will you use x86 or x64 this time around???

as the title states.. im curious and someone at intel asked me to get opinions as well they were also curious as to the whole people's opinion on 32 or 64 bit for some research they are doing..

 

I voted for x64 ,but I can't grantee it for sure. My judge will be passed on few benchmarks that I will do it for x32 and x64 , then I will judge which one will take its place over win2008

 

x64 all the way.

 

Did you mean motherboard or Processor architecture? I love 64bit since it can support both 32 and 64bit OS.

In my opinion, x86(32bit) OS is too ancient. I am using 32bit now. I am not too happy with it.
32bit OS is much more easier to get infected compared to 64bit OS.
In addition, 64bit OS can fully utilize all RAM installed in a PC.
While 32bit OS could only use 3-3.5GB of RAM.
I hope windows would release more 64bit software/drivers. It seems microsoft are increasing x64 softwares/drivers currently.

 

I do a ton of heavy duty stuff requiring lots of memory so 64-bit is the only choice for me. It's probably the choice many should make, if their existing hardware supports it from the get-go.

 

I have never had any problems with Vista 64-bit, so if I do get Windows 7, I will be using 64-bit as well.

 

I'm gonna go 64-bit this time and dump every program/software company that doesn't offer proper versions.
Although I like the RC very much, I'll only switch when buying new hardware.

It's a bit expensive to buy a full version, Vista doesn't run that bad at all and MS 'ows' me for NOT delivering anything for Ultimate.
Remember the Extra's, Redmond? Hello Redmond, anyone?

 

x86 OS can use more than 4 GB ram
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

 

World should move toward not fall backward.
32bit is too ancient as mentioned.
The current result shown 32bit architecture and OS might vanish soon. LOL.

 

32bit OS only can read 4GB of RAM. But it can't fully utilize them.
64bit OS can read more than 4GB of RAM which is much more superior.

 

now the question he asked me is if you *only* have 4gb of ram in total and not 8 or 16 like on a lot of newer desktop builds (i know most laptops will have 4gb of ram still *in most cases* which way will you go then?? still 64 bit?

 

10char10char

 

did you bother reading the wiki?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension -x86 OS still not a dead OS

 

Went 64-bit last year, NEVER going back.

 

I would go for 64bit.
My laptop is using 32bit OS now. I checked the RAM it is 4GB(shown in My Computer) but in real RAM which can be use is actually 3GB(Checked on dxdiag, Everest Ultimate edition and nvidia system tools).
This is for HOME PREMIUM x86.
As for BUSINESS or ULTIMATE x86, they can access up to 3.2GB or 3.5GB.

@FrX,
Check your dxdiag. See MEMORY. If you're using 4GB on a 32Bit version OS, it would be 3GB to 3.5GB of RAM. If you're on a 64bit version OS, it would be 4GB fully.

 

x64 FTW ... I don't even know why Microsoft is bothering with a 32bit release. I am never going back to 32bit!

 

Once you go x64, you never go back!

 

I will use 64-bit because that is what Vista currently is and so will my free upgrade disk.

 

has anyone notice 64 being a bit laggy at times compared to x86?? at times i notice this opening and closing things etc nothing extreme just a tiny bit more laggy than x86 was??

 

I voted 64 as I have a new machine arriving this week with 9GB RAM.

But the question should be; if someone has a machine that has 4GB RAM or less and all their hardware are 64bit capable/compatible, would there be any reason to use x86 over x64?

 

If my old Pentium 4 and Pentium M could process 64 bit instructions, I would load Seven x64 on them too.

 

No.

I'm getting the 64-bit version as well. According to the poll, it's 22 in favor of 64-bit, to zero for 32.

 

Yes, but it require a lot more system performance, and is EXTREMELY complicated to pogram that... it's just not worth doing it. Beside you don't get to use 64-bit CPU instructions and don't have the ability to run 64-bit programs.

 

what is 32bit? lol

 

It's the form of operating system that's been prevalent until recently, which can only address a maximum of 2 to the power of 32 bytes of memory, better known as 4GB. It's getting old, though, and being replaced by 64 bit.

 

I just upgraded to 64 bit win7 yesterday and my performance has greatly increased, i only wished that I went to 64 bit sooner. Even my 32 bit programs work fast on 64 bit.

 

What is this hole 32-bit and 64-bit non sense? Well it has a sense. It's quiet simple. You see an Operating system (O.S) is not a "program" like you run on your system (ok, well it has, such as Notepad, Paint, etc... and even the User Interface... but I mean bellow this level... the level that the end user can't see). An O.S is responsible for coordinating all it's individual components (ie: hardware) so that they can work together according to a plan. In other words, it manages your hardware of your computer with the help of drivers and internally supported devices (such as your CPU, that is why your CPU does not need drivers).

Your CPU does pretty much one main task. It processes instructions. Instructions is formed of something that is called a word. These words are constituted of binary digits (1 and 0). On a 32-bit CPU, the processor can only read 32-bit long words. On a 64-bit processor it reads 64-bit long words.

So,
10101111010010101010101011110001 is a 32-bit word
1010111101001010101010101111000110101111010010101010101011110001 is a 64-bit word (2 times longer, then the previous one)

When you use a 32-bit operating system you lock down the processor looks like this:
[X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]

The [ ] represent the location where a digit can be inserted of the word received.
The [X] represent the location that your CPU locked down because your Operating System is 32-bit and not 64-bit.

When you use a 64-bit operating system all locations are enabled. When you run a 32-bit application under a 64-bit processor, replace the [X] that you see above with 0's, that is why you have no compatibility problems.

Now, 64-bit processors is more then that, it has new operation codes to be able to execute new commends that a software can use to be more efficient (use less instructions to do the same thing).

Now this is all explained in a basic level. In reality, although it's impossible to see based on my description, but 32-bit applications benefits from a 64-bit operating system and CPU environment, where they can present an increase in performance. Now, i am not talking something big.. very small and it all depends on the program, but anything helps, well helps.

 

AHA! And when I talk about this, I am being butchered here that I don't know anything, and spreading FUD.

 

No other way around it. x64 it is for me. It's been that way since last year, even with my Linux setup.

It's only a matter of time before it becomes mainstream. Why be held back? Better be future-proof.

 

What are you talking about? That was kinda random.

 

it was a joke
no need for elaboration

 

In this forum, when I talk on about advantages of 64-bit, which I name the one you faced where 32-bit run a bit faster, I am being attacked by everyone that I lie, despite showing valid articles and benchmarks.

 

Oh, i was just saying 32 bit apps are faster in 64bit just facts.

 

not always my old Asus G1sn ran better on 32bit than x64. idk why. but htats the way it was.

 

I am making the move to 64-bit with Windows 7.

 

Smart move but also get 4+gbs of ram.

 

x64 all the way. I have no storage space issues, and for most of my machines, have 4GB RAM already.

Since I have been using x64 since Vista SP2, I've been pretty darn happy.

 

Alright, who's the wiseguy that voted x86?

 

64bit because thats what i've been using ever since i bought vista. mainly for the larger memory support plus i find encoding videos to be a little faster when using 64 bit vs. 32 bit os's.

 

Probably using 64-bit computing environment is too fast for him. lol!

 

They probably only have 128mb ram and .600ghz cpu so theres no speed benefit for his obsolete system that runs win7 slowly with extreme lag. Also he has to turn off all visual effects to so that win7 will look like 98

 

LOL! Nice one nightmear!
Now, 2 x86 vote, ah the ignorance of people, sad, just sad.

 

64-bit... <3 Vista 64-bit already, and see no reason I'd ever want to go back.

 

I actually ran into someone who wanted to get Win7 64-bit, but it turned out his iMac didn't have a 64-bit Core Duo :-(

 

I don't think the original "Core Duo" chips support 64-bit. But they probably also only support 2GB RAM anyhow, so not really a necessity.

 

x64 all the way for me. I can't wait to have Win7 x64 on my notebook and future desktop.

 

Hm, Am I only the second one who is sticking with 32 bit? I use some old weird programs and don't want any problems with them. Also, I have an old printer for my desktop. I don't think there's 64 bit drivers for Hp laserjet 1000

 

Those votes for x86 had better be people without 64 bit capable CPUs.

CPU does not restrict RAM support. You can get a Core Duo paired with a chipset that supports 4GB of RAM, and thus with 4GB of RAM.

 

x64.. my laptop comes with 6gb of ram stock, using x86 would be like chopping off your left testicle, you would still operate but only at half your potential and people would laugh at you.

 

1 GB VRAM and 4 GB RAM ... x86 just doesn't cut it.