I'm redoing my system and when I upgraded from XP to Windows 7, I got both the 32-bit and 64-bit upgrade DVDs.
My system is a 64-bit with a total capacity for 4 GB of RAM, which I've maxed out.
Is there any advantage to going with the 64-bit installation over the 32-bit? Is there any downside to going with 64-bit?
I'm also going to dual-boot XP and at least one GNU/Linux. I don't have a 64-bit XP but I can get 64-bit Linux.
Same questions: Are there advantages/disadvantages to using 64-bit or 32-bit?
Thanks.
The short answer is that you should go with Windows 7 64-bit unless you’re running a system well into its antiquity where driver support is going to become an issue.
I personally feel the Pros and Cons listed in that link no longer apply - in the 2 1/2+ years since that article came out, support for 64-bit has vastly improved. 64-bit Windows 7 dominates the marketshare. Unless your hardware is really old, it pretty hard to NOT find 64-bit drivers these days. And I don't really buy the compatibility issue. It says some programs break in 64-bit Windows. Really? Still? Which ones? I contend if they did break 2 1/2 years ago when Windows 7 came out and if the developer has not released a 64-bit version by now, find another product - a product that is keeping current with the times. (Also, I suspect the problem was Windows 7 compatibility and not a 32 vs 64-bit issue in most of those cases).
I personally see no reason NOT to go with 64-bit - even if you only have 2Gb of RAM (which would be a poor purchase decision anyway). This assumes you are using relatively current HW technologies.
Also there are several security related advantages to running 64-bit Windows. There is a lot more 32-bit malware out there. 64-bit Windows 7 has more security features than the 32-bit version including,
Hardware-based Data Execution Prevention (DEP) - Modern CPUs now support hardware-based DEP, but only 64-bit Windows supports hardware-based DEP by default.
Driver Signing - 64-bit Windows 7 will only allow installation of device drivers that are digitally signed by the developer. With 32-bit Windows 7, unsigned drivers are allowed to be installed.
Kernel Patch Protection (PatchGuard) - 64-bit Windows 7 protects against kernel-based rootkits. PatchGuard also minimizes BSODs by preventing drivers from modifying the kernel.
Note these features have been around since before Windows 7, but only on 64-bit versions of Windows. Plus they have been improved in Windows 7.
Yeah sure if you like, go 64bit (bragging rights, while they last, are guaranteed and for not much longer either).
As Digerati said, "drivers are no longer a problem" which is true, but then have a look when you finally install 64bit under "programs" and see just how many of them are running in the 32bit section as compared to those running in the 64bit program section! Sadly, just about all of them will be running in the 32bit section and 64bit "drivers" (were a program needs one) have nothing to do with it.
Why are all those programs still in the 32bit section? Well it's all about the program code a program was written in. When 32 bit first came out it was a simple matter to create drivers to suit (where needed) and as 32bit recognized 16bit code, there was very little the program writers had to do to make them 32 bit compatible, just a little re-writing in 32bit code, but with most of the serious writing work still in 16 bit code!.
Then along came 64bit which does not recognize 16bit program code, but would recognize 32bit code. So what did the lazy program writers do? Just upgraded the 16bit code to 32 bit. Voila! A (pretend) "64 bit program"!
There is something that is alway true when it comes to hardware and software and that is software is always about 5yrs behind hardware. Early adopters beware, your paying for little else but hype!
Anyone using DDR3 that is looking for the slightest program advantage over DDR2, would know exactly what I mean!
Sure there is the RAM argument. 64bit will allow the use of far more RAM than 32bit (max about 3.2GB), but I will bet a motza programs that need more than 3.2GB (huge) of ram are few and far between and If anyone has such a program in use, please let me know exactly what it is, as I have a very intensive video editing program that does not even use my full 32bit ram capacity! Just because you have a whole heap of ram, don't think for a minute that every program you have can take advantage of it. That is just not so.
Me? 32bit thank you until programs catch up .. in about 2 or 3 yrs. time maybe
Cheers,
Lee
Sorry Lee, but I think you are the one 5 years behind - or at least 2 1/2 (since Windows 7 came out). 64-bit capable hardware has been around for decades, but because 32-bit tends to run well on 64-bit systems, developers saw no "need" (read: financial incentive) to fund two development teams creating two versions of the same program.
But times have changed. RAM is cheap - Newegg has over 50 8Gb (2 x 4Gb) RAM offerings to choose from for less than $50! And almost 20 16Gb (2 x 8Gb) for less than $100.
Also, I think the point about "a" motza program consuming more than 3.4Gb is unfounded and totally immaterial here. Nobody runs "a" (as in 1) program. Additionally, totally dismissed/omitted in your argument is Windows itself. Many of the major components of the OS run in 64-bit mode and take advantage of the upper memory locations, leaving lots of lower memory addresses for your motza programs to play in. Oh, not to mention all the essential security applications users must run too. Fortunately, most of those major players have seen the light, and have 64-bit versions.
Therefore, if building a new computer today, it makes no sense to use a legacy 32-bit operating system. That simply, but greatly limits future upgrade options while providing virtually zero advantages. 32-bit does not cost less and 32-bit does not offer better performance (with a few exceptions - with legacy products/versions). Plus, 64-bit Windows 7 has more security features which should not be dismissed either.
Just because you have a whole heap of ram, don't think for a minute that every program you have can take advantage of it. That is just not so.
Sorry again, but I think this is an area of confusion and where your point missed the mark. Individual programs and applications do not need to take advantage of all that memory (again, with a few exceptions - huge spreadsheets or CAD/CAE files, for example) - but Windows (along with the CPU) does, and it does it pretty well.
Bragging rights? Claiming you run 64-bit is nothing to brag about. In fact, for Windows 7, 64-bit users are in the majority. Again, 64-bit has been around for decades so it is nothing new - not even for Windows.
I'll bow to your superior tech knowledge there Dig, but personally I have tried 64bit this year and my experience of it found "issues" than I did not experience with my 32bit OS and there are still plenty of programs (no. not common ones) that do not run on 64bit, where every program I ever use will run on 32bit. I guess a lot depends on what programs you run and how or what you use your PC for.
One thing is for sure, just about everyone who uses a computer today, is way, way over-computered!
Intel i5 or i7 cpu. 4 to 16GB of ram and 650GB (or more) HDD space and what are they using the computer for? In most cases, little more than e-mail, voip, facebook, youtube, storing photos and surfing the web. A 32bit or 64bit OS? It's just irrelevant!
As like most thinks in life, there will never be a "better than" that suits everyones needs or tastes.
I still often replace W7 with XP for people because they just don''t like W7 and I'm not talking about for people who are only new to it either. Is W7 a better OS than XP? Arguably for sure, but personally for some? Definitely not!
Possible benefits of future hardware upgrade aside, did I notice any advantages using 64bit? None whatsoever for my personal usage needs, but I did have problems I had never experienced before and security, well that will alway be more of a user problem than an OS problem, just like it has always been and always will be.
Apart from the above, you have been a blatant 64bit fanboy and early adopter for as long as I can remember!
there are still plenty of programs (no. not common ones) that do not run on 64bit
And what I am saying is that is the fault of the developers of those programs for failing to keep up with the demands of consumers, and hardware technologies. That immediately, in my mind anyway, raises a flag of doubt over the currentness of the security of that program.
64-bit fanboy? No. Hardware fanboy? Okay, as an electronics technician first, computer enthusiast second, then yes, absolutely! Frankly I am sick and tired of advances in hardware being crippled - severely - by delays and Luddism of software engineers and developers (fueled by marketing weenies and bean counters who think they know what consumers need, or want).
FTR, I did not embrace 64-bit until Windows 7 came out. But that was primarily because it took until then for the security software makers to get off their a$$es and release 64-bit versions of their products.
Yes, most computers have way more horsepower than the user really needs. I also don't need my big honkin' V8 in my truck either. But I am not trading it in for 6 banger to get 1 or 2 extra MPGs.
I think you have just underlined my original point about software being years behind hardware advances and will the software boys ever catch up? Not in your wildest dreams mate
And on a personal note, I've just finished setting up a laptop for traveling. What OS did I use? Dual actually. Good old XP 32bit (stripped down and configured to essentials and without java either) for when I'm unplugged and W7 with the bells and whistles for when I am plugged.
XP is much lighter on resources than W7, which of course means my laptop battery will last a lot longer between charges!
With OSs it's all about needs, there is no across the board "better / best" when it comes to 32bit or 64bit, XP or W7.
For what purpose? should be the first question asked. Not much point in running 64bit if a program you particularly need/want to use only runs on 32bit systems (plenty of those around) and the developers are never going to upgrade it or just haven't gotten around to it.
Cheers,
Lee
I think you have just underlined my original point about software being years behind hardware advances and will the software boys ever catch up? Not in your wildest dreams mate
For what purpose? should be the first question asked. Not much point in running 64bit if a program you particularly need/want to use only runs on 32bit systems
lol Actually, you just made my point about you being the one who's years behind. But the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of the major applications out there today do come in 64-bit (or 64-bit compatible) versions, including Office, OpenOffice, CCleaner, MSE, ZoneAlarm and more. Except for a couple old, specialized security programs (used primarily by experienced users), I have not had any problems getting current versions of any program to run with 64-bit Windows 7. So I say again, if your favorite programs do not come in 64-bit versions, or at least 64-bit compatible versions, then you need to dump that old, obsolete, potentially less secure software and get something newer.
Does that mean you have to toss something out that works perfectly fine? Yes! I have a whole store room full of perfectly good motherboards, RAM, CRT and analog LCD monitors, CPUs, drives, CD drives.
XP is much lighter on resources than W7, which of course means my laptop battery will last a lot longer between charges!
Ummm, no. That no longer the norm either.
You are suggesting it takes more watts to run spell check in Word with Windows 7 than it does to run spell check with Word with XP. That's just not true. Yes, Window 7 takes up more disk space, and it takes up a little more RAM, but RAM power consumption has little impact on battery-life of a notebook - not compared to how much the display is gobbling. And I am afraid your facts here are a bit out of date too. In the beginning, that is when Windows 7 first came out, battery life with W7 was an issue. But Microsoft, Intel and AMD and notebook BIOS makers have released updates to correct that issue.
And to reiterate again (I guess "reiterate again" is redundant but I'll keep it for emphasis) for the record, I am not suggesting anyone upgrade an existing 32-bit computer to 64-bit - especially a notebook. As I said above, "if building a computer today…".
This has been a good discussion. I see where both of you coming from.
This is my general experience, and how I choose to do it.
Older hardware, definitely gets what it came with for OS. If it came with XP, it keeps XP. And I wouldn't even dream of trying to use XP 64-bit. That was a complete flop of an operating system with almost NO support from any software or hardware vendor. But, if the system was designed to run windows XP, it typically will run windows XP the best. That system will also usually have less than a couple of gigs of RAM. XP is a great operating system, and if you are trying to keep an older machine running it should provide plenty of enjoyment for at least a couple more years when it is obsoleted by Microsoft.
However, on the other hand, Windows 7 is an awesome operating system. I can hardly stand working in XP any more because it feels completely archaic and has a ridiculous amount of problems that I no longer experience in 7. All new systems obviously come with Windows 7. Almost all new systems have at least 4GB of RAM or more. Almost all new systems will come pre-loaded with Windows 7 64-bit. Its a screaming operating system. Hardware and software manufacturers have finally realized that the 4GB memory barrier had to be broken and have finally started releasing 64 and 32 bit versions of software and drivers. The virtualization technology that Microsoft uses has been nearly perfected so that existing 32-bit apps run just fine on a 64-bit system. I tell you, now a days you will be hard pressed to find an app that will not work on 64-bit windows 7. And if it doesn't run on it, it probably just won't plain run on anything but Windows XP or older. I've been personally using 7 64-bit for well over a year, and I appreciate the opportunity to utilize the performance enhancements in software when it is offered.
Even today there are still people crying about upgrading to Vista or 7. Most of those people are ill-informed, or just completely resistant to change. But, my experience is that when we comfort a person into buying a new Windows 7 64-bit system and letting that old archaic XP machine go, they call us up and praise us for just how awesome it is.
The rule of thumb I follow when it comes to 32-bit or 64-bit is this. XP must stay at 32-bit. Vista, is almost always going to be on a machine with 4GB of RAM or less, and unless it has more than that it will stay at 32-bit. Windows 7 will be 64-bit on all newer machines with 3-4GB or more. But, to save on any compatibility issues that "might" arise, I prefer 32-bit on any system with less than 4GB of RAM. I'll take into consideration what the system is used for if it has less than 4GB. Performance wise, 64-bit does perform better, but its questionable that you would notice that difference on a machine still running less than 4GB of RAM anyways.
Security wise, the information Digerati has provided sounds reasonable - but, being in the business, it seems to make no difference if its XP, Vista, 7, 32-bit, or 64-bit they all walk in our doors day after day with malware infections including rootkits. So, apparently, those extra security measures haven't been very effective.
In regards to downgrading. Its ridiculous. If the machine came with Vista or 7 you are wasting your time now a days trying to downgrade to XP. Most of the hardware manufacturers will not release XP drivers, and its extremely time consuming to get the hardware to work and it will usually never fully function properly. Not to mention that XP literally runs worse on a system that was designed to run with 7. Lee I think your power theory on laptops is inaccurate. Windows 7 and the hardware manufacturers all utilize newer power saving technology not available in Windows XP. Most laptops now a days can run 2 to 3 times as long on the same size batteries as any laptop running XP. Its not uncommon to see 4 to 6 hours run time on a new laptop. You slap XP on there and first of all you won't get the drivers and hardware to work right, and secondly I guarantee you'll only get a fraction of that battery life. When Vista came out, I don't blame people for downgrading and we did several times. But, now that 7 is out, if your system came with 7 you've got no valid reason to run Windows XP - sorry.
And lastly, Vista still sucks!
To the OP. Your system has 4GB of RAM and it has 64-bit hardware. I would not question for a second using Windows 7 64-bit on that machine.
My laptop came with Vista and 3GB of RAM and a Intel duel core 2.1 ghz CPU.
I just scrubbed the lot including the factory restore. I did have trouble tracking down a sound driver which had two drivers needed and I couldn't find neither anywhere! In the end Zoe took on the job as searching for obscure drivers or files is right up her ally as she persisted with 98 SE well past it's use by date. She loved that OS!
So I guess I could have gone either way (XP or W7) but chose both. Wouldn't the low power requirements of the CPU I have use a lot less battery power that what a new W7 64 bit machines with topically powerful Intel i5 or i7, or have I wasted my time installing XP (that runs like a dream so far) at all?
Sure there is the RAM argument. 64bit will allow the use of far more RAM than 32bit (max about 3.2GB), but I will bet a motza programs that need more than 3.2GB (huge) of ram are few and far between and If anyone has such a program in use, please let me know exactly what it is, as I have a very intensive video editing program that does not even use my full 32bit ram capacity! Just because you have a whole heap of ram, don't think for a minute that every program you have can take advantage of it. That is just not so.
Me? 32bit thank you until programs catch up .. in about 2 or 3 yrs. time maybe 
Cheers,
Lee
- or at least 2 1/2 (since Windows 7 came out). 64-bit capable hardware has been around for decades, but because 32-bit tends to run well on 64-bit systems, developers saw no "need" (read: financial incentive) to fund two development teams creating two versions of the same program. 
