way or another they'd get 64bit and 4 gigs of ram.... making it actually pointful to do so.

If customer absolutely only wanted 2 gigs of ram, then it would be 32 bit windows....

... unless I thought that it might be good to toss in a 1KW PSU with their dual core 7750 and integrated video motherboard. You know... just in case.

[bojangles]

I guess my opinion is:

Why didn't Microsoft make Windows 7 purely 64-bit? I'll have to say that if your computer can't run Vista, you can't run Win7. It may be less of a resource hog, but it still takes quite a toll on an older computer. I understand that a lot of people only need 2GB of RAM for general office usage and websurfing, but what if it came time to getting more performance when they need it? We all know that to make an OS faster is to add more RAM when lower amount won't do it's justice. Uh oh, how come I don't see 4GB? Awww darn, the sales person says I need a 64-bit OS. Now I need to spend $100 to switch because I'm a stupid customer that doesn't know how to switch to 64-bit just by calling Microsoft.

It sounds more like a cash grab personally. It's to make a little more money on the systems that don't support 64-bit architecture or are too slow to run it, however few computers that is (actually it's probably a lot).

The reason I went 64-bit was because I knew that this was finally starting to settle into everyday computing. Drivers were an issue at first, but now I haven't had any problems with my hardware. Now there are games being released with 64-bit architecture in mind. Half-Life 2 was probably one of the first major release games to support 64-bit. Increasing the heapsize to half of my RAM (half of 6GB), because it allowed more than the 2GB limit of 32-bit really helped performance.

The problem as humans is that we hate change. It costs time and money to move ahead, and this is where companies and consumers stall. They're missing out on the good stuff! We get held back by having companies that produce the software because they support software for way too long. We have to move ahead.

[Gellidius]

i used win xp x86 until about 10 days ago, then i tried win 7 x64 and then 2 days ago i installed win xp x64.

i do multitasking quite often, not counting many programs running in the background and the cpu also folds on the 4 cores all the time.

What i've found so far is that, by being able to use all 4GB of ram, Boinc can use more memory and works faster; same for everything else i do;
another difference: win 7 is much heavier than xp and thus xp is faster and more responsive; actually the speed difference is quite amazing.

Then, there's the fact that win 7 has lots of gadgets that i don't need and it's also more complicated to use.

Finally, i found that the best os for me is Win XP x64. Light, reliable, and very fast.

I'm still sleepy so i hope this is clear enough.

[Farmrush]

Originally Posted by enaberif

Do you REALLY need to ask this?

What about memory exhaustive programs? Virtual Machines? etc.

Thank you for your immaturity when answering my question. Please feel free to treat me as unintelligent when asking questions in the future.

Bye.

[steers]

Originally Posted by Gellidius

i used win xp x86 until about 10 days ago, then i tried win 7 x64 and then 2 days ago i installed win xp x64.

i do multitasking quite often, not counting many programs running in the background and the cpu also folds on the 4 cores all the time.

What i've found so far is that, by being able to use all 4GB of ram, Boinc can use more memory and works faster; same for everything else i do;
another difference: win 7 is much heavier than xp and thus xp is faster and more responsive; actually the speed difference is quite amazing.

Then, there's the fact that win 7 has lots of gadgets that i don't need and it's also more complicated to use.

Finally, i found that the best os for me is Win XP x64. Light, reliable, and very fast.

I'm still sleepy so i hope this is clear enough.

It's 8 years old! Why won't people just let XP die in peace?!