Most Popular
| Top Stories | Commented | Featured |
ATI Radeon HD 5570 Review featured
AMD's six-core Thuban to have feature like Turbo Boost?
Google to launch Twitter-like service for Gmail
Intel unveils Itanium 9300 series enterprise processors
Netflix to roll out 1080p streaming later this year
China closes major hacker ring, arrests three members
Sharp and Samsung end LCD patent suits with cross-licensing agreement
TS Community
| User Gallery | Recent Discussion |
 Redo of Show off Techspot Home Page on Desktop by srdotnet |  New home for baby by Zed |
 cubedesktop by d3ath |  iPhone 3G S sample by Rick |
TechSpot RSSTechSpot
Tech Tip of the Week: Should You Install Windows 7 32-bit or 64-bit?
in-house feature
With the upcoming release of Windows 7, the question is raised again on whether you should install the 32-bit version (x86) of the operating system or move up to 64-bit (x64).
This is something that's been asked since the introduction of consumer-level processors bearing the “x64” nomenclature. It feels like just yesterday that Intel and AMD fanboys were at odds over the Athlon 64. At that time and even as recently as the introduction of Windows Vista, software and drivers for 64-bit setups were slim-pickings.
Analogous to the shift from 16 to 32-bit computing, the jump to 64-bit has been a slow one. Windows XP x64 never took off, though 64-bit versions of Vista did, thankfully. The ride was a bumpy one, but hardware manufacturers and software developers alike have finally widely adopted the 64-bit architecture - and there’s no turning back now.
Continue reading our Tech Tip of the Week.
This is something that's been asked since the introduction of consumer-level processors bearing the “x64” nomenclature. It feels like just yesterday that Intel and AMD fanboys were at odds over the Athlon 64. At that time and even as recently as the introduction of Windows Vista, software and drivers for 64-bit setups were slim-pickings.
Analogous to the shift from 16 to 32-bit computing, the jump to 64-bit has been a slow one. Windows XP x64 never took off, though 64-bit versions of Vista did, thankfully. The ride was a bumpy one, but hardware manufacturers and software developers alike have finally widely adopted the 64-bit architecture - and there’s no turning back now.
Continue reading our Tech Tip of the Week.
Related Stories
User Comments (22)
Post a comment| burty117 on July 29, 2009 5:50 AM | 64 Bit for the Win! |
| supersmashbrada on July 29, 2009 6:39 AM | Its just not for everyone for two possible reasons.
Not everyone needs it It may be more expensive than the 32 bit version. |
| Guest on July 29, 2009 6:57 AM | The ONLY reason why someone would actually NEED 64 bit OS is
if you answer yes to the following question : Do I have 4 or
more Gig of RAM. 32 Bits OS can manage up to 4 Gig of ram. 64 Bit OS can manage more then 4 Gig. End of story. |
| gobbybobby on July 29, 2009 7:00 AM | well, I thought that 32 bit could not use 4 gig of ram very effectivly. thats y I am uisng the Windows 7 RC 64bit as my primary OS at the moment. When u next my a PC, make it fucture proof, buy a 64Bit system and OS, you will save money in the long run. |
| Guest on July 29, 2009 7:39 AM | Well x64 if for serious computer working and gaming and x32 is for poor loosers that cant afford good computer for gaming, office "pancton" workers, and those pathetic people who only exist to fillin usless junk in social nets like facebook etc |
| supersmashbrada on July 29, 2009 7:42 AM | The ONLY reason why someone would
actually NEED 64 bit OS is if you answer yes to the
following question : Do I have 4 or more Gig of
RAM. Not entirely true, what about production
software that are written for 64 bit os.
32 Bits OS can manage up to 4 Gig of ram. 64 Bit OS can manage more then 4 Gig. End of story. |
| burty117 on July 29, 2009 7:58 AM | 64 Bit also has a few nifty Security extras aswell, and 64 Bit is the same price as the 32 Bit version as they are included in the same box, the only question is if you have 64 bit drivers but almost all drivers made for vista and windows 7 have a 64 bit version, if it doesn't then i highly dout it has a 32 bit version, it seems silly to buy 32 bit OS now that 64 bit is out, plus programs are going to start being written for 64 Bit compatibilty and imagine the gains if computer games could use 6GB+ of RAM! it would be awsome! let alone the fact that there would be less loading times as you could litterally load the entire game to RAM. |
| yukka on July 29, 2009 9:40 AM | I have been running 64bit Vista Home Premium since December. I havent ever had such a solid operating system. I am running a newer machine (9gb ram and core i7) but i would heartily recommend 64bit to anyone purchasing a new computer. |
| ddg4005 on July 29, 2009 11:20 AM | I'm going to buy 64-bit Windows 7 Professional when it drops in October. Both my boxes have been upgraded to 8GB of RAM. Besides, most of the desktop PCs at the local Best Buy stores are running 64-bit Windows Vista. |
| Guest on July 29, 2009 11:52 AM | x64 is the way to go people. I've been running it and I've only had one issue...my printer driver. It only took a few minutes to find the correct one and install it. I run heavy graphics apps so my 12Gb of RAM is being used. |
| Guest on July 29, 2009 12:20 PM | It's about the right time to opt for 64-bit. Everyone functions fine in 64bit Windows 7, and it's not even released yet, and odds are most people here will want more than 4 GB of ram in the near future, if not now. |
| captain828 on July 29, 2009 1:11 PM | I have Windows 7 RC1 and 4GB of RAM and I have to say...
it's really sweet! Alt-Tabbing out of demanding apps is a breeze and there are few issues with 32bit apps. In fact, most 32bit apps work just as well on a 64bit OS as on a 32bit. |
| JDoors on July 29, 2009 1:28 PM | In my experience, it's not just a "driver" issue. Though
many or most 32-bit programs and standards work with a
64-bit system, there are plenty that choke. If you can live
with or work around it, you're good to go. If you absolutely
rely on such products, you're screwed, until and IF they
upgrade to the 64-bit architecture. For me there's been a few annoyances going 64, but nothing SO important that I wished I hadn't upgraded. Your mileage may vary however! |
| Darth Shiv on July 29, 2009 5:55 PM | "One of the most commonly cited differences is that the
32-bit architecture has a memory access limit of 4GB (2^32
bytes)." Sorry but this is wrong. 32-bit windows can access 36-bit memory address space via PAE (Physical Address Extensions). 32-bit Windows Server editions illustrate this. Hardware with this capability has been around for a loooooong time. Microsoft disable the PAE memory access advantages due to "driver problems" (nvidia was the main culprit) and "performance" (I have seen a few benchmarks where performance loss was negligible) back with WinXP officially. |
| Guest on July 30, 2009 3:15 AM | The main reason I'd still consider 32-bit, is because of better CODEC support. All CODECs today are made in 32-bit editions, but only some are made 64-bit. If you want to use Windows Media Center on 64-bit Windows, you can only use 64-bit CODECs. I need CoreAVC for playing H.264 movies with subtitles, so 32-bit is my only option. |
| VonDisco on July 30, 2009 7:25 AM | Guest said: Gosh you're
pleasant.
Well x64 if for serious computer working and gaming and x32 is for poor loosers that cant afford good computer for gaming, office "pancton" workers, and those pathetic people who only exist to fillin usless junk in social nets like facebook etc |
| jobeard on July 30, 2009 11:11 AM | I have been running 64bit Vista Home
Premium since December. I havent ever had such a solid
operating system. there are two major ways to
improve existing code:[LIST=1] [*]add 64 bit memory and file support AND [*]add support for SMP (symmetrical multiple processing) which we call multiple core(s) [/LIST] if the regression testing is worth $0.02, these enhancements will force the location of many otherwise undiscovered bugs. |
| bwchato on July 31, 2009 12:15 PM | that's exactly the reason fot the 64 bit OS.i have 4 ghz and windows says 3,24.I want to change to the 64bit because of that |
| jobeard on August 12, 2009 12:12 PM | Other benefits of running a 64-bit OS include
enhanced security with hardware-backed DEP, Kernel Patch
Protection and mandatory driver signing. Actually to
my understanding, driver signing is an attrribute of Vista,
not x64 systems per se
|
| Technochicken on August 12, 2009 12:17 PM | that's exactly the reason fot the 64
bit OS.i have 4 ghz and windows says 3,24.I want to change
to the 64bit because of that Usually windows just
tells you the clock speed your CPU is supposed to be running
at, not its actual clock speed. So if you overclock your
CPU, you will need a tool like CPU-Z to read your actual
clock speed. Upgrading to a 64 bit OS won't make a bit of
difference.Or did you mean gigabytes, as in amount of RAM? |
| Darth Shiv on September 17, 2009 6:05 PM | supersmashbrada said: They include both versions of the install on
the disc. You can choose which to install with Win7.
Its just not for everyone for two possible reasons. Not everyone needs it It may be more expensive than the 32 bit version. |
| Guest on October 2, 2009 8:53 PM | I have been running 64 bit Windows 7 for a month now. It works flawlessly. I am a gamer and I couldn't b happier. Driver support for 64 bit is much better now than even 32 bit was a few years ago for Vista. 64 bit is here to stay and Windows 7 will be around for a few more years while memory for desktops and laptops gets cheaper. My HP HDX 16 can hold at least 8 GB of ram so that is why I am going to 64 bit. In other words if your computer is capable of adding more than 4 GB of ram in the future then you should install Windows 7 64 bit now rather than later. |
