Way things go now, 32 and 64 bit are the same price, so you might as well put 64 bit in. It means if you do upgrade to a system that can handle it, you won't be having to shell out another ~$100 for a 64 bit operating system.

Once I'm able to buy some more ram I plan on upgrading to 64-bit to so I can use it.

I use Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit. The benefit of installing a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit CPU like Sempron is better performance.

And guys, let's not go off-topic...

I have a question. It's a two parter. Well, maybe a three parter.

Nowadays, a Sempron will just barely power a "Droid", why would anybody treat one to a fresh copy of any episode of Windows, let alone a copy of Windows 7 Ultimate? That's like pissing your money away on already scratched, losing, lottery tickets

Oh glory be, a noob with paranoid delusions of moderator-hood.

Now, the rest of the questions. Since Windows 8, is just around the corner, and this thread is 8 months old, why are you necro-bumping it, especially in light of the fact you haven't really moved the discussion forward?

IMO, this thread is better off being posted off topic, since this issue is long solved. Well, we are still waiting for Rip Van Winkle to check in...That notwithstanding.....

Who do you think died here, and designated you moderator?

The terms "performance" and "Sempron", (as well as Celeron), are mutually exclusive. Please don't ever use them again in the same sentence.......:haha:

For your further illumination on the contemporary relevance, (or not), of this topic, these two posts to this thread are from June 2011....

Exactly.

My apologies for "moderation" (I was simply trying to state that we aren't discussing the topic of the thread, but I'll keep that in mind, Evangelist CaptainCranky, as I'm still learning, but FYI, I joined this site recently, but that does not mean I'm a noob to computers), but I AM running Windows 7 on my Sempron, and it's running without a hitch. It's a 64-bit CPU, so 32-bit obviously runs well on it. And I'm talking about an overclocked Sempron. Financial restrictions limit me to an entry-level PC, but overclocking and maintenance keeps it razor sharp (at least for me). I can run Fable and Counter-Strike: Source on high enough graphics (with tweaks) without dropping down below 30 fps. So I fail to see why that should offend you.
Anyway, if you have any problem, you should just unsubscribe. Please do not try to belittle "noobs" as you call them. Don't forget that you were once a noob, too. Misusing seniority does not make you great. A great man who make others feel small, but the real great man is the one who make every man great.

I sense a mirthful retort...

You know posting to this thread is in the same category as asking,, "why does my computer only show 3,70GB of "available RAM", when I just put 4GB in it last night".
This should be common knowledge. Nevertheless, "because you have a 32 Bit O".S, that's why! So for people that want more than 4GB of RAM, (and in this day and age, most people do), you must run a 64 bit OS. Win XP, really doesn't do all that well with more than 2GB.

Now I don't care about you, your "overclocked Sempron", your financial plight, or anything else about you.

I'm working from an Antique eMachine at the moment. In spite of the fact that it's more than up to the task of dealing with you, I'm still not going to recommend that anybody else should get one.

I'm "belittling" you, because you're posting crap. Simply because a CPU is 64 bit, has no bearing on its 32 bit performance. Save for the fact that any CPU that actually is 32 bit these days, is either a mobile CPU, or the one in my guitar modeling amp. There just isn't a place for them on the desktop, and hasn't been for several years. In fact, the last run of 32 bit desktop Intel CPUs were "Prescott" cores. Yes, there were even 64 bit P-4s! (Cedar Mill). Now, Windows XP Pro was available in a 64 bit flavor for years, and the real reason for the move to 64 bit hardware was mostly to stay in advance the anticipated move to 64 bit computing, not to enhance 32 bit performance. 64 bit, is one salient reason that M$ shoveled Vista out the door, albeit prematurely. (IMO)

Now, because you're stuck in the past, is no valid reason to recommend somebody coming into the scene today, to covet a 32 bit copy of Windows 7. Nor does it really make any sense to retrofit an aging machine with it.

But, if you're going to buy or build today or even tomorrow, there is no point to buying a 32 bit OS. The driver issues are all solved, and most all still usable hardware has had 64 bit drivers written for it. That means, I can get 64 bit drivers for my 6 yr old Canon 8400F scanner. If you buy Win 7 Pro, you can get "SP Mode" free and run every 32 bit blast form the past you can think of..

Let's recap:

This is nonsense, plain and simple.

Just because you've "been around computers, is not necessarily indicative you've learned anything. Hell, I had an Atari 1200. I never really bring it up, because it's meaningless.

As far as the rest of the BS you just posted, save it for somebody that cares.

Should I need behavioral analysis, or guidance from an inept amateur philosopher, or inane slogans as a motivating factor, I'll seek these things out in the private sector, in lieu of some windbag at TS.

I'm speaking from my experience. I have both 32-bit and 64-bit Win7, but the 32-bit runs faster on my rig. So, instead of fighting our guts out over this BS, why don't we calmly discuss the benefits of 64-bit over 32-bit? Other than the default PAE? I'm so hungry for further enlightenment on the subject.

Well, necessity is the mother of invention, and the concept of progress can sometimes be thought of as a euphemism for brainwashing.

So then, obsolescence, I suppose, can be thought of as planned by the establishment, actual, brought on by the desires of the individual, or anything in between.

I have no doubt that your Sempron or my P4 are up to the challenges we put them to. But, that's not the nature of things at a Tech forum such as this.

A 64 bit OS is but a single factor in the quest for today's enhanced performance. That said, nobody's going to retreat back to 32 bit anytime soon, In fact, 128 bit access is the most likely paradigm,.

You simply can't run today's games on a single core CPU successfully. The arguments have changed from "games aren't written for quads yet, so buy a C2D", to, "you should go for a true quad, instead of a hyper threaded dual core".

Sociology tells us that, "work expands to fit the time allotted", and so it goes with software which, "hardware usage expands to the amount of hardware available . Minimum requirements have become sky high, and multi tasking can rapidly precipitate excursions beyond 32 bit memory capacity. Even good old Adobe "Photoshop Elements" is now checked out and compatible with 64 Bit. They held out long enough on that to annoy plenty of people. PSE7 will run on a 64 bit machine, but Adobe doesn't sanction it.

There is a lag in the learning curve of programmers, who are still learning to deal with 64 bit data width. But I'm fairly sure that when they get the full hang of it, s*** will happen all of a sudden on your desktop.

So, 64 bit is here to stay, whether it's a social phenomenon or a necessary improvement, I suppose is a bit subjective.

I can tell you that I have 5 32 bit machines and 1 64 bit, and it will eat any of the others alive.. Whether that's due to the OS, the Core I CPU, the 1333 Mhz RAM isn't really a question. It's from everything moving forward as a whole. The 64 bit OS is indeed a part of the puzzle. Do I need it, mm, not sure. Do I like it, you betcha!

In direct response to your issue of a 32 bit OS performing better, a 64 bit copy of Windows runs "Windows (32 bit) on top of Windows (64 bit)", (*) and that may explain your observations when running 32 bit software. I truly doubt that would be the case with native 64 bit software, in fact, just the reverse.

You know that all 32 bit software is installed in the "x86" folder, right?

Ahh...i see...that means i should've used 64 bit s/w for the benchmark...

That is why I am saving up. I'm learning programming, so I want to buy a multi-core CPU (not to mention RAM). I AM aware of 64's superiority, but the problem is, my 2 GB RAM isn't up to the challenge. I'm going to upgrade soon, so till then, I'm trying to squeeze out everything that's remaining from this. My current rig is a salvage from donations. When I hav enough funds, I'll post a thread for suggestions. I don't really appreciate the comparatively larger size of 64bit downloads for my GPRS. The state of hardware I'm currently leeching is pathetic. So we'll keep the topic away till the upgrade party. Till then I'm working as a troubleshooter to earn money.

See how calmly we could've discussed this?

There is a lot I can learn from you..
And hey, from my system specs, do you think I should install the 64-bit Win7 I have? And before you ask, I'm not spending a penny.

Captain, I did my research, and I realized where I was going wrong. Honestly speaking, I hadn't expected MS to improve x64 so much after seeing the XP failure. Now I'm checking out if 64-bit versions are available for the s/w I commonly use. Then I'll use my friends broadband to get the latest x64 drivers for my h/w. Then, install Win7 x64.
I'm convinced with what you said now. I hadn't realize how much of my hardware capability was being wasted!
Thank you very much for the enlightenment.

To infinity and beyond!

XP 64 was bad, but it wasn't as big a deal back then, but now it's necessary to have a solid 64 bit OS. Yes captaincranky is right, and it's good that you're dealing with it without too much [noticeable] hyperventilating.

Lucky me...