The Pros and Cons of 64-bit Windows 7

35

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Invalidator

Nearing my wit's end with wait times reaching upwards of three minutes just to load a simple news article webpage, I decided it was time to upgrade from the old IBM "Thinkpad" laptop running XP.

After a considerable amount of basic consumer research and comparisons, I finally settled on a Gigabyte H81-D3 motherboard, an Intel i3 processor, 4 gig RAM module, 500 GB HDD, and Windows 7 64-Bit. Total price was around $400 for the works.

Prior to even looking for a screwdriver, I watched a few demonstrative videos on assembling your own PC, (focusing primarily on what NOT to do) and much to my surprise, it was up and running inside a big old tower case with a 350 Watt PSU in under four hours.

The 64 Bit Windows Home Premium installation DVD configured everything flawlessly.

I'm not a power user by any stretch of the imagination, but it's nice to have a system with a bit of headroom and expansion potential. It's been about two months without even a whisper of a glitch. I can open dozens of tabs in the browser while running audacity and Windows Movie Maker without any noticeable lag or straining. The on board GPU is more than adequate for my needs, and it runs the Oolite (an outer space conquest game) brilliantly.

While the super computer wizards may be laughing at my naivety regarding chipset fractal compatibility ratios and such, I would highly recommend Windows 7 64 Bit to anyone like me who simply wants a smooth running system that's fast and capable of elegantly handling most mainstream applications with ease.

avatar

lowlunar

Plan to install a new HDD for Win7 and leave XP on old HdD. Can I run 7 in 64 and have XP in 32.

Have a quad core with 4gigs of ram and 2 500gig HDD's.    

avatar

gjt

So far all comments have revolved around upgrading. This question is about buying a new notebook PC.

My son will start university in April. Is there any reason other than
price to buy him a notebook with 32-7 Home premium on it. (the only one
I can think of is that maybe the battery will last longer?)

Most of the PC makers are offering both 32-7 and 64-7 machines. Some with the same chipset or different chips with same or almost the same I/O speed. (I'm looking at around 2GHz) The 32s appear to be limited to 2GB RAM. The 64s all have 4GB. There seems to be a premium on the 64-7 machines of about $200-$300.(a 2GB RAM chip is only $60?)

He's not a gamer. He's using Open Office and that's about it besides his favorite music and general internet access. Oh, he's studying Japanese and currently has the Japanese language kit installed on his old (XP) laptop.

Why buy a 64-7 machine?  Why not the 32-7?

 

avatar

shawn Harris

From what i just read it seams that either 32 or 64  win 7 systems are just about equal. If ishould use    win7/64 and didn't like it for what ever reason, could i switch back to  the win7/ 32 version. I ask this because i am about to build my new computer with an amd  phenom 2  x4 955 chip with 4gb patriot ram. Any advice as to which one to use would be helpful.

avatar

Lancelot_DR

 I recently built a new Intel Core i7 rig to play 3D games, watch Blu-Ray and HD movies and also to use in my DJ business. I'm currently using Windows XP Home on it but I really need to upgrade to Windows 7. I would like to install the 64 bit version of Windows 7, but there is one program that is absolutely essential that I use all the time for creating my music cheat sheet lists and getting rid of track tags etc., and that program is Musicmatch Jukebox. I have looked everywhere for another mp3 program that has the same versatility with editing track tags and creating and printing music lists, but there just aren't any. Musicmatch is the only program that has those features that I need. I'm very afraid that if I install Windows 7 64 bit, I will lose the use of Musicmatch Jukebox. I use the original Musicmatch Jukebox version 9, not the garbage Yahoo version that replaced it. Is there anyone out there who has Windows 7 64 bit and has successfully installed Musicmatch Jukebox on it? Please let me know.

avatar

Metorks

I'm getting ready to install Windows 7 tonight and came here to decide which version to use, so I can't answer your question.  However, have you tried Media Monkey yet?  I believe that it will do all you need and more, and it should run on 64bit, too.  The free version alone is awesome, but the full version is well worth the cost ($20 -- incl. lifetime updates).

 

 

avatar

win7fanboi

Nothing new... basically the article boils down to if you have >4gb ram go with 64bit else upgrade the ram or go with 32bit. lame. 64 bit FTW.

avatar

cappomutato

If it wasn't for the issues with Flash and companies like Palm (they won't put out a 64bit driver for their USB sync cable) I would have 0 complaints about my experience with Win 7 64.

avatar

robotsneedhugs2

Why is 32-bit called x86 if 64 is x64?

avatar

themohawkadmin

x64 is actually x86-64, as it its an extension to the x86 architecture.  x86 comes from the original Intel 8086 processor.  

avatar

bloodgain

More specifically, it comes from the naming convention of the Intel 80x86 line of processors.  When you ran the old 286, 386, and 486 PCs, they were based on the 80286, 80386, and 80486 architectures, which were backwards compatible with the Intel 8086 architecture's instruction set.  When the Intel 80586 architecture was introduced, Intel chose to label it "Pentium" for trademarking purposes.

Also, when people say "x86", they are referring to x86-32. The original Intel 8086 was 16 bit, which would be x86-16.  However, calling it x86-16 is really back-labelling -- the Intel 80386 was a 32-bit architecture, and is where the x86 moniker began.

And now you know!

avatar

Metorks

Interesting...Learn something every day.

avatar

Deanjo

The reason is simple why there are 2 separate program folders as it allows 2 different versions (32-bit and 64-bit) of the same application to be used and installed on the system without mashing them together into one folder.  When this happens you can have a bad mix of 32-bit applications replacing the 64-bit versions and vice versa leaving you without a usable product.

avatar

punditguy

I have a Canon i850, which was released in 2002. By my reckoning, that makes it 7 years old.

Windows 7 Ultimate prints to it with no problem, and shares it just fine with an XP computer and Vista laptop.

___________________________________________

Preferred boot, but will give this Maximum PC thing a try.

avatar

damicatz

Drawback #1 being that "x64" Windows isn't a true 64-bit operating system. It's more appropriate to say that it is a 32-bit operating system that uses 64-bit memory addresses. All of the portable data types retain their original 32-bit sizes. If programs want to make use of larger data types, they must use a special data type designed for 64-bit data that isn't portable or standard (an extension if you will).

Windows 3.1 was the same way. By the standards we are using today, Windows 3.1 could be called a 32-bit operating system because it uses 32-bit memory addresses (and you could use 32-bit data-types with Win32s).

Microsoft chose this model to appease lazy programmers who made hardcoded assumptions about data types. The big problem with the way Microsoft set up the data models in Windows "x64" is that it requires a lot more work (read : rewrite your program) to get the full benefits of making 64-bit version of a program because you have to retool all of your datatypes.

See : http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lp64_wp.html (Windows is LLP64, everyone other desktop operating system is LP64)

avatar

jjFarking

With all due respect, that's just a fanboi comment.

There are 4 64-bit models, of which the LLP64 is just one.

Strictly speaking, there is only one 'true' 64-bit model, which is SILP64, though this isn't actually used as yet.

Rather than providing a 12-year-old link, you could have just linked to Wikipedia (

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit)

for a more up-to-date explanation..

ALL of these models are 64-bit in the strictest sense..

avatar

BRKKAB

I'm running Vista Ultimate 64 bit on a pc with a Athlon 64 3700 cpu. I've had no problems what so ever . The only thing I don't understand is why Microsoft put 2 Program folders in 64 bit Vista (Programs & x86 Programs). I unlike most people do read instructions , but most people don't realize the instructions are there for a good reason. Whether it be how to set something up or use it properly . They do serve a purpose .

avatar

BRKKAB

I'm running Vista Ultimate 64 bit on a pc with a Athlon 64 3700 cpu. I've had no problems what so ever . The only thing I don't understand is why Microsoft put 2 Program folders in 64 bit Vista (Programs & x86 Programs). I unlike most people do read instructions , but most people don't realize the instructions are there for a good reason. Whether it be how to set something up or use it properly . They do serve a purpose .

avatar

jcseely

"they’re not going to AAAAAAAAAAAffect the vast majority of users"

 Hire a proofreader!

 

avatar

aziobron

you can inform them of the error without being all douchy about it..kthx

avatar

Skillz_n_Magic

OK, so what you're saying is ancient printers that aren't supported anymore might not work, and Some 16-bit apps may break.  You may as well have mentioned that 5.25" floppy drives won't work either.

These points are self-defeating.  If someone is running an app from the mid-90's do you really think they're going to buy a brand new OS?  No.  And if someone has an old printer from 8+ years ago they're most likely in the same boat.

Stop the fear-mongering and let progress happen.  It's crap like this that made us swap 6 CD's to install Half-Life 2 because "no one had DVD ROM's" back then.

 

avatar

arch-chancellor

The upgrade boxes come with two disks, one 32 and one 64. Someone whom justs opens email and watch YouTube will probably get confused and insert one disk, and then the next. Probably, after loading the second disk, they will probably get red flagged from MS because the user already activated the first install. Same CD key for both.

How many people actually read the instructions? Admittedly I don't, but I've read about them online. So, how many are going see the lines that say back up your information? Especially those going from XP to 7? Or those that slide in the 764 disk on top of Vista 32?

Personally, I think MS should do what they did with XP, and what Apple does every few years: force the upgrade to newer platform. I needs to happen. Heck, even Leisure Suit Larry works on 764.

avatar

arch-chancellor

I wrote that I was having problems with legacy apps and that XP Mode sucked. XP Mode still sucks, but I overcame the apps issue. I was going to keep an XP box going at the same time, but I don't think I'll need one. I have a laptop just in case.

64 VS 32. I've been running XP 64 for about a year, while there are some issues. Most are ignorable. My printer works fine, though I have never tested on Win 7 64. I have a Compaq test system and the weird thing is that Vista 64 drivers don't work; but the drivers for extra components like the soundcard do work.

I don't do any heavy app stuff, the newest game I have is Rosenkreuz Stilette and it seems to run better under 764 than XP. I'm going with 764, that's what I've been testing, and that's what going to allow me to run my hardware and software at optimal optimus level.

avatar

yr

I don't know what you have wrong with it. I have 2 programs (neither are old, they just don't like Win7) that I use a lot. Both use multilingual features, which while Win7 is great with, they were not yet adapted for Win7's new kernel, and will not even install. XP mode runs them flawlessly, and since they are not very intensive apps, they run fine in a virtual environment.

I also have a film scanner. The MFR discontinued it since most people have gone digital. It cost a few hundred dollars, and works perfectly. The never bothered to create 64 bit drivers (they did barely make Vista32 drivers), so I use it in XP mode.

I don't know about you, but I don't like scrapping good high-quality hardware and software that has limited alternatives simply because the MRFs don't want to update them. If this will get those to work without screwing up or hindering Win7 with legacy 'problems', GREAT!!!

Now all my PC's can run Win7.

avatar

Pball1224

After limping along on a P4 (not even multi-threaded) for far too many years, I finally built a new machine almost a year ago now. I loaded Vista 64, and 6GB of ram, along with the Intel Core i7 920, and it's been simply amazing. I run grid computing sometimes, Adobe Lightroom 2, and Photoshop CS4, Premier CS4, and a few other heavy apps like DVD video transcoding, and I often watch the load balancing on the 8 logical cores, as well as the memory load. Vista 64 does an awesome job. The only compatibility issue is my work does not support 64 bit for VPN, so it's back to my laptop for working from home, which is fine with me, I enjoy working from the living room, kitchen, or backyard.

I've preordered Win 7, but I won't be loading it immediately. I'm going to see what news comes out about everyone elses success or issues first.

avatar

alanmc76

 Just be careful who you listen to.  The masses say that Win 7 rocks (myself included).  Sure there will be issues, but the vast majority of the responses have been very positive.  Just beware of the MS haters out there that couldn't be happy if it were free and tucked them into bed at night.

 _______________________________

-- "What am I, MacGyver? Fix it with what?"--

 

avatar

praetor_alpha

Looks like 64 bit might catch on with 7. Latest Steam survey shows that Windows 7 has more 64 bit than 32.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

avatar

yr

I have tried to use Windows 7 64bit, but have had too many programs that would not work properly. For the record, most won't work in Vista 64bit either. Some are as simple as the RAW codecs for camera raw viewing. Some are more complex like Adobe Acrobat, PDF printing and properly adding shortcuts to the right-click menus.

I am using the 32 bit on my laptop and it works great! As soon as the MFRs come out with their hardware-controlling programs (touchpad, hotkeys, OSD and power controller programs) and complete drivers, I everything will be perfect (the Vista versions worked more-or-less).

XP mode will help because 32bit programs should run fine in a 32bit virtual PC, and can be run natively within Windows 7 (with pro or better). There are a lot of high-quality (and expensive) hardware / programs that their vendors simply are not interested in making newer drivers/versions for.  :(   XP mode fixes that to a large extent.

avatar

K0BALT

I'm running the Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit edition that I got for my Windows 7 Launch Party. I haven't had any issues except the newest Nvidia drivers have been bugging up my system. Rolled back to the October ones and now it's fine.

avatar

Lord Omega

For a long time I have used 32-bit but ever since Win7 RTM I have been using 64-bit and I am not looking back. I just love it!

avatar

JoA

I really wanted to run 64 bit Win 7 but I have two programs that won't work with 64 bit.  One is an old program (Print Artist 4.0) and they just don't make anything comparable today that I can replace it with.  It refuses to run at all under 64 bit, even with compatibility settings for Win 95, which is probably what it was written for.  The other program is Adobe Premiere Elements 3.02.  Runs just fine under Vista 32 and Win 7 32 but crashes and hangs under 64 bit.  I could replace that program with the new version,  but I don't  really need anything more than the 3.0 provides.  But, I'm finding that the 32 bit version of Win 7 runs great and I can barely tell te difference anyway. 

 I didn't have near the problems I expected installing.  I had to boot from the disk to do the 64 bit install because Vista 32 bit would not allow the 64 bit installation disk to run.  But it still installed fine and activated without a problem.  I  wanted to try the switch from 64 to 32 bit with Win 7 installed but decided not to risk it so reinstalled a back up image of Vista before reinstalling with the 32 bit disk.  This was also trouble-free and activated also, but from what I've been reading, I could have done the reinstall from Win 7.

avatar

Lancelot_DR

I recently built a new Intel Core i7 rig to play 3D games, watch Blu-Ray and HD movies and also to use in my DJ business. I'm currently using Windows XP Home on it but I really need to upgrade to Windows 7. I would like to install the 64 bit version of Windows 7, but there is one program that is absolutely essential that I use all the time for creating my music cheat sheet lists and getting rid of track tags etc., and that program is Musicmatch Jukebox. I have looked everywhere for another mp3 program that has the same versatility with editing track tags and creating and printing music lists, but there just aren't any. Musicmatch is the only program that has those features that I need. I'm very afraid that if I install Windows 7 64 bit, I will lose the use of Musicmatch Jukebox. I use the original Musicmatch Jukebox version 9, not the garbage Yahoo version that replaced it. Is there anyone out there who has Windows 7 64 bit and has successfully installed Musicmatch Jukebox on it? Please let me know.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.