Win32 or Win64

I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going to
be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this point....
I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit) was going to
be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never switched from
XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software development companies
don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and 64 bit platforms( why
should they if people will still buy their 32 bit product if that's all
there is).

So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to me.
Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like them
(besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to share
their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the number of
systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in case anyone
has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using all 2GB of the
RAM that's on my current XP system.

Bill

Sure, I am using 64-bit Windows 7. I have 4 GiB total memory and and all
that would not even be usable if it was the 32-bit version. I use my
computer for many things (at the same time, too) and need a lot of
memory. I don't use the pagefile and instead have the whole OS and all
other apps I use load into memory so that they can be accessed faster.
Sure, I have a lot of memory left though. I often have Visual Studio and
Firefox up at the same time. This can take quite some memory. If you
play new games, they can take quite some memory (2-3 GiB should be
plenty for games though if you use the pagefile - which I don't). Video
editing and even music production can really take a lot of memory. I
sometimes need to restart programs because I am running out of memory. I
can't see that 64+ bits is *not* the future. 32 is a bit too limited
today if you need to use the computer for many heavy things, while 64 is
still ahead in the future. It really depends though. If you don't use
the computer like I do, it *may* not be needed (but I would suggest
going 64 bit anyways).

Also, one single program like Office 2010 will never use up the max
amount of memory, so it may not really matter if it's 32 or 64 bits. 64
bit apps may run *slightly* faster though (barely noticable if noticable
at all?) because there will not be a 32-bit emulation layer between the
OS and native 64-bit apps.

Jackie wrote:

I am using 64-bit Windows 7. I have 4 GiB total memory and and all
that would not even be usable if it was the 32-bit version.

Yes 64bit allows you to access all your 4GiB, because it has the larger
address space, but aren't 64bit programs larger due to pointers being
twice the size (and probably looser structure packing too) so that the
extra 500MiB you can access is (partly) eaten up

Is 4GiB really the point at which you benefit from 64bit, or is it
really 6 or 8GiB?

"Bill" wrote in message
...

I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going
to be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this
point.... I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit)
was going to be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never
switched from XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software
development companies don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and
64 bit platforms( why should they if people will still buy their 32 bit
product if that's all there is).

The main practical reason for going with 64 bit is if you want more than 4GB
of RAM. So if you want to put say 8GB of RAM in your new system then you
need to go 64bit. With Vista many people appreciated that to get reasonable
performance you needed as much RAM as possible. I have 4GB in my Vista box
and would love to double that - but I'm stuck on 32bit so its a no-can-do. I
think Windows 7 is probably much less demanding and yet more responsive than
Vista, but I'd still think lots of RAM.

Most 32bit software will run quite happily on a 64bit Windows. Where you may
encounter problems are with drivers - particularly for older hardware where
there just won't be 64bit drivers.

So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to
me. Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like
them (besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to
share their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the
number of systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in
case anyone has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using
all 2GB of the RAM that's on my current XP system.

XP wasn't so demanding as Vista (can't speak for Windows 7), but given my
experience with Vista I'd be inclined to go for 4 or 8GB of RAM.
--
Brian Cryer
http://www.cryer.co.uk/brian

"Bill" wrote in message
...

I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going
to be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this
point....

Office 2010 is available in both 32 and 64bit flavors.

"Jackie" wrote in message
...
Sure, I am using 64-bit Windows 7. I have 4 GiB total memory and and all
that would not even be usable if it was the 32-bit version. I use my
computer for many things (at the same time, too) and need a lot of memory.
I don't use the pagefile and instead have the whole OS and all other apps
I use load into memory so that they can be accessed faster.

But you should still have a pagefile - Windows (and other apps) need a
pagefile.
See he
http://lifehacker.com/5426041/unders...dnt-disable-it


Sure, I have a lot of memory left though.

Then you are wasting what you have.

On 05/11/2010 11:51 AM, Sunny Bard wrote:
Jackie wrote:

I am using 64-bit Windows 7. I have 4 GiB total memory and and all
that would not even be usable if it was the 32-bit version.

Yes 64bit allows you to access all your 4GiB, because it has the larger
address space, but aren't 64bit programs larger due to pointers being
twice the size (and probably looser structure packing too) so that the
extra 500MiB you can access is (partly) eaten up

Is 4GiB really the point at which you benefit from 64bit, or is it
really 6 or 8GiB?

Pointers will be twice the size, and will consume more memory, yes. And
please see my last post about 64 bit apps being slightly faster. I think
more than 4 GiB would be good. Less caching to the file system if you
have that turned on (I guess it would not matter much if you use a fast
SSD though). New/Semi-new hardware should have good 64 bit drivers by
now while old hardware may not ever be updated.

On 5/11/2010 16:37, Bill wrote:
I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going to
be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this point....
I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit) was going to
be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never switched from
XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software development companies
don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and 64 bit platforms( why
should they if people will still buy their 32 bit product if that's all
there is).

So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to me.
Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like them
(besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to share
their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the number of

1. If you bought the box version of Win 7, you would get both the 32-bit
and the 64-bit DVD

2. If you could find *64-bit drivers for ALL* your hardware, go 64-bit
as 32-bit M$ Office & DirectX 9 games continue to work under 64-bit

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.33.3
^ ^ 18:37:01 up 6 days 2:19 2 users load average: 1.11 1.05 1.09
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On 05/11/2010 12:33 PM, Gordon wrote:
But you should still have a pagefile - Windows (and other apps) need a
pagefile.
See he
http://lifehacker.com/5426041/unders...dnt-disable-it

Well, at least in my case, I am on a laptop so it is useful for me. I
never have issues with crashing apps. I don't only have it disabled
because it should make the OS and apps access data faster (they won't
start faster because of this), but to lower disk activity as well since
I don't have an SSD but a HDD. I don't have room for another HDD either.
HDDs consumes more power as well to keep the disk spinning. It also
hurts to hear the arm in the HDD going back and forth like crazy in
there. Haha.


Then you are wasting what you have.
I would not be so sure about wasting though. Windows is reserving as
much memory as much as it can gives it away to apps needing it, and lets
me know when I am running out of memory so that I can restart the ones
consuming a lot (leaks?).

On 05/11/2010 11:51 AM, Sunny Bard wrote:
Jackie wrote:

I am using 64-bit Windows 7. I have 4 GiB total memory and and all
that would not even be usable if it was the 32-bit version.

Yes 64bit allows you to access all your 4GiB, because it has the larger
address space, but aren't 64bit programs larger due to pointers being
twice the size (and probably looser structure packing too) so that the
extra 500MiB you can access is (partly) eaten up

Is 4GiB really the point at which you benefit from 64bit, or is it
really 6 or 8GiB?


I replied to this but I don't see my own reply. Trying again by pasting
my old reply he

Pointers will be twice the size, and will consume more memory, yes. And
please see my last post about 64 bit apps being slightly faster. I think
more than 4 GiB would be good. Less caching to the file system if you
have that turned on (I guess it would not matter much if you use a fast
SSD though). Like other have mentioned, new/Semi-new hardware should
have good 64 bit drivers by now while old hardware may not ever be updated.

"Bill" wrote in message
...

I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going
to be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this
point.... I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit)
was going to be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never
switched from XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software
development companies don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and
64 bit platforms( why should they if people will still buy their 32 bit
product if that's all there is).

So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to
me. Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like
them (besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to
share their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the
number of systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in
case anyone has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using
all 2GB of the RAM that's on my current XP system.

Bill


It's all about memory. If you can afford more than 4GB of memory, go for
64-bit, it'll run faster. If you can't afford more than 64GB of memory,
32-bit will probably run a tad faster, overall.

Putting more than 4GB of RAM, or upgrading later to more than 4GB, into a
32-bit machine, will not really improve performance.

-Frank

I just realized that my previous replies were a bit mixed up when I
brought up emulation and such. Somehow I was thinking about 32 bit
emulation in a 64 bit OS, and in that case 64 bit apps would be faster.
It is irrelevant to this thread, however. I am sorry about that.

On Tue, 11 May 2010 04:37:17 -0400, "Bill"
wrote:


I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going to
be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this point....
I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit) was going to
be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never switched from
XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software development companies
don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and 64 bit platforms( why
should they if people will still buy their 32 bit product if that's all
there is).

So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to me.
Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like them
(besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to share
their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the number of
systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in case anyone
has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using all 2GB of the
RAM that's on my current XP system.

Bill


I wonder whether 64 bit systems aren't a bit over the top at the
moment. I just read an interesting report from some people that supply
an operating system as source code and you compile your own. They
recently compiled both the 32 and 64 bit versions of their software
and the 64 bit system was 9% larger then the 32 bit and ran 4% faster.
Hardly a great difference. In addition, if the system is a pure 64 bit
system it will only run 64 bit applications.

As for memory usage the machine I'm typing on has 4 G installed and at
the moment I have Firefox, Thunderbird, Forte Agent running in an
emulated Windows, Chromium and a utility to report system loads all
running in memory and am using about 15% of available memory and none
of swap space.

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On 5/11/2010 1:37 AM, Bill wrote:
I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going to
be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this point....
I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit) was going to
be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never switched from
XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software development companies
don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and 64 bit platforms( why
should they if people will still buy their 32 bit product if that's all
there is).

So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to me.
Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like them
(besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to share
their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the number of
systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in case anyone
has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using all 2GB of the
RAM that's on my current XP system.

Bill



Go with the 64 bit, that way when 64 bit applications become available
you'll have the OS to run them. Also, go with the Pro version and
install the virtual machine and XP mode.

I went from XP 32 bit to Win 7 Pro 64 bit and only found a couple of
applications that wouldn't run, and I'm running a "lot" of hardware and
software applications on my system. At this point I have 8 GB of RAM.

--
"Never argue with an idiot, they will knock you
down to their level and beat you with experience."
Unknown

http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com