New Gaming PC W/windows7 32bit .Should I have gone 64???

64-Bit applications will be made as soon as the general public has 64-Bit operating systems on their PC's. For every person that decides to continue using the 32-Bit OS, it will take just that much longer for the 64-Bit OS to gain ground. I have decided to support the 64-Bit age regardless of system performance. Which by the way, I don't see any performance loss so why not support programming advancement.

This makes about as much since to me as one of the other threads I was reading months ago. Someone was talking about games running better on a dual core than quad core. He was making decisions to purchase the dual core instead of the quad because of these benchmarks. To me this didn't make any since. Was he looking into the next years, when gaming does support quad core? Would he then wish he had of purchased the quad? Why restrict yourself now for better performance, when in the long run you will see better performance without the restriction.

Using the x64 version does NOT add that much more space to the hard drive, around 2-3GB more and that's it. Based on the sizes of current hard drives, that's a "drop in the bucket"

Also, running an x64 system is comparable to driving a 2 lane highway versus a 4 land highway. It runs faster and smoother.

I am beta testing Office 2010 x64 and it is a lot faster than Office 2007 32 bit.

I have switched to 64bit and everything seems to be working out fine. It took me a few days to get all my Nvidia drivers ,and my Intel drivers straightened out ,but I am happy I did it . I just added a $42.00 160 GB Seagate Barracuda to load it on to . So I have a 1 TB HD holding all my old system files and Win7b 32bit ,and my 160 ,holding 64 bit ,and New drivers . I had to Back up Crysis ,and Reload it on my new drive ,as I used" STEAM" to Purchase it. So I had To make 9 Back up CD's ,and re load them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also , Now I will Add 4GB more Corsair 1600Mhz Ram to My System for a total of 8 GB + the 896MB of VRAM . I would think I would see some advantages Then!!! Thanx for all The help !!!!! It was very ........................Helpful!!

I think inadvertently you made my point. RIGHT NOW there is now reason except the reason given in that well thought out post about supporting 64 bit technology. Beta software? Freeways? and more like 4 GB off my tiny but uber fast 64GB SSD drive?
Where are the gains like the video card industry made from going wide? Not in Windows7, perhaps soon perhaps not in applications. Certainly not in gaming, although some would like to have you think so.

Pony up some URL to support if you disagree?
http://www.widowpc.com/2007/11/crysis_tips_and.php
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...88581144&sid=1
and if you like the artificial RAM limits Windows puts on your OS...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...8VS.85%29.aspx

Adding another 4GB of RAM won't be that much help for you, unless you do a lot of video editing, AutoCAD, Photoshop rendering, etc., or do heavy multi-tasking with multiple windows open.

It may make you feel better, but it's really just a waste of your money. The maximum most users ever really need would be 6GB total. I sincerely doubt that you'll see any difference at all.

Tom's Hardware did an excellent article about how much RAM is really needed.

Go HERE to read their article and the tests involved.

This is from their "Conclussions" page of the article:

"Bragging rights and pioneering"? 64 bit technology was "pioneered" years ago with XP Pro, what, 8 or 9 years ago? 64 bit is no longer the future. It is now, and it's high time that it is. I don't care about anyone's benchmarking, I know what I have and see. A 4GB 64 bit PC that runs circles around my older 32 bit crap. You can run what you want, but if you plan to run 32 bit, stock up on new parts while they are here. Windows 7 will be the last 32 bit OS that Microsoft releases. Even Linux has many 64 bit OS's in place. Windows 7 will be around for a while though, so enjoy while you can.

My goodness, you're just wellspring of "positive" comments! LOL

Oh by the way, Office 2010 x64 will be Gold or Final come June.

You're so worried about a measly 4GB of extra space on the 64GB SSD when most users may load about a max of 30-40GB on their C drives. IMO, that's nitpicking.

Widening the bandwidth in video cards was and is a boon to gamers. Yes, there are some issues with gamers and Windows 7 but that will soon be rectified by M$.

Thanks for the release date on Office. I am looking to upgrade my copy soon as I find the present user interface slow and arcane. The Office 2003 interface was much more logical to me and therefore faster to use.

During our discussions here we need to keep in mind a few points. Even though this is a Windows forum we cannot close our eyes to other OS. Only by comparison and contrast will we progress. 32 bit OS are NOT limited to addressing 4GB memory unless their creator decides they should be. Like the Y2K limit, it is a programming decision.Windows 200 server enterprise addressed 8GB with no problems. So why move to 64bit? If not to address more RAM then it must be for faster programs.

IRL sports cars outrun SUV's with ease - bigger is not faster unless they are made that way. i.e. the Cayenne.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/11150..._64bit_pc.html
is an older article that shows where they thought we would be today. We are not there.

Cat, I respect your place here and opinions.
I am unclear what you mean by "stock up on new parts", did I seem to confuse 32 bit hardware and OS? I am talking all OS, not hardware.
Windows 7 may well be the last 32 bit OS but Windows 8 will have to run 32 bit applications flawlessly or have some type of emulation. There are even rumors of it being 128 bit.
The 64 bit "revolution" of 10 years ago offered by AMD never got off the ground. Intel was slow to the market and Microsoft has yet to find a way to use 64 bit to a profound advantage.
Please post your "runs circles around" benchmarks so I can see the error of my ways.

DOA, there was no offense intended here, it just appeared that you were still in the 32 bit era, you were doing some comparing with 64 bit, and didn't seem too impressed with it. You are right, it has took a long time to move forward, and I don't have the answer for it. I'm impressed with 64 bit technology, but we still have a way to go before the 32 bit programs are gone. My "runs circles around" benchmarks are factual, though. The 32 bit laptop in question here is a Dell Latitude D610, made in 2005, with a single core processor and 2GB RAM, versus a 2009 HP desktop with a dual core processor and 4GB RAM. So naturally, not even seeing the computers in question, you can see which is faster. I don't have any printout on it, at this stage in the laptop's life, it's a playtoy for me to load as many OS's on it as I can, and push it to the limit. I did consider overclocking it to make it compete, but was advised against it. But you did have another point, Windows 8 possibly having to still support 32 bit programs, and it's a good one. Why can't XP be shot out of the sky along with Win 2K this year, I don't know. But one thing that's certain, as long as XP is around, it's going to be a distraction, and that's (XP) the reason 32 bit will still be lingering around. I'm tired of all of these damn 32 vs 64 bit deals, and the next release could bring 128 bit to the table, as you said. I hope 32 bit dies first, here it will be we have 128 bit as an option, and there will still be diehards clinging to 32 bit OS's. I can't stand the thought of trying to walk someone through running XP Mode on a 128 bit OS, in order to get a program or printer made in 1998 to work. Microsoft most likely will wait until after 2014, the burial of XP, to bring forth it's 128 bit OS. I certainly hope so, as it will only lead to a 32 vs 64 vs 128 bit war on here, which one is best for me? It would be a total chaos around here.