The Pros and Cons of 64-bit Windows 7
Posted 10/19/09 at 06:30:00 PM by Alex Castle
Comments
Print
Email
The Windows 7 launch is finally upon us, which means that a lot of people who skipped the beta and RC launches will be getting their first taste of Microsoft’s new operating system. This also means that a lot of people are going to have to make some decisions soon, like which version of Windows to buy, and whether to go with the 32- or 64-bit version of the operating system.
What’s that you say? “Shouldn’t everyone with a 64-bit capable CPU upgrade to 64-bit Windows?” Well, not quite. There are some major advantages to a 64-bit OS, but there are drawbacks to consider as well. In this article, we’ll describe the pros and cons of 64-bit Windows, so when the time comes to upgrade you’ll know which version is right for you.
Why 64-Bit Windows Rocks
So what’s all this 64-bit hubbub about, anyway?
In a 32-bit operating system, memory addresses are 32 bits in length, limiting the total number of unique addresses available to around 4 billion—effectively capping the total amount of memory your system can use at one time to 4GB.
With 64 bit addresses, an operating system could theoretically use up to 16.8 million terabytes of RAM. Now, you’re obviously not going to have access to that kind of hardware for quite a while, but it does mean you’re actually going to be able to take advantage of today’s dirt-cheap memory prices.
Why 64-bit Windows Doesn’t Rock So Much
But there are also several reasons why 64-bit Windows isn’t for everyone. Here are a few of the biggies:
You need at least 4GB of memory
This one should be obvious: a 64-bit OS won’t help you if you don’t have at least 4GB of memory (It will help a little bit if you have exactly 4GB, as 32-bit Windows actually limits you to using 3.5 GB, for other reasons). Still, if you’re still rocking 2GB of memory (or less) you should really upgrade; it’s dead simple and will barely make a dent in your pocketbook.
32-bit drivers don’t work anymore
Generally, 32-bit applications work in 64-bit Windows, but the same can’t be said for drivers. In other words, old, crappy hardware might not work anymore. If you absolutely can’t be bothered to upgrade your 7-year-old printer, you might want to skip on 64-bit Win7.
Some software breaks in 64-bit Windows
It’s less common than hardware issues, but some programs do break in 64-bit Windows. Particularly, old programs written for pre-XP versions of Windows may not work in 64-bit Windows 7. If you’re still running a 16-bit program for some reason, it definitely won’t work in a 64-bit operating system.
Also, just because a program has a 64-bit version, don’t assume that all plug-ins for that program are 64-bit compatible as well. Not all Photoshop plugins, for instance, will work in 64-bit Photoshop.
Not all software benefits from 64-bit
Finally, consider that when you upgrade to a 64-bit OS, all your programs won’t magically start taking advantage of the extra memory. A program has to be written and optimized with 64-bit processors in mind, and right now that’s a minority of all programs. If you mostly use your PC for browsing the web, for instance, you probably won’t see much of an increase in speed with 64-bit Windows, because none of the major browsers have official 64-bit versions (for that, blame Flash, which is firmly 32-bit).
What does take advantage of 64-bit processing? Photoshop, video editing software, 3d modeling programs, CAD. Heavy-hitters, basically. And while very few games have 64-bit versions, there are some (such as Crysis) which work better on a 64-bit system, and you can expect considerably more in the near future.
By default, Windows stores 32- and 64-bit programs in separate folders
So there you have it. There are some drawbacks, sure, but they’re not going to effect the vast majority of users, and the benefits of a 64-bit OS will only get more pronounced over time, as more and more developers write 64-bit versions of their apps.
windows 7 choice of 32 or 64 bit systems
Submitted by shawn Harris on Thu, 10/29/2009 - 1:10pm
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.
Worried About Program Compatiblity With Windows 7 64 bit
Submitted by Lancelot_DR on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 4:26pm
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.
Submitted by Metorks on Thu, 10/29/2009 - 7:35pm
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).
Submitted by win7fanboi on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 6:19am
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.
Win 7 64
Submitted by cappomutato on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 12:54pm
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.
Submitted by robotsneedhugs2 on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 9:45am
Why is 32-bit called x86 if 64 is x64?
because
Submitted by themohawkadmin on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 12:56pm
x64 is actually x86-64, as it its an extension to the x86 architecture. x86 comes from the original Intel 8086 processor.
Submitted by bloodgain on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 10:18pm
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!
Submitted by Metorks on Thu, 10/29/2009 - 7:39pm
Interesting...Learn something every day.
Submitted by Deanjo on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 5:50am
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.
Submitted by punditguy on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 4:28am
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.
Submitted by damicatz on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 7:35pm
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)
Submitted by BRKKAB on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 7:27pm
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 .
Submitted by BRKKAB on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 7:27pm
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 .
Submitted by jcseely on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 7:10pm
"they’re not going to AAAAAAAAAAAffect the vast majority of users"
Hire a proofreader!
Submitted by aziobron on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 6:06am
you can inform them of the error without being all douchy about it..kthx
Submitted by Skillz_n_Magic on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 6:57pm
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.
Submitted by arch-chancellor on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 4:50pm
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.
Submitted by arch-chancellor on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 4:38pm
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.
Submitted by yr on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 6:12pm
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.
Submitted by Pball1224 on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 4:01pm
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.
Beware of zombies
Submitted by alanmc76 on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 5:05am
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?"--
Submitted by praetor_alpha on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 3:39pm
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
Submitted by yr on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 3:20pm
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.
64 for me
Submitted by K0BALT on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 3:14pm
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.
Submitted by Lord Omega on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 2:57pm
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!
Submitted by JoA on Sun, 10/25/2009 - 3:12pm
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.
Submitted by Lancelot_DR on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 8:42am
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.
Must Read Articles
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature
Most Popular Articles
This Month's Issue
FEATURE How to Get FREE Programs, Services, Software & MoreFEATURE Digital Photo Printer RoundupHOW TOBuild a 3D CameraFEATUREDIY Arcade PCWHITE PAPERHow TRIM Works
Technology News
Computer Cooling Fans
Computer Cases
PC Game Controllers
PC Games
Computer Hardware
Headphones
MP3 Players
Stream Video
Computer Mouse
Monitors
Motherboards
NAS Storage
Networking
Laptop Computers
DVD Burner
Digital Cameras
Portable Storage
Computer Accessories
Smartphone
Antivirus Software
Sound Cards
Speakers
Computer Systems
Thumb Drives
Video Cameras
Video Card Reviews
Water Cooling
Gadgets
- Keyboards
© 2009 Future US, Inc. All Rights Reserved.