windows 7 32 or 64 bit?

[Valnar]

It's obvious I was referring to this post initially since I can't stand it when people give one-size-fits-all recommendations.

This is beaten to death here. 64bit should be your only option.

And not one of you can tell me that it's not the same way on every other thread. *If* somebody has a specific need for 32-bit, you shoot down their need like it's not legitimate. I'm giving options on why ANY given user may not want 64-bit, which is much more intelligent than assuming everybody needs 64-bit regardless.

Edit: Superbowl time. Let's stop now.

 

[criccio]

Awesome, Valnar's gone...

Good luck OP, welcome to the future.

 

[PC_User]

32 bit is more compatible with 64 bit, end of story.

Wait, what?

What happened to this thread? 32-bit OS will probably have less compatibility issues, BUT for 95% of modern users with up-to-date systems (both hardware and software) this is a non-issue. For this using 4GB of RAM or more, I would strongly suggest a 64-bit OS because the benefits outweigh the cons, and there are often ways to work around hardware/driver issues.

 

[SereLaw]

Just printed a Taco Bell coupon a few weeks back.

I know right, and tastes better than Ex-lax lol

 

[DeaconFrost]

I can't stand it when people give one-size-fits-all recommendations.

I agree, but what about one-size-fits-one, as in this case?

[citation needed]

No citation is needed for this...file it under common knowledge. If you think a citation is needed to prove it, you missed three+ years of debate, comparisons, tests, and most importantly, results.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Then posts links to all these debates, comparisons, tests, and results... so far I see nothing compelling in this thread.

Why do I need to do your leg work for you? I'm not the one who's been living under a rock for three years. Just because you personally don't agree, doesn't change the facts. Do yourself a favor and look them up. The rest of us have all been there, done that.

so far I see nothing compelling in this thread.

I wouldn't expect you to, to be honest. By now, in 2010, it's a laughable question at best. 64 bit versions have their advantages, beyond allowing more memory to be addressed. All of this has been decided and hashed out when Vista was released. Vista's one positive legacy is that it brought x64 to the mainstream as a viable, and now better, option. No one needs to post links or prove anything in the x64 vs x86 debate. It's old news, and it's thankfully to the point of just being common knowledge to 99.9% of the readers here. If you think it is still a valid debate, you have a lot of catching up to do! I'll even give you a starting point: signed drivers.

 

[Azhar]

I still see nothing of merit presented here.

Lots of made up statistics doesn't support your position.

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Lots of made up statistics doesn't support your position.

So because you are too lazy to do some research on your own, to learn something new, that means all the info is made up? Thank god few others share your viewpoints....we'd still be living in caves, throwing spears, wearing pelts.

Here's a suggestion, in all seriousness. Drop the know-it-all, demanding proof game, and just read up on the subject. It never hurts to learn something new. Don't expect people to spoonfeed you information you should already know....this isn't a grade school class.

If you don't feel like learning something new, or doing any work for yourself, then please stop trolling....it's derailing the thread.

 

[Tawnos]

I still see nothing of merit presented here.

Lots of made up statistics doesn't support your position.

Windows logo requirements from vista on have required a logo'd driver to have both 32 and 64 bit versions. Windows amd64 only loads signed drivers without significant, user-initiated hackery. Windows amd64 also turns on DEP by default, as

I hold 7 separate industry certifications directly related to this field so the "lazy to do some research" comment is inaccurate as well.

Which 7?

Straw man argument. OP didn't cite any reason for needing 4GB of RAM or more

Seems like he did:

yeah im a gamer that is why i want it. more ram. and future use. going X58 tri channel soon so 6gb will be in her. 3x1 not enough long term gaming

(note: I believe 3 x 1 = 3 x 1GB sticks, he's indicating changing it to 3x2gb).


He's stated before that he's a casual desktop user, not an enterprise. You're bringing up the strawman of huge corporations and their compatibility needs - something I addressed in my first post. I will repeat it here, and maybe you'll process it this time:

I'll go the other way: 64 bit unless you have a very specific reason you cannot. You never know what the future holds for your RAM needs.

A corporation that has hardware that cannot run on 64 bit is a "very specific reason." That does not apply here.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I hold 7 separate industry certifications directly related to this field so the "lazy to do some research" comment is inaccurate as well.

I could trot out my experience and accomplishments as well. However, this is a web forum, where none of that matters, nor does it lend any special meaning to what is typed. I could say I'm the prince of a small island nation as well....doesn't mean a thing on here.

People that have been around long enough to remember the 16 bit to 32 bit transition realize that "upgrading" from one generation to the next is not as easy as "just throw away the "old stuff" and buy "new stuff"".

You are absolutely right, but as I mentioned several times...x64 isn't new. We arent that far away from the four year anniversary of it being main stream. XP x64 was around even longer. An x64 OS isn't even considered "new" or "cutting edge" anymore. The testing and trial time as long since past.

People that really know what's going on don't blindly recommend cutting-edge for the sake of cutting-edge.

And you accuse me of making straw man and other weak arguments? "Think like me or your wrong"? Please. If you had the experience you claim...you wouldn't need these type comments. You'd know better.

Idiotic comments like illustrates the lack of common sense applied to this thread.

See the above answer. Follow your own advice.

 

[phide]

Some A/V programs & codecs (see Doom9 & Videohelp.com forums)

I actually haven't had any issues with any kind of media encoders, decoders, muxers or demuxers on Windows 7 64. Rather than saying "some", list the specific applications that do not work in a 64-bit environment so the OP can crosscheck them against any applications he's using now for potential issues (and perhaps suggest 64-bit compatible alternatives).

One problem I've had with one application (MediaCoder) is that the font selection dropdown for subtitle generation doesn't populate correctly unless you're running XUL Runner or running the GUI in safe mode. Apart from that, all of my other media-related software works correctly, and I use a lot of media software.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Stop drinking the Kool aid. Not everything runs in a Microsoft-only bubble.

64-bit is not a Microsoft-exclusive technology.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Still nothing compelling... kids lol...

EDIT: I could say a lot, but you've proven that you are nothing more than a hypocrite, hell bent on ruining this thread.

If you can't be bothered to do a google search yourself, that's fine. If you want to close your mind to the way things are here in 2010, that's fine too. But threadcrapping and trolling are childish behaviors...the very thing you accuse us of. That's being a hypocrit, my friend, and you HAVE given proof of that right here in this thread.

 

[Azhar]

I would ignore mattjw916. He's just a troll going from thread to thread getting people all riled up. I made a post asking about how to go about creating company-wide signatures in Exchange and he just had to go off tangent and rant about how email disclaimers will not hold water in court.

 

[Jon55]

Anyone here who's still using 32-bit OS by choice (meaning a 64-bit OS was available to them) on a modern computer has no idea what they're talking about.

To the OP: 64-bit, welcome to 2007. Also, Valnar and mattjw916 are excellent trolls.

 

[devil22]

Steam's jan. hardware survey is pretty interesting ( http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey ), 19.50% on Win 7 64-bit, 9.03% on Win 7 32-bit. And Win 7 64-bit has more steam users than Win Vista 32-bit. Impressive numbers and it's good to see most win 7 users (that use steam anyway) go 64-bit. I wonder what the non-gamer percentage of 64-bit vs. 32-bit is, but I don't think any of the major stats sites break down by bit-size.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I'm sure if you compared the overall scores to the enthusiast community, you'd see a huge difference in the breakdowns. It seems like only recently that I see most OEM systems offering x64 as the default, installed OS.

 

[Valnar]

Anyone here who's still using 32-bit OS by choice (meaning a 64-bit OS was available to them) on a modern computer has no idea what they're talking about.

To the OP: 64-bit, welcome to 2007. Also, Valnar and mattjw916 are excellent trolls.

Sure..... considering I'm the only one who gave valid reasons in this thread. Nice try.

A corporation that has hardware that cannot run on 64 bit is a "very specific reason." That does not apply here.

As I stated, I was not referring to just hardware, but actual software (though admittedly soft-hardware drivers).

Everyone else in this thread pushing 64-bit no matter what is a Troll. They refuse to admit there could be valid reasons for Windows 7 32-bit. Microsoft obviously agrees with me, or they wouldn't have released it. So are all of you saying Microsoft is a troll too?

 

[devil22]

Do you get angry with people who say "16-bit is dead" - after all there are some programs/hardware that require 16-bit OSes. It's their opinion, you're going to give yourself a heart attack over nothing, Val...

 

[MrAgmoore]

64-bit Windows also has some security features 32-bit does not have, like driver signing reqs. and kernel patch protection, which effectively knock out rootkits.

Why would 64 bit have rootkit protection but 32 bit does not?

 

[devil22]

Because MS did not put it into 32-bit, I guess for compatibility reasons. Since all the kernel accessing stuff has to be redone for 64-bit, MS figures it might as well kill the ability to modify the kernel or plug into it.

 

[Anemone]

You can do a compatibility check from MS on your present machine to see if 64 bit "breaks" anything you are dearly attached to. Then you can choose with information in hand.

A year from now you probably won't be able to buy a machine in any brick and mortar store without 64 bit on it. The wave is moving quickly on 64 bit and many, many of us out here are using it quite successfully.

Get the compability check program and see if 64 bit fits what you want on your machine.