use windows 7 with 32 or 64 bit?

I have 3GB ram, and use vista 32-bit at present. when i do a clean install up to windows 7, should i move also to 64-bit, or stick with 32-bit?

 

Do you plan on upgrading to 4GB of RAM any time soon? If so, 64-bit Windows might help you a little. Although 32-bit Windows can address 4GB of RAM, it cannot use more than a certain amount of that for applications.
With 3GB of RAM, 64-bit Windows won't be a help, or hurt, unless you have an older, critical program that won't run on a 64-bit platform. I've not run into too many 32-bit programs that won't run on Windows 7 x64.

 

I could easily replace a 1GB ram module for a 2Gb to make a total of 4GB, but only if I will notice an improvement - with 64-bit. I have read that 64-bit would manage switchable graphics memory use a lot better. that's my thinking. but if really no need, then easier to stay with 32-bit...? If DDR3 ram was a reasonable price I would buy a 4GB stick (so giving a total of 6GB), and then definitely go to 64-bit. As it is, with 3Gb or 4GB, it looks marginal, doesn't it? I don't use photoshop or similar that would love lots of ram.

 

when we talk about speed and such with 64 bit OS, one does tend to forget that software support for 64 bit OS is bit scratchy at best..... even the New Apple's new snow leopard use a 32bit/64bit hybrid OS..... and Apple OS are not renowned for its wide software support...........

So before you decide to jump the gun make sure you have confirmed that all your softwares are usable in 64 bit OS environment.

 

Software support for 64-bit Windows Vista and 7 is excellent. There are barely any programs (usually proprietary software that's usually coded in-house by a company) that don't work with 64-bit Windows.

People need to stop propagating that myth. It's 2009, everyone should be on a 64-bit system.

 

That really depends on the software you use....and not everyone upgrades their software with each releases... unless you use pirated copies.

 

so, if there are no problems with any software and no issues with hardware drivers (e.g.printer and scanner), there is no downside using 64-bit with 3GB? sounds like i should make the switch?

 

the biggest issue with the 64 bit migration was software and driver support, this is still the reason why the Apple kept 32 bit support in their snow leopard OS.

 

Yes, there is software that might not work in Vista/7 x64, but it's very rare. Calling software support "scratchy at best" is completely untrue, and is one of the biggest myths that has kept 64-bit operating systems from flourishing. A large majority of people can switch over without any issue whatsoever. Only those using specialized software may run into issues.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=425423

Have a read of that post.... this person is already having trouble........ maybe you could offer him some advice...

 

The biggest issue is with drivers. A lot of manufacturers have refused to release 64-bit drivers for a lot of legacy peripherals. Further, 64-bit Vista/7 requires the usage of signed drivers so you are SOL with some older peripherals. On the whole though, with any newer system this isn't an issue.

The vast majority of applications will also run fine on a 64-bit version of Vista/7. Really old 16-bit applications will cause a problem, as well as a handful of 32-bit, but on the whole very few programs cause trouble.

I've been running 64-bit exclusively since mid 2008 and have not had many issues (although when I tried 64-bit Vista back in the Beta/RC stage, things were A LOT worse).

 

Not exactly. The most important reason is that the first generation MacBook Pros use Core Duo (Yonah) processors that do not support EM64T. No 64-bit OS will run on them at all.

 

Same advice for anyone having problems finding drivers. First, search for new models that are similar to the computer you own, but are available at purchase with a 64-bit OS. Second, find drivers from the manufacturer of the individual parts (Intel, Broadcom, Nvidia) instead of the computer manufacturer.

This happens every time a new operating system is released. Companies are lazy and don't update their drivers page for older laptops that were never released with the new operating system. The user just needs to do some hunting.

For example this page: http://consumersupport.lenovo.com/en/DriversDownloads/drivers_list.aspx?CategoryID=529327
contains many of the drivers for a 64 bit system.

Feel free to copy this over to the other thread.

 

That's someone having hardware support issues. It's always a good idea to check for 64-bit support for your hardware before upgrading. I've been amazed at how much stuff works out of the box with Windows 7 though.

Beta Windows 7 64-bit drivers are available for the OP's W500, and released versions are already appearing. There are few possible reasons not to go with 64-bit.

 

the best answer is to stick to 32 bit. less worry since your previous os is 32 bit and i assume your drivers are also 32bit. unless if youre in video editing or others that requires 4gb up ram to increase productivity then jump to 64bit. or you could wait for all computers in the world to have their os in 64bit before jumping to it....which i doubt at this point.

 

I think that will be the way I go for now. After all, 3GB ram should be even more ample with win7; and I only do business-type computing. With current prices, I can only go up to a total 4GB ram. If and when DDR3 ram prices comes down, I could combine a big ram-increase and match that with a change to 64-bit OS. But that may be with my next Thinkpad, a couple of years down the track...

Along with the fascinating and helpful discussion here I found http://www.64xsoft.com/ of great interest.

 

business type computing = 32bit os = 99.99% reliability and compatability unless youre work involves CAD and photo & video editing. we never deploy 64 bit os in our work area for many reasons. nice decision btw.

 

That's the exact type of thinking that gets businesses into a bunch of trouble down the road.

When programmers are making software, they think "Oh, I don't have to make this program compatible with 64-bit architecture since we don't run that here".

And when IT is doing their job, they think "Oh, we can't upgrade to a 64-bit OS since all our programs only run in 32-bit ones".

And a few years later, everyone gets to think "Oh, crap".

 

You can always give this a try.

http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives...ista-32-bit-x86-support-more-than-4gb-memory/

 

you have a point but ......... changing workstations to 64 bit is not that complicated but what we worry is the problems we will encounter along the way. we dont want downtimes. also we can deploy 64 bit versions of xp and vista right now but the advantages of 64bit doesnt have a great (great great great) impact in enterprise computing right now .... but it will someday.

the enterprise world shifting to 64 bit is not yet feasible. businesses doesnt jump in 64-bit because its "in". it is because of the cost (e.g. downtime, software support costs). the most important word in business is "reliability". our software distributors doesnt even think about 64bit. im speaking for myself but i believe many would agree to me if they understand the job is. 32bit is the safest bet in the planet. it has long track of experience.

another experience in a consumer's perspective: a nice example is some or should i say most great 3rd party plugins in photoshop wont run in 64bit version of photoshop.

hey dont get me wrong. 64 bit is the next os. it is very promising and would be great. but at this time i can say its in BETA mode. it needs more refinements and support. we deploy 32 bit windows because it is proven to be reliable all these years.

normal users would like 64bit is installed in their laptops because its "in" and future proof (eg. memory upgrade). new laptops and pc have win 64 bit os by default which is a nice initiative for the shifting to 64 bit. until then i hope i see all pc even old pc would be 64 bit 10 years from now. i hope so.

sorry for my grammar.

 

I understand that not every software programs especially old ones will work under Win7 64 bit but will Lenovo have 64 bit drivers for their current generation machines?

Specifically I have a T500 with integrated graphics and Intel 5100 wireless card. Do you think I will have any problems getting the necessary 64 bit drivers for Win 7?

If not, I am likely to go with it because the software applications I run like iTunes, Firefox, OpenOffice, etc. should all be fine and if they don't I'll find an alternative that does.

 

I understand what you're saying, and I have personal experience in (attempting to) roll out new software for an enterprise, which is, to say the least, a massive headache.

However, this is a consumer website. The advice given here will be followed by everyday users, not businesses. And in this respect, to say that 64-bit architecture is "in BETA mode", or to insinuate that driver and software support for Vista and 7 x64 is "scratchy at best" is a complete fabrication. The greater majority of consumers can, and should, switch over without any issue.

 

Sounds great! At present I have 32bit Vista with 3GB ram. If when I upgrade to Win7 at the end of the week, what actual differences will I find in real performance and the computing experience if I go to 4GB ram and 64bit Win7 over a 3GB Win7 machine? Would I notice?

 

I'm running Vista x64 on my T400 and I just installed 7 x64 on my X200. I would say, for normal daily tasks like browsing or office applications, 7 x64 running on 2 GB RAM gives me roughly the same, if not better, performance as Vista x64 running on 4 GB RAM (as you can see from my sig). Translation: 7 runs better and will require less resources, at least in my own experience.

 

Have you noticed any difference between running 64bit and 32bit on same system, with same ram? It looks like win7 does (as expected) run with less ram overhead, but if your 64bit system runs as well with 2GB ram as 64bit on 4GB, I would surely expect 32bit win7 on 2GB to be even better? And how would 4Gb compare for 32bit and 64bit win7? I am leaning towards increasing ram to 4GB for my win7 upgrade, but don't want to do it just for "feel good' factor - or to just have more ram free, but for a real performance improvement over 3GB with 32bit win7...

 

I don't have 7 x32 installed so unfortunately I can't give you a comparison. I would say this though: if most of your tasks are not too demanding and you are going to keep this machine for a few years, then I'd say install x64 simply because you can expand the RAM easily later, whereas if you installed x32 right now you'd have to do a fresh install should you need to utilize more than 3 GB of RAM in a year, let's say. It does depend on whether you are going to need any softwares that aren't compatible with x64 though, so make sure you do some research there. I don't know if x64 is necessarily supposed to run slower than x32 though... I think it's more designed to be the other way around. I'd say install x64 if you don't have any software incompatibilities, but just stick to 2 GB of RAM (1 DIMM) for now.

 

For what it's worth, I've had very few issues with compatibility or drivers running Windows 7 x64.

I have a program that works with security surveillance cameras that won't run. It's proprietary, and I'm not surprised --its installer is poorly engineered and requires a bunch of different runtime libraries to work.

That said, everything else I've worked with runs, from Adobe CS3 to VMWare console. Even Nero 6.6.15a, which Windows claims "There is a known compatibility issue with this program" (or some such error) runs fine, which I'm happy for, because IMO, every version of Nero from 7.x on has been crap, and I'm happy with the old, non-bloated version.

Oh, and Symantec Ghost Corporate 7.5 is a little odd, but it's an ancient version (which I use because its still helpful to work with some archaic systems with floppy drives). Floppy formatting doesn't work quite right in this one program, but I have a workaround for it.

 

As i am reading tech news this morning, there was a new article entitled "The Pros and Cons of 64-bit Windows 7" by Alex Castle in another website.

Here is the link. his perspective is on consumers side so this will be handy for those who cant decide. its a good article btw.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/should_you_upgrade_64bit_windows_7

 

Awesome ... thanks for the link.

 

After much help here, I decided to get a bit more ram and go to 64bit windows 7. I was surprised to find that even in 32bit vista, going from 3 to 4GB ram made everything much snappier. Very pleased. As my Vista was working well, I wondered about inevitable pain (for me) of changing OS. But could not resist and got a Win7 home upgrade (comes with both 32 and 64 bit OS's). Put 64 bit in. Did a clean install. After a few hours of tweaking, not entirely convinced, but it is very very quick. Essential to get a few of the Lenovo software. I have 32 and 64 bit versions of Firefox and Explorer to choose from, but using 64 bit versions of each 95% of the time. When ! want to see adobe flash, I use Chrome -manages flash really well, 32 bit of course.
Cannot get switchable graphics to work. Work in progress. Both gpu's fine. 64 bit fine, but not be any means as straight forward as 32 bit. For the general user I suggest staying with 32 bit...but I will stick to 64, I think. More tempted to go back to Vista! (smile)

 

The 4th GB of RAM ends up being used for kernel-mode device drivers, so it still goes to use in a 32-bit Windows environment.

The major difference (from 32-bit to 64-bit) is in how much RAM can be allocated to applications. 32-bit Windows can still address 4GB of RAM, it just can't allocate more than 2GB to any one application. 64-bit Windows does not have this problem.

 

I would stick with 64 bit Windows. Sooner or later, most computers will be upgraded to 64 bit.

 

There's one thing that I think people haven't touched on: Using a 64-bit OS will at least temporarily provide better protection (but probably not immunity) against older root-kits. That is, of course, until hackers start developing 64-bit malware...

 

I have gone with 64-bit Win-7. It is fine, mostly-but more work than 32-bit. No problems with peripherals (printer and scanner). Several of my main programs (not Microsoft Office-yet!-version 10 is expected in 64-bit version) are available in 64-bit, and of course the 64-bit versions perform especially well (ie.quick). I use the 64-bit versions of Internet Explorer, Firefox, Thunderbird and Synctoy; but also have 32-bit versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox on hand. It is some learning curve. For example, Firefox add-ons best added via 32-bit version, then appear on 64-bit version. Flash does not work on either version of IE or Firefox, but 32-bit Google Chrome works without modification with flash, and so I use it for that purpose. To stop flash nags in Firefox, I installed the "flashblock" addon via 32-bit version. All in all, a mixed experience. Very snappy (but then I haven't run 32-bit Win7 to compare). The Win7 upgrade comes with both 32 and 64 bit versions, but don't yet see need to try 32-bit. Users who do not want to deal with extra issues I would suggest use 32 bit (the lack of adobe flash is a major annoyance; and having 2 versions of the major browsers could be confusing at the worst, extra work at the least - but then I have not yet needed to run the 32-bit IE yet, and run the 32-bit Firefox only to install and uninstall add-ons).

Postcript: I still have major problems with many 32 bit programs not being anywhere as clear as 64-bit programs. They look as though they are running on a screen on much lower resolution. Very unpleasant. I am about to go back to Vista 32 bit and also try windows 32 bit. The usual OS-upgrade hell..Some improvements, some regresses...

 

When I order my TP with 2GB RAM, I'm still going to go with the 64-bit installed first and see. Since Windows 7 disk comes with both 32 and 64-bit versions there's always the option to downgrade.