I’ve never used a 64-bit OS yet believe it or not, nor do I know much about the benefits of using one.
I’m thinking about purchasing Windows 7 since I’m actually VERY happy with it, and I’m wondering if I should stay 32-bit or upgrade to 64-bit.
I have 4GB of DDR3 1600 memory and a Intel Q9550 CPU (Quad) on my desktop. My laptop is an Intel Core2 chip (T7500 - 2.8Ghz) and 2GB of memory (going to upgrade to a faster chip -T9500? - and 4GB memory soon I think).
Is it worth it? They are both $17x for a 1-pack system builders kit.
Without 64bit you will not be able to use more than 3 gigs of RAM, in other words 32 bit can only support up to 3 gigs of ram and 64bit 4 gigs+, the only bad thing right now about 64 bit is the software capabilities. There is still a lot of software that will not work on 64 bit.And if you know what the i7 is don’t bother getting it yet, price will drop dramatically soon.
The most prominent improvement is with the 64 bit you can run more programs with better performance, such as video, audio playback, games, editing software, etc. If you need to know anything else let me know.
Yeah I know about the software…and Windows 7 detected 3.5GB of my 4GB of memory.
Right now I’m running a hacked version of 7 Ultimate 32-bit which is why I’m considering buying it because I really think Microsoft got this one right. I’m worried about older applications that I use such as Sound Forge, some of my XBox hacking software, etc. that might not work on 64-bit.
Eh, unless someone on here can give me a clear cut “WIN!” scenario for changing, I think I’ll just stay 32-bit.
I’m not getting an i-series chip anytime soon. I just got the Q9500 like 3 months ago. I’m fine for the next year or so.
By the way STA…I’m in the IT industry…you don’t have to do the ‘in other words’ thing with me :rofl but I know where you’re coming from. I do the same thing sometimes lol.
Oh ok my bad, I try to speak as clearly as possible when talking to a non IT guy, what’s your area of IT, and btw I’m running a hacked version too, Win7 is the shit.
Desktop/Networking. You? My title is Technical Specialist but I work in both areas. I half-assed my interview for Network Analyst a year and a half ago because at this point in my life I’d rather be walking around doing more of the desktop/customer service of the business. So my good friend John got that position instead. I do intend to end up in networking and progress through those ranks as my IT career moves forward.
I ran a copy of XP pro 64 on my gaming rig to see what it does. With a fresh install of both 64 and 32 3Dmark06 scores were on ave dead even. Super Pi scores were the same, game play was the same. I dont do any heavy multitasking or rendering or things like that would really stress an app that is 64 over 32, so I didnt notice anything myself. But like I said i didnt benchmark it very well i guess. Load times were about the same too for different apps 32 or 64.
Arnt most apps backwards compatible from 64 to 32? if so just go for the 64 i guess.
get 64 bit windows 7… since vista hardly anything has issues with 64 bit… every application /game etc that ive run even being 4+ years old runs on 64 bit with absoloutely no issues…
Many people still belive theres lots of compatibility issues with 64bit systems and applications but thats not the case anymore, in the early staged of Windows XP x64 there were tons of compatibilty issues but nearly everything works with a 64bit OS now…
The only thing i could see having an issue is some POS ancient hardware
Ive literaly put and used 64 bit OS’s on hundreds of machines without any issues
Like the others said, there isn’t much that won’t run on a 64 bit OS. The OS is smart enough to treat 32 bit programs as 32 bit programs. I’ve been on 64-bit windows 7 for 6 months now and have had no issues with it. I’ve even played games from back in the 90s without a problem.
I tried xp64. it was completely useless for what I do. it’s not bad for corporate stuff, but not really for personal use. my win7 on the laptop is 64bit and ive had a couple of problems with a few things not running. other than the slightly faster boot time, i dont see any real gain, for me at least. i’d rather use an OS that makes full use of a quad core cpu
In what way would a 4 bit OS NOT make full use of a quad core cpu? I am running a quad core cpu (Intel Q9550) and windows 7 and it most defiantly makes use of all 4 cores.
you have a point though, XP64 sucked, but XP is now 2 versions out of date
This is incorrect. It depends on memory addressing. Typically, somewhere in the 3-3.5GB range.
If you upgrade, some X86 programs such as video drivers will need to be upgraded. You might deal with issues with some printers legacy drivers, and older games. Other than that, you won’t notice the difference. I run X64 on 3 out of 5 machines. I just am lazy to convert the others.
I have 3.5GB detected out of 4GB, so W7 32-Bit does detect more than 3GB.
I’m not worried about drivers. All of my hardware is new/modern with support for W7 and 64-bit. I guess what I was worried about was stability and gaming, since I’ve never used it and we don’t use it here as a company (although we support it). But looks like those claims are no longer relevant. So I’ll be getting a 64-bit builder pack soon enough.
