Please leave any feedback about the Windows 7: 64 bit vs 32 bit? article in this thread.
Windows 7: 64 bit vs 32 bit? - Discussion
- Thread starter Ian
- Start date
Just as a sidenote, the easiest way to find out if you have a 64 bit capable system is to use the freeware CPUZ software:
http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php
http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 925
- Reaction score
- 362
You can bypass the rejection of unsigned drivers by issuing the following command at an administrator-elevated command prompt:
bcdedit -set loadoptions DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS
Alternatively, NGOHQ has made a convenient tool that will do the heavy lifting for you.
Cheers.
bcdedit -set loadoptions DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS
Alternatively, NGOHQ has made a convenient tool that will do the heavy lifting for you.
Cheers.
When we moved from 16-bit to 32-bit the issues were the same. My favorite word processor, XyWrite, not only would no longer run but they went out of business. Nevertheless, there a precious few 16-bit systems out there today.
So, for me, the question wasn't whether I would switch to 64-bit or not but rather was when I would switch. I considered switching to Vista x64 and decided not to. The killer at that time was that I read that Office 2003 would not run under the original Vista x64. There were, reportedly, significant driver issues.
When I downloaded Windows7 beta I downloaded both the 32-bit and the 64-bit. I installed the 32-bit, used it, and was quite impressed. I recently installed the 64-bit. I had no more problems with drivers in 64-bit than I did in 32-bit. All of my hardware worked fine. All but one of the applications I use worked fine. Two have 64-bit versions. Some of the utility programs for my chipset and such don't work but they aren't essential and I suspect that by the time Windows7 is actually on the market, the programs will have been rewritten.
The decision was also affected by the price of RAM. Three years ago I couldn't have afforded 4Gb of RAM anyway. Last week, I ordered an additional 4Gb for my motherboard at a cost of around $60.
When will software developers switch? Soon, I think. If I made a relatively high-priced photo editing or video editing program it would be in 64-bit now. How many people using these programs are sticking with 32-bit? Not many, I suspect.
So, for me, the time is now. For some, the time was two years ago. For some, it will be in the future.
So, for me, the question wasn't whether I would switch to 64-bit or not but rather was when I would switch. I considered switching to Vista x64 and decided not to. The killer at that time was that I read that Office 2003 would not run under the original Vista x64. There were, reportedly, significant driver issues.
When I downloaded Windows7 beta I downloaded both the 32-bit and the 64-bit. I installed the 32-bit, used it, and was quite impressed. I recently installed the 64-bit. I had no more problems with drivers in 64-bit than I did in 32-bit. All of my hardware worked fine. All but one of the applications I use worked fine. Two have 64-bit versions. Some of the utility programs for my chipset and such don't work but they aren't essential and I suspect that by the time Windows7 is actually on the market, the programs will have been rewritten.
The decision was also affected by the price of RAM. Three years ago I couldn't have afforded 4Gb of RAM anyway. Last week, I ordered an additional 4Gb for my motherboard at a cost of around $60.
When will software developers switch? Soon, I think. If I made a relatively high-priced photo editing or video editing program it would be in 64-bit now. How many people using these programs are sticking with 32-bit? Not many, I suspect.
So, for me, the time is now. For some, the time was two years ago. For some, it will be in the future.
Thanks for the heads up Thrax
That should smooth the transition of users from 32>64 bit quite a bit. I've only got old 32 bit drivers for my old Umax scanner, so I'm going to see if I can get them working as 64 bit tonight.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2008
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 15
Could you notice any improvements in the speed of Windows between the 32 bit and 64 bit versions? I am not sure which one I am going to go for, but I think 32 bit because that way I know everything I have will work (and I don't have more than 4GB ram).
A. I can't say 64-bit was noticeably faster than 32-bit except in programs optimized for 64-bit. Part of the problem is I haven't been running the 64-bit for long and the speed keeps improving. For example, my boot process has gone from 75 seconds initially to 45-50 seconds now.
B. Now is a great time to play, though, because you can try 32-bit vs. 64-bit of the same OS for free. One of the reasons I hadn't tried it in the last year or so was because I didn't have a 64-bit Vista and wasn't about to buy one just to see if I liked it.
B. Now is a great time to play, though, because you can try 32-bit vs. 64-bit of the same OS for free. One of the reasons I hadn't tried it in the last year or so was because I didn't have a 64-bit Vista and wasn't about to buy one just to see if I liked it.
Really? Where can I find information about this, i.e. is there an article that states this?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2008
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 15
There's an article on it here, but I don't know if it's the one Whoosh was referring to:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Last-32-bit-Operating-System-from-Microsoft-54974.shtml
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 171
- Reaction score
- 31
Thanks for the article, Ian. I updated a post I had on 64 vs 32 bit systems with a link to your article.
Kougar
OCing one chip at a time
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 116
Ah, forcing me to do my research here. To quote Microsoft on Windows Vista:
So in other words, even Vista 32bit is limited to 3.12GB of system RAM... not 4GB. Anything more gets wasted unless the user configures PAE and uses highly specialized PAE-aware/flagged programs, and the CPU/chipset support this. The larger the memory on the graphics card the less of that original 4GB can be used. Since 1GB is standard for high-end gaming cards and 2GB on GPU's is already available on midrange ot highend parts, it's worth noting. Because of this even 3GB cannot be fully used in some situations.
Those wanting a more detail can look at Link
NVIDIA's upcoming GT300 graphics card will have 2GB of RAM onboard for the flagship part by default according to credible sources, so there are plenty of big reasons MIcrosoft is wanting to do away with 32bit OS's.
So in other words, even Vista 32bit is limited to 3.12GB of system RAM... not 4GB. Anything more gets wasted unless the user configures PAE and uses highly specialized PAE-aware/flagged programs, and the CPU/chipset support this. The larger the memory on the graphics card the less of that original 4GB can be used. Since 1GB is standard for high-end gaming cards and 2GB on GPU's is already available on midrange ot highend parts, it's worth noting. Because of this even 3GB cannot be fully used in some situations.
Those wanting a more detail can look at Link
NVIDIA's upcoming GT300 graphics card will have 2GB of RAM onboard for the flagship part by default according to credible sources, so there are plenty of big reasons MIcrosoft is wanting to do away with 32bit OS's.
BetaMan
Official G33k
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
- Messages
- 463
- Reaction score
- 29
2GB RAM!?! Thats Fudging awesome! Myn only has like 512mb currently, but that works considering it's a 9400GT. Hackin' cool!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 2
hm seem there is no way back to me since i ve replaced hypers x modules with xms 2
512 mb of video ram is ok , it has no pointes to get alot of ram on a cheap / weak gpu
stange that gpu is not using any ram at all ( exept allocated video ram on a video card )
512 mb of video ram is ok , it has no pointes to get alot of ram on a cheap / weak gpu
stange that gpu is not using any ram at all ( exept allocated video ram on a video card )
- Joined
- May 31, 2009
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
started out on atari 400 machine
used windows on xt clone in late 80's... would only run cga greyscale mode...
used windows 3.1 / 95 / 98 / xp and now win 7
helped my son build his computer 3 months ago specifically to use W7 beta. 32 bit... learned from that, built my computer and am running 64 bit... he also upgraded to 64 bit
no real computability problems with anything...
64 bit is the future.... if you don't start now, you will be way behind the power curve....
used windows on xt clone in late 80's... would only run cga greyscale mode...
used windows 3.1 / 95 / 98 / xp and now win 7
helped my son build his computer 3 months ago specifically to use W7 beta. 32 bit... learned from that, built my computer and am running 64 bit... he also upgraded to 64 bit
no real computability problems with anything...
64 bit is the future.... if you don't start now, you will be way behind the power curve....
Kougar
OCing one chip at a time
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 116
Agreed. It's unfortunate we still use 32bit for almsot everything... the CPU is technically "128" bit, but by the end of 2010 Intel is planning a mainstream "256 bit" capable CPU. From what I've read if 64bit systems weren't being hampered by having to run 32bit compatibility code and 32bit software there could be some good performance reasons to upgrade alone, already.