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

[DOA]

I suggest what the Mac did going to OSX. They made OS9 run in a window. And they made dam sure the application developers did a bang up job with their OSX upgrades. People flocked to OSX because it was truly better, not in theory but in practice. Programs ran faster, OS ran faster, etc.

Perhaps Win7 as a virtual machine under Win8? Then support the application writers like mad to ensure no one ever wanted to run Win7 again. Microsoft has the $$ and know how. I hope they do it.

I found
http://www.pcworld.com/article/181165/windows_7_64bit_users_living_in_a_32bit_world.html
an interesting and informative read. I even forgave his ignorance that a 32 bit OS can address much more than 4GB of RAM because he got the rest pretty well.

 

[clifford_cooley]

I even forgave his ignorance that a 32 bit OS can address much more than 4GB of RAM.

No where in the article do they say that.

The difference between 32- and 64-bit systems basically comes down to this: 64-bit systems can handle more RAM and more data.
A 64-bit system can handle more than 4GB of memory (the maximum for 32-bit)

 

[DOA]

I am not sure what you are saying.
He seems to be saying 4GB of memory is the maximum for 32 bit.
That is not true. Therefore I say he is ignorant of the facts. If you have been following the links you will see plenty of 32 bit OS's (servers by Microsoft are a few) that address more than 4 GB. Or am I missing your point?

Win200 Datacenter is 32 bit and can address 32 GB of RAM. The Mac Kernal is still 32 bit and addresses a ton more than 4 GB RAM.

 

[clifford_cooley]

I'm saying if you address more than 4GB memory, you are using more than 32 bits. I'm not going to mention any of the ways that have been created to exceed the 32 bit barrier. After all we are talking about Windows 7 and the max for 32 bit is 4GB. Lets not talk about ways to enhance our 32 bit system to 36 bit capability if we have hardware to support it.

 

[catilley1092]

I don't know about these business servers, but I've never seen a home computer or laptop that is 32 bit with 4GB RAM even reaching that limit. Around 3GB was tops that I seen, and that was with running several open programs. This laptop that I'm on right now has only 2GB, and it's not straining itself. For a computer to run over 4GB RAM, you have to have a 64 bit processor. I haven't seen any documentation that suggests otherwise. If it were true that we could access more than 4GB RAM with a 32 bit computer, no one would upgrade to 64 bit. There would be no reason to, for the majority of us.

 

[Thrax]

None of Microsoft's residential 32-bit OSes can access more than ~3.2GB of memory. Microsoft hard-coded this limitation via MMIO memory reservations because many applications are poorly-written and automatically place their memory footprint inside the first 3GB of addressing space. These applications will crash if attempting to place or load their information outside of that boundary, and could compromise the overall stability of the system.

That is why, for the sake of broader stability, Microsoft chose to cap physical memory at 4GB for home OSes. There is no other reason.

 

[catilley1092]

Thank you Thrax, for your response on this issue. I hope that it proves the point to anyone who thinks that they can get over 4GB support on a home computer running 32 bit. The reasons you stated are valid without any doubts. If you need or want to use 4 or more GB's of RAM, you need to move forward with a 64 bit computer to do so. Or rebuild one with the proper parts, if you have the money and knowledge to do so.

 

[DOA]

Good points all. The things to take away are:
1) 32 bit OS's can easily address more than 4GB, if you have not followed my links, do so now to see some reasons 64 bit computing has not been needed. Windows 7 will not address more than 4 GB memory in its 32 bit version and that is our subject here, the other OS's are mentioned for comparison.
2) The stability of a 32 bit OS addressing more than 4GB memory can be compromised by sloppy programming although Microsoft and Apple have been successful since 2000 with their 32 bit OS's addressing up to 64 GB RAM. This is also a problem for 32 bit programs running under 64 bit OS's.
3) There is a ton of ignorance on this subject. Much of it caused by poor articles by "experts", which I am not.

 

[beamish]

http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=190&Itemid=116

Has a short list of native 64bit games and a write up concerning 64bit operating systems.

 

[DOA]

http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=190&Itemid=116

Has a short list of native 64bit games and a write up concerning 64bit operating systems.

Good post, note that it was made in 2006. Not much has changed since then. I doubt any of us here are running systems incapable of 64 bit Win7; the question is should we. http://www.lockergnome.com/windows/2009/01/07/32-bit-vs-64-bit-windows/ is still good advice - Windows 32 bit is often the better choice. The Mac on the other hand is a hands down win for its 64 bit OS. Being a closed system Apple went 64 bit years ago and told the 32 bit developers to get with it. Microsoft will not do that. http://www.viddler.com/explore/GeekOfComedy/videos/6/ shows how much faster the Mac 64 bit OS is than its 32 bit equivalent. Win7 32 vs 64 does not show that improvement. I believe that is due to its extensive use/support of 32 bit drivers.

 

[catilley1092]

Good post, note that it was made in 2006. Not much has changed since then. I doubt any of us here are running systems incapable of 64 bit Win7; the question is should we. http://www.lockergnome.com/windows/2009/01/07/32-bit-vs-64-bit-windows/ is still good advice - Windows 32 bit is often the better choice. The Mac on the other hand is a hands down win for its 64 bit OS. Being a closed system Apple went 64 bit years ago and told the 32 bit developers to get with it. Microsoft will not do that. http://www.viddler.com/explore/GeekOfComedy/videos/6/ shows how much faster the Mac 64 bit OS is than its 32 bit equivalent. Win7 32 vs 64 does not show that improvement. I believe that is due to its extensive use/support of 32 bit drivers.

I do have to agree with you on that one, DOA. It's time that Microsoft tells the major developers of Windows compatible software to get in tune with the times and develop software that IS 64 bit software, not 64 bit compatible. We have a 64 bit IE, but the lack of 64 bit flash limits the use of it. As I understood the article on IE9, once the final product rolls out, it will be fully ready to run. Surely, I hope that it's not backwards compatible, that's the problem with where we are at now, in regards to 64 bit. We cannot move forward by embracing the past, that's the way life is, and that's the way Microsoft must become.

 

[clifford_cooley]

Being a closed system Apple went 64 bit years ago and told the 32 bit developers to get with it. Microsoft will not do that.

Microsoft needs to make us WANT to upgrade, not force us.

There seems to be a contrast in statements here. :/

 

[DOA]

There seems to be a contrast in statements here. :/

I see your point, let me clarify. Apple forced the developers to make a better system for the users. This caused less income from developers and more cost to users. Microsoft allows developers to make whatever they please as long as they pay for the right to do so. The competition makes for lower initial cost to users with a higher cost in other areas. Classic open and closed system philosophy. Assuming you are up to date on your platforms, take a look at ctrl alt del / task manager / processes You probably have five or six 32 bit apps running. Many of the services are 64 bit compatible, not 64 bit optimized, which is why we don't see much desktop difference. Move to your Mac and command line locate -0 app/Contents/MacOS/ | xargs -0 file | grep x86_64 But we are talking Windows 7 here and I say "make me want to change". Make it faster, easier, less expensive in time or money. Preferably both. Most of us have good XP systems we are replacing. Few of us are getting real benefits in increased speed or less time spent managing the OS. Time spent on the OS is a dead loss, applications are where we play and make our money. Apple forced the developers, Microsoft forces the users. Wonder why this place eliminates my formatting...

 

[Thrax]

The 64-bit debate will be a moot point in about 2 years, as Windows 8 will be strictly 64-bit. I predict that hardware virtualization of Windows XP and/or Vista will actually become an option in the compatibility tab of any executable on the system, rather than a separate download a la Windows XP Mode.

This is the easiest way to cut all ties with 32-bit without sabotaging Microsoft's unfortunate and storied library of 32-bit software.

 

[Nibiru2012]

Excellent statement!

 

[DOA]

The 64-bit debate will be a moot point in about 2 years, as Windows 8 will be strictly 64-bit. I predict that hardware virtualization of Windows XP and/or Vista will actually become an option in the compatibility tab of any executable on the system, rather than a separate download a la Windows XP Mode.

This is the easiest way to cut all ties with 32-bit without sabotaging Microsoft's unfortunate and storied library of 32-bit software.

Hopefully Microsoft will learn from Apple's mistakes making the transition.
Carbon is a pretty good 32 bit API so people are still writing 32 bit apps. Making the 32 bit run virtual should assure it to be slower but the 32 apps are fast enough. I am not sure what the answer is here other than making a fully optimized 64 bit OS that runs circles around the 32 bit stuff and improving the 64 bit API. If 64 bit API's are faster, easier to develop and do not cost more there will be no 32 bit apps written. If the 64 bit API's require an investment in time and money with no benefit we will continue to see 32 bit apps.

 

[catilley1092]

DOA, I'm starting to see your point here. Not that I'm complaining about what I have here in Windows 7 64 bit. But you are right, it's high time the executives of Microsoft slams their fists on the table to the developers of Windows software. And be running genuine 64 bit software, not 64 bit compatible. Apple has done it, and so have some Linux OS's, too. But one question here is cost. A lot of us already has 64 bit Windows 7, we'll just have to update our software by downloading 64 bit software. But what about Windows 8? How much more are the customers willing to pay? Unless the economy improves drastically in the next two years, an OS with another $100 to $200 price tag will be a hard sell, especially considering the ones who has Windows 7 and are satisfied. This OS definitely has the chance to live as long as XP has. You have an excellent point here, but it's a matter of who's going to pick up the tab. You can bet one thing, the OEM's will load more crapware than ever to help cover this.

 

[DOA]

I could not agree more Cat.
We will, as always, pick up the tab. I would like to pay for what I really want rather than pay for what just works.

 

[Thrax]

Wouldn't it be great if we could all live in a fantasy land where Microsoft could simply abandon the last 15 years of 32-bit software, throw the 64-bit switch and leave hundreds of businesses--their biggest revenue source--in the cold?

Yeah, that'd be great.

 

[catilley1092]

I never suggested leaving anyone in the cold, Microsoft certainly should uphold their word and support XP SP3 through whatever date in 2014, and Vista along with it. There's plenty of 32 bit Windows 7 OS's on the market, too. But if we, the home users who pays full price can afford it, businesses who elgible for a volume discount can afford it, too. As you proved your self, installing 32 bit Windows 7 on an older laptop can go well, if you know what you're doing. Many of these companies have large IT departments who should be up to upgrading the software and hardware on their computers to run Windows 7. Too, with all of the businesses who have gone bankrupt, there's billions of dollars of computer inventory to be had at rock bottom prices, if bought in quantities. You can go online yourself and find such inventories. They have at least four years to prepare for the fall of XP. How much time do they need? Ten more years? Four years is plenty of time to address their future needs. They are going to have to do the same as we do, make tough decisions regarding their priorities. And start addressing them now, not three months before the support of XP ends. And even when the support ends, if their systems are in good enough shape, they can still run XP for another two years or so. If there are businesses who can't move forward by then, perhaps it's time they considered another line of business to get into.