SOLVED Should I install Windows 7 64-bit?

[fab]

I'm about to move from XP pro to 7. Haven't figured out which edition yet and whether to move to 64 bit version.

My system will support 64 bits. I have 4 GB memory.
Does anyone know of any reason NOT to go to the 64 bit version of Windows 7? I don't run any 16 bit apps. I do have some very important 32 bit apps that I use a lot.

What I don't want to have to do is to reinstall the OS again after more 64 bit apps become available. Nor, on the other hand, do I want to move to the 64 bit OS if there are good reasons not to do so at this time.

My usage profile:
I occasionally do some CAD, but rarely. I do a lot of power point and MS ACCESS database work, some modeling and simulation, some Matlab computational analyses, and a lot of on-line real time securities trading with voluminous, real time data feeds. Currently, though, the trading platform is still a 32 bit app. I haven't been one to watch movies on my computer, but as most people are apt to do, I do watch more and more video clips.

 

[roban]

The best reason is memory management. I moved from 32bit to 64bit and have had only very minor issues with software and the system speed and reliability makes it well worth the move. It's a good move IMHO. I'll never go back to 32bit.

 

[Nibiru2012]

Yes, most definitely do go to the Windows 7 64 bit. Here are some good reason to do it:

Advantages of 64-bit

There are several benefits of going to Windows 7 64-bit:

• With 32-bit Windows, you can use a maximum of 4GB RAM. 64-bit Windows 7 runs very fast with 4GB and you can upgrade your RAM to 8 or 16 GB later, making your system future-proof.
• A 32-bit OS can theoretically use up to 4 GB of RAM, but 32-bit versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7 see a maximum of 3.12 GB. With 64-bit Windows 7, you can use the full 4GB RAM.
• You get better security with 64-bit Windows. All 64-bit device drivers are digitally signed, which means you will not have random crashes. You also get more advanced security features like Kernel Patch Protection with 64-bit Windows 7.
• Since 64-bit systems process more information and support greater RAM, Windows 7 is more responsive when you are running complex applications or many applications simultaneously. If you use graphics applications like Photoshop, video editing, games, CAD, etc., you should go 64-bit.
• Not all applications have 64-bit versions that take advantage of the 64-bit architecture, but you can expect more of them after Windows 7 goes mainstream. Meanwhile, most 32-bit applications work fine under 64-bit Windows. If any of them don’t for some reason, you can reasonably expect the application developers to fix any issues, because a lot of people will be running 64-bit Windows.

 

[Tathra]

Being an early adopter has it's good and bad points. There certainly is some compelling reasons to go 64 that will make a difference in various commercial and medical areas, but for general pc use? Anyone believe they can notice a 20% speed increase in something that is already happening at 1/10000th of a sec? Lol. Lol.

Software, hardware and driver comparability still has a fair way to go. As for "future proofing", hardly anyone keeps a PC for more than 5yrs anyway, so that's a mute point. I'm onto my 3rd. pc build since 2003 and all of them have had various ram and video card upgrades. I don't have 64 bit W7 (next build probably), but I don't have the 64 bit issues either and there are plenty of them around for the unwary!

I still have to have a duel boot xp-w7 because I can't get w7 drivers for my printer or scanner (both only a few yrs. old), so I'm happy not to have the 64 bit issues as well. Takes awhile for hardware and software developers to catch up. The same thing happened when XP first came out. Personally, I'd rather cruise into 64 in a few yrs., as for the moment I can see no practical advantages that would improve my pc experience at this time.

There are plenty of ways to improve a pc's smoothness and response times and none of them have anything to do with 32 or 64 bit. Many things that happen in our pc are already deliberately slowed down in our OS reg. settings so that visual processes happen at a humanly comfortable speed.

 

[TorrentG]

Tathra, in your printer driver thread, we gave you a link to the proper driver needed.

 

[Tathra]

Thanks for the effort TorrentG

I was hopeful!
No luck I'm afraid as it's not a driver, it's a driver 'add-on'.

 

[Nibiru2012]

Read the other post I left for you in the "Drivers" thread, there IS drivers available as per Canon's Windows 7 compatibility section.

 

[Kalario]

64 bit is my vote

 

[Nibiru2012]

Windows 7 64 bit is here and now. It is the latest and 32 bit systems are falling by the wayside very fast. Intel and AMD don't even make 32 bit CPUs anymore except for those little netbook things.

In the not too distant future, look for 128 bit operating systems to arrive on the scene.

 

[catilley1092]

I certainly hope that most of the 32 bit systems are gone by then. Can you see the mess we would have? There will be those who will say "Should I buy this old 32 bit for $25, go 64 bit, or hang it all out and go with 128 bit?" I mean really, just a couple of years ago, there were many 32 bit notebooks & PC's on the market, and if you look hard enough, you can still find a new one. But most likely it will have Vista on it, I saw another Toughbook last week, and they wanted $3,200 for it. I'm not giving $3,200 for a 32 bit anything, much less with Vista on it. No wonder I still run into that particular notebook for sale.

But 128 bit in the near future? Nah, I think MS will let XP pass away before doing that. And while 64 bit is the present now, and no longer the future, we cannot even fully use what we have now, it will still take time. While our 64 bit computers runs fine, much of what we're running is 32 bit software. 64 bit computing isn't new by any means, XP has one (a 64 bit version), and it has the choice between 32 & 64 bit IE. Where has the developers been all of these years, sitting in the parking lot smoking weed? In fact, 64 bit goes back to at least 2003, as I was recently loading a Win 2K system, and noticed 64 bit files going by, while the initial files were loading prior to installing.

But as far as what to install today, 64 bit is fine. True, there's many 32 bit apps left, but that simply means that what we have has lots of room to grow. That's why it's good to install at least 4GB of RAM, many will run on 2GB (mine did), but 4GB is faster. And down the road, it may become necessary to have at least 3 to 4GB. In fact, 4GB is considered to be the "sweet spot" for most users, more is a waste of money, that could go towards upgrading other things.

Last year, I bought my first ever 64 bit computer, and haven't regretted it a bit. I recommend the same for everyone else whose system can run it.

Cat

 

[Nibiru2012]

Where has the developers been all of these years, sitting in the parking lot smoking weed?

What else do you think they do on their coffee breaks at Redmond, WA?

When I mean the "not too distant future" I was thinking in computing terms, not human terms. It probably won't arrive until after XP goes to that great OS in the sky, and I'm not talking about cloud computing.


From Softpedia 10-8-2009

128-bit Windows 8 and Windows 9 Explored by Microsoft

Still, 128-bit computing is still in the distance

Forget 64-bit, Microsoft has already been exploring 128-bit support scenarios for future releases of Windows. Of course, with Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 wrapped up since July 22nd, 2009, the official release to manufacturing date, the 128-bit wave will not affect the successors of Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008. Fact is that, with the mulling of 128-bit support for Windows, Microsoft is already looking as far ahead as Windows 8, the successor of Windows 7, and even Windows 9, which means that the Redmond company has put together at least general development directions for the next generation of Windows platforms well into the next decade.

This because Windows 8 is not expected ahead of 2011, with Windows 9 following it in 2014, in the most optimistic scenario possible. Still, Robert Morgan, Senior Research & Development at Microsoft, is already testing Windows 8 and Windows 8 128-bit support, according to his LinkedIn profile (via ArsTechnica). The profile in question has been taken down, but thanks to Google cache, users can still access it and read information about the 128-bit work done at Microsoft for Windows 8 and Windows 9 right from the source.

Here is what Morgan revealed: “Working in high security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and longterm projects. Research & Development projects including 128bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP, and IBM.

Robert Morgan is working to get IA-128 working backwards with full binary compatibility on the existing IA-64 instructions in the hardware simulation to work for Windows 8 and definitely Windows 9.”

Like it or not, one of the successes that can be inherently associated with Windows Vista is that the OS tilted the balance between 32-bit and 64-bit when it comes down to Windows clients. It was Vista that ushered in the 64-bit era, and it will be the successors of Windows 7 that will make the jump to 128-bit.

Only time will tell if Windows 8 will come in 128-bit flavors. For the time being, Windows 7 is still anchored in the past, and just as Windows Vista, features its editions both in 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64). If Microsoft continues to deliver Windows operating systems at the pace of one each three years, users can expect Windows 8 in 2011 or 2012. And while the Redmond company is bound to cut 32-bit support in the future for the Windows client, just as it did server-side with Windows Server 2008 R2, it has yet to be confirmed officially that Windows 8 or Windows 9 will play nice with 128-bit processors (CPUs).

NOTE: Blue Bold emphasis added by Nibs.

 

[Elmer BeFuddled]

64.
It's nice to have a PC with a higher number than your age (I'm ferked in 12 years time!!).