Choosing 32Bit vs 64Bit Please Read before asking.

Could be badly programmed drivers - although they are getting better I believe 32Bit support is still a bit better.

 

recently I changed to x64. I installed xp pro x64 and found out windows live messenger was not compatible (even in the released notes says it). Turned out only the installer was incompatible. The app works great without probs. The same happens to other programs

 

I never had trouble installing any of the apps... Did ou update your x64?

 

i really like this post , it answered all my questions .

 

The 64-bit version of XP was kind of a joke. Vista's 64-bit support is indescribably better.

 

I bought GTAIV a couple of weeks ago, and just today noticed that the back case reads "optimized for x64"... would I see a real, perceptible improve in performance switching to x64?

right now I am on x32 anf 4GB RAM (3-3,5 actually, I know...)

 

Good question.

First of all: The question is what is bottlenecking your game - the next - what do they mean with "optimized for 64Bit".

I have read that the game is suffering from bad coding - if it doe, working it out quicker on 64Bit may speed it up - or may not if its 32Bit code

If the optimizaion is actual 64Bit code - and its not a hardware limitation then yes, you'd see a performance increase.

If the optimization refers to a point that isn't a problem on 32Bit then 64Bit won't change it.

You could try the links at the bottom of my initial post - some of those pages may contain more information on 64Bit gaming.

(And I'd need to update and expand my post as well - just with hose sowdowns there is no chance of me doing this...)

 

All this Optimized, New and Improved etc. It's all marketing. You know for sure when it says Optimized for 64 only one thing - it's gonna run on it. That's good enough for me.

 

Maximum PC did a piece on gaming with 32 bit vs 64 bit and there was no perceptable difference accept one game (sorry I don't remember which one) and the difference even in that game was minimal.

 

I'm running Home Premium 64 on a recently purchased Toshiba laptop and I find the OS very snappy more so than with Vista 32.

 

Since I gone to Vista 64bit, I cringe when I use any 32bit OS.

Too slow! ARGH!

 

Due to server lag I can only answer now...

This statement isn't 100% true - it depends how the company defines "optimized for 64Bit".

If you run Photoshop 64Bit vs. 32Bit - doing slightly heavier tasks, not drawing a 1 pixel line on a 10*10 square - then you will definitely see an improvement - reason: its 64Bit code.

It is also true that a lot of software hasn't yet got a 64Bit core - so what they may do is, say, optimize driver usage - but not much else.

 

Windows 7 will be the last version of windows to include 32 bit and 64 bit versions. After Windows 7 Microsoft will only supply 64 bit versions of all future Windows versions beyond Windows 7 incase anyone was wondering. The OP stated he didn't know in the first post when 32 bit would be phased out. According to MS Win 7 is the end of the road for 32 bit.

 

Thanks - any sources I can check?

(Before making amends)

 

About ... damn ... time ... !

 

Not really - I start dreading the future... - I may still be on the same mobile in 4 years time (unless it dies)... periphals, especially older ones and 64Bit drivers....

Anyway, laststop311 have you got a link?

 

That makes a lot of sense given that they appear to be moving toward virtualization for legacy support - what's the point of hard-coding 16-bit support into the poor OS itself when a nice little virtual machine running on pure 64-bit OS would do just as well (if not better).

 

good point shyster, as usual.

but I'm still equating 64bit to a marketing scheme in conjunction with a trial and error introduction method.

more than 50% of those who "prefer" 64 bit are just equating the old bigger is better mentality. a smaller group actually runs cs4 and some other software that stomps out a firm lead over 32. just look at the pc demographic. the primary example of 64 bit dominance is CS4, which is still primarily Mac country, no? As you said yourself, support is still better in 32 bit, and it has to be when the majority are still using 32 bit. xp 64 bit was a real geek move, and complete waste of my time. vista at least handled 64 better, but it was still fundamentally and unquestionably harder to get support for drivers/apps. w7 seems to be better in this regard, as i don't see that much of a difference in sheer functionality and plain old simplicity in the install, vs 32 bit, and we are only into the 2nd release cantidate, with months to go before showtime.

i am still primarily working with audio, so 32 bit is still the rule, but i see that changing soon.

GREAT INFORMATIVE THREAD - i shall link to it frequently.

 

Obviously, from the user's point of view, you go with what you need - in your case, for example, you still depend on 32-bit - unfortunately, from the OS developer's point of view, the fact that there are diverse users with diverse needs (including some enterprise users who still run 16-bit antiques) presents a bit of a quandry, and is a significant reason why the WinOS family has tended to behave a bit like muzak - attempting to satisfy everyone, and thereby not truly satisfying anyone - in order to keep enterprise users happy, in particular, MS has continued to hardcode 16-bit support into its OSes, and has had to blunt some of the finer aspects of each next-gen OS (first with the 32-bit OSes, and now with the 64-bit OSes). That situation is further aggravated by the tendency of peripheral and component manufacturers to also design to the platform used by the majority of their user-base (an understandable phenomenon) and to do so in a hard-coded rather than a virtualized manner. Thus, there has been less than enthusiastic development of 64-bit drivers and whatnot in some quarters because the majority of the users who frequent those quarters don't use 64-bit OSes (such as yourself).

Shifting to virtualized legacy support instead of continuing to hardcode that support in the OS should be a substantial improvement, for two reasons. First, it should mean that users who want the latest should not have to suffer with an OS that's been partially gelded in order to accomodate the necessary legacy support in the OS's code, and second, it should mean that users such as yourself can get even better legacy support than is currently available because the virtual environment should free the legacy emulation up from things such as hardware limitations, allowing the emulator to fully emulate all necessary aspects of the legacy system being supported, and not just the smallest set of capabilities needed to provide minimally adequate performance.

 

Despite all the advantages (and some disadvantages) of 64-bit over 32-bit, the biggest driver behind needing 64-bit will be for addressing more memory. RAM is cheap, and OS's and other apps are quickly taking advantage of that fact. 4GB over the next few years will most likely be minimum spec for most mid end PCs. Then most likely triple triple channel RAM (Core i7) will drive 6 or 12GB machines in the higher end market. Most CPU's (except netbook Atom N270) already support 64-bit.

Of course if they can come up with a good way to manage more memory in 32-bit, that'd be good. But since 64-bit already addresses that, I'm sure they won't bother.

 

Unless you have old devices without signed 64 bit drivers for vista or highly specialized equipment with the same problem.

Most people can make the jump to 64 bit Vista/7 without any regrets that they wouldnt have with Vista and 7 already. I havent run into any of my 32 bit software or devices or games that wouldnt work just fine on Vista x64 but heard some games have issues in 7 at the moment.

Old printers are a complaint of some people lol. Seen an older all in one hp printer with vista drivers from HP that doesnt work too will with 32 bit vista, and its not vista. HP refuses to write a proper driver as their not making money off it. If replacing your printer or any other devices look for the certified for vista logo most have it too.

 

Ok I own acer aspire 6930g which has exactly 4GB of ram, does that mean 32Bit is better for me and I can't use 64Bit?? Or Should I just install 64Bit and It'd be better?

 

I need to update my guide.
Genrally you can say foryour average user on 4GB 64Bit won't bring much of a benefit - but the more data you process the better you'd be off with 64Bit.

4GB is pretty much th tipping point, as its also the limit for 32Bit address space (resulting in roughly 3-3,5GB of RAM available).

If its Win7 you may try 64Bit - Microsoft is phasing (or aiming to phase) out 32Bit support after Windows 7 - so its more legacy support.
Manufacturers have now turned to offering 64Bit OSes as standard on new computers.

So unless you have old periphals go with 64Bit.
Old periphals - expect updates for business products - but older consumer products may be out of luck here.

 

Thanks a lot mate!! U made it very clear now, Actually I'm using win XP 32Bit currently, never used 64Bit version of anything and want to upgrade to win 7. Im actually kinda gaming guy all I do with my laptop is play games and some photoshopping that's all and that's why I was asking for your opinion!! So if there's anything else I should know about please do tell me

 

Photoshopping? That can benefit from 64Bit (CS4 onwards)

The only thing that may be important to you is periphals like mobiles,mouses.
Maybe internal cameras if you have an older laptop.

Research your peripahsl frst just to make sure.

 

Umm....sorry but I really didn't get what u mean by periphals. mobile, mouses etc but if u mean if the drivers for those periphals are available then yes all drivers are available for Win7 64Bit on Acer's site and I don't think Acer Aspire 6930G is old (depends on how old u mean by older laptop lol)

 

I think "old" s v ery realtive when it comes to laptops... Sony won't support Win7 on the SZ... only after a little while conceded support for older Zs (new ones come with Win7!!!) and won't support 64Bit on any laptops that aren't sol d on it...
(even if its say 6 months old)

If y ou found all the drivers on Acer's websi te then you are good to go

(and yes, I mean driver support for periphal devices lik e mouses mobiles etc.)

 

All clear now

Thank you once again

 

Like 12 for X64 and 8 for X86.

 

One thing I have noticed. I have a Gateway LT3103-u netbook for my daughter with 2GB Ram. I was running Win7 RC 64 bit and the base memory footprint was like 700MB now the base footprint with Win7 HP 32bit is like 400 MB. This system is also single stick so it is not dual channel enabled. For this reason it seems to be a bit snappier also with the 32bit. Again though this is just my observations, I have not done any benchmarks or tests, so YMMV..........

 

Here's a direct quote from the Windows 7 Administrator's Pocket Consultant, 2010 Edition (published by Microsoft Press):
"In most cases, 64-bit hardware is compatible with 32-bit applications; however, 32-bit applications perform better on 32-bit hardware. Windows 64-bit editions support both 64-bit and 32-bit applications using the Windows on Windows 64 (WOW64) x86 emulation layer. The WOW64 subsystem isolates 32-bit applications from 64-bit applications. This prevents fi le system and registry problems. The operating system provides interoperability across the 32-bit/64-bit boundary for the Component Object Model (COM) and for basic operations such as cutting, copying, and pasting using the Clipboard. However, 32-bit processes cannot load 64-bit dynamic-link libraries (DLLs), and 64-bit processes cannot load 32-bit DLLs."

The statement that I've bolded above is confusing to me because it shouldn't matter whether your hardware is 32-bit or 64-bit if you're running the 32-bit version of the OS. They may have been referring to Itanium hardware, since it is designed more exclusively for 64-bit OS and apps.

Although my little netbook (Atom N450) is 64-bit capable, it runs more slowly with 64-bit Windows 7 installed. This is probably because this machine is limited to 2GB of RAM. The recommendation is a minimum of 1GB for 32-bit and a minimum of 2GB for 64-bit. I was left with much less shared graphics memory on 64-bit Win 7. After reverting to 32-bit, I noticed everything was running faster and the graphics memory allotted was much higher.

Unless you have at least 3GB of RAM, you will not see any performance improvement and will likely see a performance degradation when using 64-bit. From what I've seen, all the new laptops being sold with 64-bit versions of Windows 7 have at least 3GB of RAM and most have 4GB. A few of the more expensive ones have 6 or 8GB.

From what I've read on this issue, you won't benefit much from going to 64-bit unless you have LOTS of RAM and run memory-intensive apps like huge databases or graphics programs while loading very large files.

If, like me, your computing needs are modest, you're not a big gamer, and you mostly use your computer for web-browsing, email, word processing and other uses that are not memory hogs, you're better off sticking to 32-bit for now to avoid driver issues and slower performance on machines with 3GB or less.

 

Should I switch from my 32-bit vista to 64-bit one?
Mind you, I have legit Vista ofcourse, so switching to 64-bit will be no problem with legit serial, and since I want full Microsoft support I don't want "torrent edition" of Win 7 or pay for a new system, when I already have one.
My lappy has 4 GB of ram and currently my Vista can addres only 3 GB out of it.
I do sometimes heavier gaming on this laptop too (Mass Effect 2, Modern Warfare 2) - would 64-bit evoirement Vista help me get more fps ? Or this would be a complete waste of time? Asus has official drivers for 64-bit vista on it's site, so I would not have any driver issues - I'm just concerned about the performance I would get - even a mere 5 % boost would convince me a bit towards 64-bit Vista.
Sorry for beginner question

 

If your games are 32Bit then stick with 32Bit - you will only gain if you have a 64Bit app.

Add to that the hassle of a reinstall...

On what you said I'd suggest you wait with a 64Bit change until:
a) you reinstall your OS anyway
b) you buy a new computer

 

Quick and clear
Thx for answer