# IT Guys: 32-bit vs 64-bit **URL:** \ **Category:** Shift518 Off Topic\ **Created:** [December 28, 2009, 1:02pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/it-guys-32-bit-vs-64-bit/249407 "2009-12-28T13:02:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 15
**Author:** ![SlackJ94](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/slackj94/32/6325_2.png) [@SlackJ94](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/SlackJ94)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2009, 6:21am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/it-guys-32-bit-vs-64-bit/249407/15 "2009-12-30T06:21:59Z")
> [@Wanted : Good cover songs](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/wanted-good-cover-songs/27851/4): > > 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 you have a point though, XP64 sucked, but XP is now 2 versions out of date --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/it-guys-32-bit-vs-64-bit/249407)._