32 Bit vs. 64 bit Windows 7?

bowmanm3

n00b
Joined
Mar 27, 2010
Messages
49
I am building a PC for my father, who has very basic needs as far as a computer goes. Would there be any advantage in the 64 bit OS? or would the 32 bit be just fine for what he uses it for(logging into work server now and then, email, web browsing, etc.)?
 
The whole idea of 64-bit is so you can use more than 4GB of RAM. Regardless, there's no reason not to go 64-bit since it's as good as the 32-bit counterpart. He'd be ready for the future.
 
The whole idea of 64-bit is so you can use more than 4GB of RAM. Regardless, there's no reason not to go 64-bit since it's as good as the 32-bit counterpart. He'd be ready for the future.

If you think that is the only benefit of going 64-bit...sigh.
 
if he uses vpn to get into work, check to make sure thats compatible - ive heard thats a big headache for some people.

64bit has some security enhancements and such that are worth it even with less than 4gb ram.
 
If you think that is the only benefit of going 64-bit...sigh.

Where did I say it was the only benefit? Take that sigh and shove it, then contribute if you think you're going to act all holier than thou.
 
^^^LOL!

I just personally wouldn't install a 32bit anything if 64bit is available. It doesn't cost any different, and its where things are headed in general. Do your part in brining pops into the 21st century ;)
 
if he uses vpn to get into work, check to make sure thats compatible - ive heard thats a big headache for some people.

64bit has some security enhancements and such that are worth it even with less than 4gb ram.

I've also HEARD things as well about some vpn clients not being compatible with Windows 7. I haven't tested myself but plan to soon as the vpn gets up and running at my job. I'll be testing In a regular Windows 7 as well as Windows XP mode.
 
I am building a PC for my father, who has very basic needs as far as a computer goes. Would there be any advantage in the 64 bit OS? or would the 32 bit be just fine for what he uses it for(logging into work server now and then, email, web browsing, etc.)?
First off, the default reply in this forum for this question (which gets asked quite a bit) is 64! ..

"Yeah but I ..."

64!

"that person will neve..."

64 or go to hell UR wrong!

Quite honestly your asking the wrong crowd if you want a non-partial/biased answer. Because they use it, that means it's perfect in every way and you should do exactly as they say or you are a retard. Thankfully for you, I'm here.

If you are 2GB of ram or less, then 32 bit. If your over 2GB then go 64. 64 has a higher memory minimal spec (2GB) and uses more memory and storage space simply by default, but also allows you to use more than 4GB. For compatibility and simplicity sake, go 32 if your never going to go over 2-3 GB on that system.
 
He'd want more ram if he has a lot of applications open at once, which then take up more memory. Add a few intensive apps like photoshop or tons of browsing tabs, then you'll need to gradually go to the 2gb+ mark. ~3GB is the limit of 32bit os.
 
64bit doesn't really make much of a difference for the average PC user. But there's no reason not to go 64bit if the system supports it.
 
I agree with that sentiment. The only bad thing I have against it is that many people have strange PC habits. Working in corporate IT showed me things I'd never thought of.

Some people browse with like 20 firefox tabs, some leave every single app they use at work running minimized..

And only usually the higher ups got better systems capable of handling all that ;).
 
There are a lot of benefits to 64bit Windows that people often forget to mention. In addition to additional memory support beyond 4GB, 64bit has a lot of security enhancements over 32bit.

64bit has PatchGaurd, which prevents kernel patches and rootkits from being installed while the system is running. 64bit automatically randomizes memory addresses as data is loaded to prevent exploits from attacking a particular address. And lets not forget, 64bit offers much faster real time data encryption.

If you can run 64bit, do it.
 
thats my thoughts.. I can run 64bit so I am, as well as the wife's comp
 
Where did I say it was the only benefit? Take that sigh and shove it, then contribute if you think you're going to act all holier than thou.

The whole idea of 64-bit is so you can use more than 4GB of RAM. Regardless, there's no reason not to go 64-bit since it's as good as the 32-bit counterpart. He'd be ready for the future.


Your use of "whole" suggests it's the only consideration for 64-bit. Look it up in a dictionary.

Use English better if you don't want to be criticized for it?

And if he never plans to use more than 4GB, what future is he prepared for anyway?

He's a 16-day noob. Your assertion that 64-bit is only so you can use more than 4GB of RAM may just confuse him and is incorrect anyway. 32-bit OSes, including MS OSes, can address beyond 4GB by paging.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

32-bit Linux can address 64GB. Some 32-bit MS OSes can address 128GB.

And paging isn't anything new. My 8-bit Atari could address 64KB, but had 1MB of RAM in it, and that was addressed by paging 8KB of it at a time.

Back on topic:

If everything you intend to run will run on the 64-bit OS, I don't see why you wouldn't choose it, and if something you intend to run won't, why you would even try it. Simple as that.
 
About paging... everything is about paging. Whether you are in non-PAE, PAE or 64bit mode.
 
There are a lot of benefits to 64bit Windows that people often forget to mention. In addition to additional memory support beyond 4GB, 64bit has a lot of security enhancements over 32bit.

64bit has PatchGaurd, which prevents kernel patches and rootkits from being installed while the system is running. 64bit automatically randomizes memory addresses as data is loaded to prevent exploits from attacking a particular address. And lets not forget, 64bit offers much faster real time data encryption.

If you can run 64bit, do it.

This is mostly correct, only 64-bit has Kernel Patch Guard + Driver Signing requirements, which keep out rootkits (a very useful feature for a computer illiterate father). However both 32-bit and 64-bit have ASLR, which randomizes code, data and stack locations. 64-bit will one day have vastly greater possibilities (entropy) for randomizing such things because it has vastly more address space, but as of now MS uses the same entropy for each (according to MS employees I've corresponded with).

Because of the rootkit protection, I would almost certainly go 64-bit unless you NEED 32-bit, even with < 4GBs of RAM. Rootkits are particularly nasty because unlike other malware, they can hide themselves from an AV perpetually, without the ability to install a rootkit the malware is easily found and removed. There's only a very small amount of stuff that doesn't work in 64-bit, and most of that stuff works in XP mode, so use that.
 
Another vote for 64bit - unless he has to use some program that doesnt work in 64bit OS (not likely).
 
if he uses vpn to get into work, check to make sure thats compatible - ive heard thats a big headache for some people.

64bit has some security enhancements and such that are worth it even with less than 4gb ram.

Totally, if he's using it to connect to a work server, especially if its to run programs from a license server, check that everything is compatible with 64 bit before you dive into it. I used to quadruple boot Windows 7 64 bit, Windows 7 32 bit, XP 32 bit and CAE linux.

Because I couldn't connect to the license server in 64 bit, some programs didn't work in anything newer than XP, some programs worked way better in linux, and some programs worked way better in 64 bit. Last upgrade I did I didn't bother reinstalling XP or CAE linux as I dont use the progams that require them very often anymore, though I'll have to reinstall CAE linux eventually. I still, however, need to dual boot Windows 7 32 bit and 64 bit separately as the VPN doesn't work in 64 bit.
 
If you get the Retail copy of windows 7, you will get both the 32 and 64 bit OS DVD. Besides, why go with the older code, technology anyway. 64 bit is the future.
 
I never like the term future proofing. The initial athlon 64 series was a giant example of why buying to "futureproof" was a weak choice back then.
 
He's a 16-day noob. Your assertion that 64-bit is only so you can use more than 4GB of RAM may just confuse him and is incorrect anyway. 32-bit OSes, including MS OSes, can address beyond 4GB by paging.

PAE is a special case band-aid that creates all sorts of additional issues. Besides, you need a 64-bit OS to run 64-bit apps. A 32-bit OS can't use the CPU's 64-bit instruction set.

The short answer is that:
+ 64-bit Windows can address more than 4GB of RAM
+ 64-bit Windows has additional security features
+ 64-bit Windows runs 32-bit applications natively with no performance loss
+ The cost is the same

There's almost no reason not to go with 64-bit Windows. The only downside I've ever run into is that it can't run 16-bit applications, but most of those are old DOS games that run fine in DOSbox anyway.

I never like the term future proofing. The initial athlon 64 series was a giant example of why buying to "futureproof" was a weak choice back then.
:confused:
The Athlon 64 kicked the shit out of everything Intel had to offer, AND it offered 64-bit capability. 64-bit Windows XP was nifty back in the day.
 
Last edited:
:confused:
The Athlon 64 kicked the shit out of everything Intel had to offer, AND it offered 64-bit capability. 64-bit Windows XP was nifty back in the day.

Yeah it did, but wasn't that just due to advances that had nothing to do with 64bit? Then, I'm kinda fuzzy over the details of this but I think it took up to ~2 years later till an official Win XP 64 was released, albeit it being super buggy and complaining with all the driver problems back then?

That's the part that had me against "future proofing". Better to wait till it comes out THEN play your cards.
 
My personal experience said that if your computer has less than 3gb ram, you should run 32 bit beause it is faster. Otherwise, 64 bit is the way to go.
Linux is free and easy to use :)
 
My personal experience said that if your computer has less than 3gb ram, you should run 32 bit beause it is faster. Otherwise, 64 bit is the way to go.
Linux is free and easy to use :)

I thought the time it takes to convert the 32bit instructions to 64 is negligible now :confused:
 
I thought the time it takes to convert the 32bit instructions to 64 is negligible now :confused:

I'm pretty sure there is no conversion from 32-bit instructions to 64-bit instructions. I don't see how one would reasonably go about doing that, and for what reason.
 
That's the part that had me against "future proofing". Better to wait till it comes out THEN play your cards.

The Athlon 64 is one of the best examples of a future proof product.

- At launch in 2004 the socket 939 Athlon 64s were faster than the competition and very competitively priced. The 64-bit instruction set was a small feature that further set the product apart from the crap Intel was pushing. It didn't add any significant cost to the product.

- When 64-bit XP came out in 2005 and 64-bit Vista came out in 2006 anyone who had an Athlon 64 system could drop in 4+ GB of RAM. Socket 939 Athlon 64's from 2004 were still good midrange workstations at that point.

-You also had the ability to drop in a socket 939 dual core when they came out.

I thought the time it takes to convert the 32bit instructions to 64 is negligible now :confused:

There actually is no conversion. When you run 64-bit Windows (or other x86-64 operating systems like most common 64-bit Linux distros) the OS is able to use both the 32-bit and 64-bit instruction sets in the CPU, I haven't got a clue what haquocdung is talking about.
 
There's almost no reason not to go with 64-bit Windows. The only downside I've ever run into is that it can't run 16-bit applications, but most of those are old DOS games that run fine in DOSbox anyway.

If its to connect to a work server or for work in general (like the OP said) ask the techs at work what to go with... some 32 bit programs refuse to install on a 64 bit OS and some VPN software will have problems or possibly not work at all on 64 bit.
 
Your use of "whole" suggests it's the only consideration for 64-bit. Look it up in a dictionary.

Use English better if you don't want to be criticized for it?

And if he never plans to use more than 4GB, what future is he prepared for anyway?

He's a 16-day noob. Your assertion that 64-bit is only so you can use more than 4GB of RAM may just confuse him and is incorrect anyway. 32-bit OSes, including MS OSes, can address beyond 4GB by paging.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

32-bit Linux can address 64GB. Some 32-bit MS OSes can address 128GB.

And paging isn't anything new. My 8-bit Atari could address 64KB, but had 1MB of RAM in it, and that was addressed by paging 8KB of it at a time.

Back on topic:

If everything you intend to run will run on the 64-bit OS, I don't see why you wouldn't choose it, and if something you intend to run won't, why you would even try it. Simple as that.

He (and apparently you as well) were nitpicking over semantics just for the sake of trolling. His inability to contribute in his post attest to that. And now let's look at how long I've been here and use your argument that those who haven't been here long knows nothing. You'd think I know a lot more than what I said, huh? I was keeping things simple while you were, yes that's right, picking a fight just as he was.

See, I can play the "let's take things literally" game too.

I don't know what your problem is or what your beef is against me, but piss off and don't judge me. The OP asked for an opinion and I gave a it and kept it simple. Give your own opinion and feel free to expand on mine.
 
if he uses vpn to get into work, check to make sure thats compatible - ive heard thats a big headache for some people.

64bit has some security enhancements and such that are worth it even with less than 4gb ram.


Yes I had the same problem, but I found the NCP Universal VPN client thats works well with all if not most vpn type connections including cisco ipsec L2TP connections. If you use the cisco client, just export your profile and import it to the ncp client and your good. You can try a demo here, well worth the $40 I paid for it.

http://www.ncp-e.com/en.html
 
There actually is no conversion. When you run 64-bit Windows (or other x86-64 operating systems like most common 64-bit Linux distros) the OS is able to use both the 32-bit and 64-bit instruction sets in the CPU, I haven't got a clue what haquocdung is talking about.

Could have sworn they were doing 32->64 bit conversions on the early CPU's so i did some backreading. It was the Itanium that was doing the conversion. AMD's Clawhammer and after were doing 32 and 64bit natively.
 
unless you have a specific need for x32, go x64 and definately put in as much ram as you can afford
 
Back
Top