[Windows 7] Benefit of 64-bit vs 32-bit (?)

I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
or 32-bit.

My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
(2TB) hard drive.

I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
Windows user.

-- 
Any thoughts appreciated.
tbl
0
tbl
8/22/2010 9:02:13 PM
📁 grc.techtalk
📃 27358 articles.
⭐ 0 followers.

💬 46 Replies
👁️‍🗨️ 293 Views

On 8/22/2010 5:02 PM, tbl wrote:
> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
> or 32-bit.
>
> My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
> mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
> (2TB) hard drive.
>
> I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
> Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
> Windows user.
>

64 bit will allow the machine to have more then 3.x Gb usable RAM. Thats 
what I am using on this computer which is running Win 7 ultimate and has 
8 Gb RAM installed. The main deal breaker is if you have a device you 
would like to use that doesn't have 64 bit signed drivers.
0
user701
8/22/2010 9:20:20 PM
tbl wrote:
> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
> or 32-bit.
> 
> My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
> mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
> (2TB) hard drive.
> 
> I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
> Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
> Windows user.
> 

Personally I've seen no reason for any typical user to need to go to 64 
bit.  It's all industry hype IMHO.  Unfortunately, the world has bought 
the hype.

There are some (very minor corner cases) problems with 64 bit, because 
it's really a hybrid of 64 and 32 bit stuff and in some cases the two 
susbsystems don't talk to each other.  This same sort of stuff has 
happened previously when Microsoft went from 16 bit to 32 bit.  Related 
is that 16 bit software (really old games, really old specialized text 
editors, and maybe some really old installers) cannot run on the 64 bit 
installs.

HOWEVER:  I think the main reason you might want to go to 64 bit - if 
you're doing a fresh install now - is future upgradeability.  The rumors 
are that MS's next main OS release will be 64 bit only.  Assuming you 
trust MS's in-place upgrade (and, yes, MS has finally got good at this, 
I think), and you don't plan another from-scratch install in the future, 
switching to 64 bit now should give you that much more future upgrade 
possibilities.

In some ways, the 64 bit version is a little more immune from malware, 
as well.  Not being able to run Sandboxie on 64 bit is a side-effect of 
this.

--FM /)`
0
FM
8/22/2010 9:24:51 PM
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:20:20 -0400, user701
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 8/22/2010 5:02 PM, tbl wrote:
> > I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
> > rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
> > or 32-bit.
> >
> > My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
> > mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
> > (2TB) hard drive.
> >
> > I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
> > Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
> > Windows user.
> >
> 
> 64 bit will allow the machine to have more then 3.x Gb usable RAM. Thats 
> what I am using on this computer which is running Win 7 ultimate and has 
> 8 Gb RAM installed. The main deal breaker is if you have a device you 
> would like to use that doesn't have 64 bit signed drivers.

Thanks, user701.

So it's not Windows 7 that's not running older app's and
hardware, it's the 64-bit Windows 7 ?

-- 
tbl
0
tbl
8/22/2010 9:29:16 PM
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:24:51 -0700, FM <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Personally I've seen no reason for any typical user to need to go to 64 
> bit.  It's all industry hype IMHO.  Unfortunately, the world has bought 
> the hype.
> 
> There are some (very minor corner cases) problems with 64 bit, because 
> it's really a hybrid of 64 and 32 bit stuff and in some cases the two 
> susbsystems don't talk to each other.  This same sort of stuff has 
> happened previously when Microsoft went from 16 bit to 32 bit.  Related 
> is that 16 bit software (really old games, really old specialized text 
> editors, and maybe some really old installers) cannot run on the 64 bit 
> installs.
> 
> HOWEVER:  I think the main reason you might want to go to 64 bit - if 
> you're doing a fresh install now - is future upgradeability.  The rumors 
> are that MS's next main OS release will be 64 bit only.  Assuming you 
> trust MS's in-place upgrade (and, yes, MS has finally got good at this, 
> I think), and you don't plan another from-scratch install in the future, 
> switching to 64 bit now should give you that much more future upgrade 
> possibilities.
> 
> In some ways, the 64 bit version is a little more immune from malware, 
> as well.  Not being able to run Sandboxie on 64 bit is a side-effect of 
> this.

Thanks FM.  Good info.

-- 
tbl
0
tbl
8/22/2010 9:31:23 PM
On 8/22/2010 5:02 PM, tbl wrote:
> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
> or 32-bit.
>
> My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
> mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
> (2TB) hard drive.
>
> I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
> Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
> Windows user.
>

My last build used W7-64 Ultimate and I haven't regretted it. No driver 
issues beyond some truly antique hardware that hasn't been supported since 
XP first came out. I've not found any applications that will run under 
32-bit but won't run under 64-bit although I won't swear that such 
applications don't exist. The W7 Ultimate will run a virtual XP mode which 
is meant to support old programs seamlessly but, other than trying it out 
to see how it works, I haven't actually had to use it since every 
application I had under XP runs fine under W7-64. Since this is likely to 
be my last build for a while I wanted to have an OS that will run more 
memory and 64-bit is the way to go when it comes to memory management.
0
John
8/22/2010 9:48:36 PM
FM wrote:
>
> There are some (very minor corner cases) problems with 64 bit, because
> it's really a hybrid of 64 and 32 bit stuff and in some cases the two
> susbsystems don't talk to each other. This same sort of stuff has
> happened previously when Microsoft went from 16 bit to 32 bit. Related
> is that 16 bit software (really old games, really old specialized text
> editors, and maybe some really old installers) cannot run on the 64 bit
> installs.
>

>
> In some ways, the 64 bit version is a little more immune from malware,
> as well. Not being able to run Sandboxie on 64 bit is a side-effect of
> this.
>
> --FM /)`

IIRC there is also no 64bit version of Flash. This may, or may not, matter 
to you.

AlanD
0
AlanD
8/22/2010 9:52:59 PM
On 8/22/2010 4:24 PM, FM wrote:
> Not being able to run Sandboxie on 64 bit is a side-effect of
> this.

Sandboxie version 3.44 reintroduced support for 64-bit Windows. I'm 
happily running Sandboxie on Windows 7 64-bit.
0
Big
8/22/2010 9:53:15 PM
tbl wrote:

> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
> or 32-bit.
> 
> My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
> mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
> (2TB) hard drive.
> 
> I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
> Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
> Windows user.

The 64-bit OS will not cost any more (assuming you're contemplating
Win7 Pro or better), and will allow you to use 8 GB RAM if you should
ever want or need it.

These days I cannot think of any down side.
0
John
8/22/2010 10:40:48 PM
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:40:48 +0000 (UTC), "John Weiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> tbl wrote:
> 
> > I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
> > rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
> > or 32-bit.
> > 
> > My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
> > mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
> > (2TB) hard drive.
> > 
> > I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
> > Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
> > Windows user.
> 
> The 64-bit OS will not cost any more (assuming you're contemplating
> Win7 Pro or better), and will allow you to use 8 GB RAM if you should
> ever want or need it.
> 
> These days I cannot think of any down side.

Thanks John,

For now, I've ordered the 32-bit version, and hope that that
gives me the security and compatibility I need until I can get
familiar enough with Linux to be able to run MS Access in it.

-- 
tbl
0
tbl
8/22/2010 10:58:45 PM
AlanD wrote:
> FM wrote:
>>
>> There are some (very minor corner cases) problems with 64 bit, because
>> it's really a hybrid of 64 and 32 bit stuff and in some cases the two
>> susbsystems don't talk to each other. This same sort of stuff has
>> happened previously when Microsoft went from 16 bit to 32 bit. Related
>> is that 16 bit software (really old games, really old specialized text
>> editors, and maybe some really old installers) cannot run on the 64 bit
>> installs.
>>
> 
>>
>> In some ways, the 64 bit version is a little more immune from malware,
>> as well. Not being able to run Sandboxie on 64 bit is a side-effect of
>> this.
>>
>> --FM /)`
> 
> IIRC there is also no 64bit version of Flash. This may, or may not, 
> matter to you.
> 
> AlanD

Practically all software is available in 32 bit only.  32 bit software 
works fine in a 64 bit environment (except for drivers).

So I put the question back to you:

Why do you think the lack of 64 bit flash might be an issue to me or 
anyone else?

(P.S.  The lack of 64 bit versions of Flash has been mentioned before in 
these forums as an issue - also by Internet tech "news" people, aka 
bloggers - but the *reason* for there being any significance to the 
concern has *never* been explicated, that I've seen.  So my question 
back to you is genuine, I'm not trying to be snide to you.)

--FM /)`
0
FM
8/22/2010 11:04:03 PM
John Weiss wrote:
> tbl wrote:
> 
>> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
>> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
>> or 32-bit.
>>
>> My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
>> mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
>> (2TB) hard drive.
>>
>> I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
>> Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
>> Windows user.
> 
> The 64-bit OS will not cost any more (assuming you're contemplating
> Win7 Pro or better), and will allow you to use 8 GB RAM if you should
> ever want or need it.
> 
> These days I cannot think of any down side.

Um...  Do 64 bit installations need more RAM than 32 bit installations 
need, just to get off the ground running rather than crawling?

I've not seen 64 bit installs on less than 4G systems.  But, my 
experience base is very limited, and these systems I've seen may be 
artificially beyond need (by retailers).

The answer will satisfy only my curiosity, but this might matter more to 
tbl.

--FM /)`
0
FM
8/22/2010 11:10:24 PM
On 08/22/2010 06:10 PM, FM wrote:
> Um... Do 64 bit installations need more RAM than 32 bit installations
> need, just to get off the ground running rather than crawling?
>
> I've not seen 64 bit installs on less than 4G systems. But, my
> experience base is very limited, and these systems I've seen may be
> artificially beyond need (by retailers).
>
> The answer will satisfy only my curiosity, but this might matter more to
> tbl.
>
> --FM /)`

No. At one point, I was running XP x64 on 512MB just fine.

-Q
0
Q
8/23/2010 3:14:28 AM
On 08/22/2010 04:02 PM, tbl wrote:
> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
> or 32-bit.
>
> My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
> mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
> (2TB) hard drive.
>
> I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
> Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
> Windows user.
>

Even if you're not using 4 or more gigs of RAM, you may notice an 
increase in speed. The way I understand it (Notice the disclaimer), a 
64-bit CPU can crunch large numbers (>32 bits) in one clock cycle 
instead of breaking it down into 32-bit chunks, crunching, then 
reassembling the result. It just saves a few clock cycles in really 
math-heavy applications.

-Q
0
Q
8/23/2010 3:19:51 AM
On 8/22/2010 10:19 PM, Q-tip wrote:

> On 08/22/2010 04:02 PM, tbl wrote:
>> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
>> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
>> or 32-bit.
>>
>> My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
>> mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
>> (2TB) hard drive.
>>
>> I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
>> Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
>> Windows user.
>>
>
> Even if you're not using 4 or more gigs of RAM, you may notice an
> increase in speed. The way I understand it (Notice the disclaimer), a
> 64-bit CPU can crunch large numbers (>32 bits) in one clock cycle
> instead of breaking it down into 32-bit chunks, crunching, then
> reassembling the result. It just saves a few clock cycles in really
> math-heavy applications.

Other than close to emulating a mainframe or
heavy duty server functions (multi-cpu) the
64bit (and higher) machines and software will
not progress without market (you and yours)
demanding it...we will just sit and stagnate
in a 32bit pool while it continues to erode.

Having access to more ram (although 1gb is fine)
is a 'bonus' especially with programs coming
up that will be more database or even AI
sensitive (or incorporated).

Then we also shift a number of vectors off
the 32bit platform (attack vectors) that
the majority of virii/malware will not
function since they are/were essentially
either 32bit coded or hardcoded to hit a
32bit dll or application which
no longer..exists.
(they will catch up but in meantime you
get a partial pause being a step ahead)

It's quite true that developers and
applications aren't yet 'in step' or
for that matter require 64bit OS but
in reality the shift was considered
for Win7 as a default even in beta's.

Many 32bit applications can be altered
(by dev/oem) to take advantage of 64bit
modes although it would (often) be
like a pair of 32bit cpu's in tandem.
(which is similar to how dual cpu
servers (big hardware) used to operate).

VPU (video processing unit) aka graphic
cards are WAY past even 64bit leaving
legacy hardware in the dust for almost
a decade...they pretty well gave up
waiting for generic units/cpu's/OS to
keep up and developed their own isolated
VPU's and firmware which actually freed
up a lot of cpu clocks/overhead and
made us 'feel' like 32bit was adequate.
(Even desktop/gui are all 3D (DX) so
it's not just 'gaming' folks that get
the advantage since essentially even
default Windows GUI/desktop runs in
'game mode' (DX, 3D) graphics space. ;)

If your happy with 32bit or have it
already installed..no big deal, but
for any new system/hardware then get
max ram (or at least 2gb..8gb optimal)
while you can (DDR3 becoming common)
and the top of line OS which is 64bit.

(most folks imo would be fine/happy even
with Win95 just for email and browsing
other than hardware compatibility and
online security (A/V etc.).

It was less than a decade (7-8 years)
ago that Win2000 pro (32bit) and
a P3 500 (256-512mb ram) was a
good base (almost default) inside
astrophysics labs so us earthbound
critters certainly are spoiled with
the choices/power available today. ;)
0
NT
8/23/2010 3:48:58 AM
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:02:13 -0700, tbl wrote:

> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
> or 32-bit.
> 
> My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
> mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
> (2TB) hard drive.
> 
> I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
> Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
> Windows user.

If your hardware (motherboard chipset) allows the installation of more than
4 GB of RAM, and you can live with the dearth of 64-bit drivers for older
hardware accessories, going with the 64-bit version is recommended. However,
if the mother board chipset is limited to only 4 GB max of RAM, the 64-bit
version will still only use the 3.00 to 3.50 of RAM as the chipset allows.
Might as well stick with the 32-bit version of the OS in that case.

-- 
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
0
Norman
8/23/2010 6:21:24 AM
"tbl" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]
> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
> or 32-bit.
>
> My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
> mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
> (2TB) hard drive.
>
> I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
> Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
> Windows user.
>
> -- 
> Any thoughts appreciated.
> tbl

I don't know if you have any, but 16-bit software won't run in Win7 Home 
Premium x64.  You'll need to think of Pro or Ultimate to run XP mode if you 
want to continue using any 16-bit programs.

-- 

Jeff 

0
Jeff
8/23/2010 7:16:40 AM
FM wrote:

>>
>> IIRC there is also no 64bit version of Flash. This may, or may not,
>> matter to you.
>>
>> AlanD
>
> Practically all software is available in 32 bit only. 32 bit software
> works fine in a 64 bit environment (except for drivers).
>
> So I put the question back to you:
>
> Why do you think the lack of 64 bit flash might be an issue to me or
> anyone else?

The default browser in W7 64 is the 64bit version of IE. If you use this, 
and go to a site which uses Flash, it will not work. All you will get will 
be a box saying "Click here to download teh plugin" - but there isn't one 
available. You then have to fire up the 32bit version of IE, which can run 
Flash, to be able to view the site.

This may not be an issue for you, it depends on the type of site that you 
frequent. Many sites use Flash these days, although it is not always 
necessary. I merely flagged it up as one more thing to consider.

Typical uses of Flash are newsreel snippets etc, YouTube and others, as well 
as some adult sites.

>
> (P.S. The lack of 64 bit versions of Flash has been mentioned before in
> these forums as an issue - also by Internet tech "news" people, aka
> bloggers - but the *reason* for there being any significance to the
> concern has *never* been explicated, that I've seen. So my question back
> to you is genuine, I'm not trying to be snide to you.)
>
> --FM /)`

AlanD
0
AlanD
8/23/2010 2:48:13 PM
AlanD wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> The default browser in W7 64 is the 64bit version of IE. If you use 
> this, and go to a site which uses Flash, it will not work. All you will 
> get will be a box saying "Click here to download teh plugin" - but there 
> isn't one available. You then have to fire up the 32bit version of IE, 
> which can run Flash, to be able to view the site.
> 
> This may not be an issue for you, it depends on the type of site that 
> you frequent. Many sites use Flash these days, although it is not always 
> necessary. I merely flagged it up as one more thing to consider.
> 
> Typical uses of Flash are newsreel snippets etc, YouTube and others, as 
> well as some adult sites.

Yuk.

The 64-bit Windows OS's can run either 23-bit or 64-bit programs....

You'd think a component as important as a browser would need the same 
flexibility with regard to its plugins.  Leave it to Microsoft to foul 
that up.

It seems to me, then, that there is no use for a 64-bit version of the 
application we call a "browser".

Thanks for your answer!

--FM /)`
0
FM
8/23/2010 4:24:36 PM
tbl wrote:

>>> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
>>> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
>>> or 32-bit.
>>> 
>>> My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
>>> mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
>>> (2TB) hard drive.
>>> 
>>> I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
>>> Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
>>> Windows user.
>> 
>> The 64-bit OS will not cost any more (assuming you're contemplating
>> Win7 Pro or better), and will allow you to use 8 GB RAM if you
>> should ever want or need it.
>> 
>> These days I cannot think of any down side.

> Thanks John,
> 
> For now, I've ordered the 32-bit version, and hope that that
> gives me the security and compatibility I need until I can get
> familiar enough with Linux to be able to run MS Access in it.


Well, I wouldn't run MS Access for anything unless I had to...

OTOH, it IS memory-hungry, and may not run too quickly on 2 GB RAM,
unless you have a very small database...
0
John
8/23/2010 4:38:25 PM
FM wrote:
 
>> The 64-bit OS will not cost any more (assuming you're contemplating
>> Win7 Pro or better), and will allow you to use 8 GB RAM if you
>> should ever want or need it.
>> 
>> These days I cannot think of any down side.
> 
> Um...  Do 64 bit installations need more RAM than 32 bit
> installations need, just to get off the ground running rather than
> crawling?
> 
> I've not seen 64 bit installs on less than 4G systems.  But, my
> experience base is very limited, and these systems I've seen may be
> artificially beyond need (by retailers).
> 
> The answer will satisfy only my curiosity, but this might matter more
> to tbl.

No, the memory requirements are essentially the same.  Most people who
bother with the 64-bit OS start with at least 4 GB RAM because they
plan on needing/using it either now or in the future.  With more RAM
available, the 64-bit OS will run faster just because it will use the
pagefile less.
0
John
8/23/2010 4:40:50 PM
FM wrote:

> Practically all software is available in 32 bit only.  32 bit
> software works fine in a 64 bit environment (except for drivers).
> 
> So I put the question back to you:
> 
> Why do you think the lack of 64 bit flash might be an issue to me or
> anyone else?
> 
> (P.S.  The lack of 64 bit versions of Flash has been mentioned before
> in these forums as an issue - also by Internet tech "news" people,
> aka bloggers - but the reason for there being any significance to the
> concern has never been explicated, that I've seen.  So my question
> back to you is genuine, I'm not trying to be snide to you.)

Not an issue.  Use Firefox or the built-in 32-bit MSIE (the 64-bit OS
ships with and installs both MSIE versions by default.  If you want
Flash, open the 32-bit browser.  It retains all the setup (cookies,
shortcuts, etc) of the 64-bit installation.
0
John
8/23/2010 4:43:16 PM
On 8/22/2010 7:04 PM, FM wrote:

> Practically all software is available in 32 bit only. 32 bit software
> works fine in a 64 bit environment (except for drivers).

Might be helpful to note that some 32 bit installers don't always know 
how to handle the new 'Program Files (x86)' folder in a 64 bit 
environment. It will likely install with no complaints but if the app 
uses an INI, or other types of settings/locations files, the application 
will complain that it can't find what it needs (in the 'Program Files' 
folder) and crash.

I'm revising several installs at work to remedy this little hiccup.


-- 
-Scott
0
Lab1
8/23/2010 6:47:57 PM
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:02:13 -0700, tbl <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
>rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
>or 32-bit.
>
>My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
>mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
>(2TB) hard drive.
>
>I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
>Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
>Windows user.

There are good reasons for 64-bit, for SOME people.

It looks like there will be little benefit for you however.








0
Meh
8/23/2010 6:50:23 PM
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:31:23 -0700, tbl <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:24:51 -0700, FM <[email protected]>
>wrote:

>> In some ways, the 64 bit version is a little more immune from malware, 
>> as well.  Not being able to run Sandboxie on 64 bit is a side-effect of 
>> this.
>
>Thanks FM.  Good info.

A) Malware IS malware, and often targeted at apps, but even if it IS
OS-targeted, 64-bit Windows is no more secure OR less vulnerable than
32-bit.

B) Sandboxie comes in both 32-bit AND 64-bit versions.

Download: Sandboxie Installer 3.48 (Windows 2000 - Windows 7; 32-bit +
64-bit) (~1.7 MB) (md5/sha1) 






0
Meh
8/23/2010 6:55:41 PM
Previously on grc.techtalk, FM said:

> Personally I've seen no reason for any typical user to need to go to 64 
> bit.  It's all industry hype IMHO.  Unfortunately, the world has bought 
> the hype.

More to the point, I think, is that the manufacturers are pushing it on
us.  On the other hand, while the hardware vendors are pushing it, the
software developers have been extremely slow in adopting it.  The one
application I use that I wish would go 64bit still, to my knowledge,
hasn't:  Adobe Photoshop Elements.

The only reason I got a 64bit system last year was because I had to in
order to provide support for it at work (can't replicate an issue if I
don't have the right version of Windows).  

While most things will run with no issues, there are annoying
discrepancies and bugs.  The one I run into that bugs me the most is
with iTunes.

> There are some (very minor corner cases) problems with 64 bit, because 
> it's really a hybrid of 64 and 32 bit stuff and in some cases the two 
> susbsystems don't talk to each other.  This same sort of stuff has 
> happened previously when Microsoft went from 16 bit to 32 bit.  Related 

But back in '95, the software migration to the wider bit count was much
faster.  It seemed that almost everyone had 32bit versions of their
software within a year, and by the time Win98 was out, many had even
dropped 16bit support entirely.

Consumer versions of 64bit windows have been available for at least
five years now (XP Pro x64) and starting with Vista in 2007, Microsoft
has started to push it on the home user, and now it's gotten to the
point where the default Windows on anything bigger than a Netbook is
x64, even on systems with 4 or less gigs of RAM and the application
support has not caught up.

My \Program Files\ folder has a whopping 35 items in it, at least a
dozen of which are from Microsoft, and half of THOSE aren't really
64bit applications.  Compare that to my \Program Files (x86)\ folder
with 84 items, of which 18 are from Microsoft, most of which duplicate
the dozen in the other location.

> HOWEVER:  I think the main reason you might want to go to 64 bit - if 
> you're doing a fresh install now - is future upgradeability.  The rumors 
> are that MS's next main OS release will be 64 bit only.  Assuming you 

I'll believe that when I see it.  MS has kept 16bit operability through
Vista, and every major upgrade release I can remember has dropped
planned functionality.  Whatever happened to the "Windows File System"
that was supposed to be part of the security and stability improvements
in Vista?

IMO, the only reason to voluntarily use a 64bit version of Windows at
this point is if you need the additional memory AND the software you
plan to use has a 64bit version to make use of it.  OR if you want or
need to use more than one memory intensive application at the same
time.

-- 
Jeffrey Kaplan                                         www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

"What's the worst that could happen?  They fire you, ship you off to
the Rim, and I get promoted to Commander. I don't see a problem here."
(Mr. Garibaldi, B5 "Infection")
0
Jeffrey
8/23/2010 7:00:42 PM
Previously on grc.techtalk, AlanD said:

> The default browser in W7 64 is the 64bit version of IE. If you use this, 

No it's not.  The default browser is the 32bit version of IE.  You have
to specifically launch the 64bit version or specifically and manually
change the default application.

-- 
Jeffrey Kaplan                                         www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

"A cocoon?  As in a moth, or a butterfly?"  "Yes, sir.  About yea
high."  (Capt. Sheridan and Lt. Cmdr. Ivanova, B5 "Points of
Departure")
0
Jeffrey
8/23/2010 7:02:47 PM
Previously on grc.techtalk, FM said:

> Um...  Do 64 bit installations need more RAM than 32 bit installations 
> need, just to get off the ground running rather than crawling?

Win7 x64 requires at least 2G of RAM to run... er... crawl.  4G is the
useful minimum.

> I've not seen 64 bit installs on less than 4G systems.  But, my 
> experience base is very limited, and these systems I've seen may be 
> artificially beyond need (by retailers).

There is no useful reason to use x64 on less than 4G of RAM.  If you're
using software that requires x64, then you should be using it on a
system with at least 4G anyway.

-- 
Jeffrey Kaplan                                         www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

PUBLIC NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW: Any Use of This Product, in Any
Manner Whatsoever, Will Increase the Amount of Disorder in the
Universe. Although No Liability Is Implied Herein, the Consumer Is
Warned That This Process Will Ultimately Lead to the Heat Death of the
Universe.
0
Jeffrey
8/23/2010 7:07:34 PM
On 8/23/2010 2:02 PM, Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:
> Previously on grc.techtalk, AlanD said:
>
>> The default browser in W7 64 is the 64bit version of IE. If you use this,
>
> No it's not.  The default browser is the 32bit version of IE.  You have
> to specifically launch the 64bit version or specifically and manually
> change the default application.
>
And, I must ask, what advantage that 64bit version would give you?
0
nobody
8/23/2010 9:13:06 PM
Previously on grc.techtalk, nobody said:

> > No it's not.  The default browser is the 32bit version of IE.  You have
> > to specifically launch the 64bit version or specifically and manually
> > change the default application.
> >
> And, I must ask, what advantage that 64bit version would give you?

None, and in fact unless you're specifically needing to access 64bit
content you will loose functionality (no 64bit Flash, forex).  Which is
why 32bit IE is the default browser.

-- 
Jeffrey Kaplan                                         www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #35.
I will not grow a goatee. In the old days they made you look diabolic.
Now they just make you look like a disaffected member of Generation X.
0
Jeffrey
8/24/2010 2:24:17 AM
In article <[email protected]>, 
[email protected] says...

....

> IMO, the only reason to voluntarily use a 64bit version of Windows at
> this point is if you need the additional memory AND the software you
> plan to use has a 64bit version to make use of it.  OR if you want or
> need to use more than one memory intensive application at the same
> time.

That's why I need it:  multiple memory-intensive 32-bit apps going at 
one time.

D
0
David
8/24/2010 3:48:03 PM
Previously on grc.techtalk, David Kerber said:

> > IMO, the only reason to voluntarily use a 64bit version of Windows at
> > this point is if you need the additional memory AND the software you
> > plan to use has a 64bit version to make use of it.  OR if you want or
> > need to use more than one memory intensive application at the same
> > time.
> 
> That's why I need it:  multiple memory-intensive 32-bit apps going at 
> one time.

Then go for it.

-- 
Jeffrey Kaplan                                         www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

"This is not a clear and present danger? I +must+ read the rule book
again."  (Lt. Cmdr. Ivanova, B5 "Soul Hunter")
0
Jeffrey
8/24/2010 6:35:18 PM
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:00:42 +0000, Jeffrey Kaplan <[email protected]>
wrote:

<snip>

>While most things will run with no issues, there are annoying
>discrepancies and bugs.  The one I run into that bugs me the most is
>with iTunes.
>
May I ask what problems you're having with iTunes on Windows 7 64bit?

I'm asking because I have to decide myself which way to go with
Windows 7 (32 or 64 bit).

TIA
0
Tom
8/25/2010 9:10:12 PM
Previously on grc.techtalk, Tom Cole said:

> >While most things will run with no issues, there are annoying
> >discrepancies and bugs.  The one I run into that bugs me the most is
> >with iTunes.
> >
> May I ask what problems you're having with iTunes on Windows 7 64bit?

Yes, you may. :)

Overall, it's a minor issue, it's just annoying when it happens.

When I have an iTunes info or dialog window open, it will steal the
system focus approximately every 30 seconds.  When it does this, if
it's a data entry box the entry fields will lose their focus.

This makes it annoying when adding new content to iTunes when I have to
edit the metadata, which I frequently have to do because iTunes does
not use all of the existing metadata in imported MP3s, favoring instead
to retrieve from Apple, and/or when iTunes fails to locate cover art or
downloads the wrong cover art and I have to go scan it myself.

I first noticed this in Vista x64 and it persists in Win7 x64, but not
in XP x86 nor Vista x86, so it's definitely iTunes and not Windows.

-- 
Jeffrey Kaplan                                         www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #143.
If one of my daughters actually manages to win the hero and openly
defies me, I will congratulate her on her choice, declare a national
holiday to celebrate the wedding, and proclaim the hero my heir. This
will probably be enough to break up the relationship. If not, at least
I am assured that no hero will attack my Legions of Terror when they
are holding a parade in his honor.
0
Jeffrey
8/25/2010 9:27:09 PM
On 8/22/2010 4:02 PM, tbl wrote:
> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
> or 32-bit.
>
> My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
> mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
> (2TB) hard drive.
>
> I'm not a gamer (at all), and other than database work (MS
> Access) and photograph hoarding, I'm pretty much an "average"
> Windows user.
>
I built a system with a quad core processor and 8 GB of RAM.  I 
installed 64 bit Win 7.  I have two pieces of HW that are not supported. 
  One is a label printer and the other is my LG Env2 cell phone.  I 
can't fine 64 bit drivers for either.  I still have my old 32 bit XP 
system and they are supported there.
0
Mr
8/31/2010 10:43:53 AM
Previously on grc.techtalk, tbl said:

> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
> or 32-bit.

I just discovered that I cannot use my Win7x64 system for work at my
new temp job.  I need to VPN into the corporate server and the VPN
client wont install on x64 systems.  If it were an x86 system there
would be no problem.

-- 
Jeffrey Kaplan                                         www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

"Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometime
until we get an objective analysis."  George W. Bush, Meet the Press,
April 15, 2000
0
Jeffrey
8/31/2010 5:11:10 PM
In article <[email protected]>, 
[email protected] says...
> 
> Previously on grc.techtalk, tbl said:
> 
> > I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
> > rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
> > or 32-bit.
> 
> I just discovered that I cannot use my Win7x64 system for work at my
> new temp job.  I need to VPN into the corporate server and the VPN
> client wont install on x64 systems.  If it were an x86 system there
> would be no problem.

Run in XP Mode?  

Also, what vpn client?  There may be an updated version or a 3rd party 
version that will handle x64.

D


0
David
9/3/2010 3:28:33 PM
Previously on grc.techtalk, David Kerber said:

> > I just discovered that I cannot use my Win7x64 system for work at my
> > new temp job.  I need to VPN into the corporate server and the VPN
> > client wont install on x64 systems.  If it were an x86 system there
> > would be no problem.
> Run in XP Mode?  

That's only available in Business or Ultimate, this is Home Premium.
Once something is installed there is the Compatibility Mode, but the
client won't even install.

> Also, what vpn client?  There may be an updated version or a 3rd party 
> version that will handle x64.

Cisco, and I have to use it via the corporate IT provided download.

It's not all bad as I'd have to use two computers anyway since the
corporate system blocks all of my own online use.  Use one for work and
one for play.  It's just annoying that I can't choose which is which.

-- 
Jeffrey Kaplan                                         www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #94.
When arresting prisoners, my guards will not allow them to stop and
grab a useless trinket of purely sentimental value.
0
Jeffrey
9/3/2010 3:44:54 PM
On 8/23/2010 3:07 PM, Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:
> There is no useful reason to use x64 on less than 4G of RAM.

Well it's not entirely true.

There was one case where Windows x64 performed noticeably better with
only 1.5GB of memory.  If I remember correctly, it was when I was
playing around with a Nintendo Gamecube emulator that was specifically
developed/compiled to run on the x64 architecture.

Generally though, it's a common misconception that PC gaming is better
on 64-bit Windows.  Most PC games are 32-bit applications and suffer a
small performance hit rather than any gain.

(I know you said that you're not a PC gamer, but your question was
worded like maybe PC gaming would be a reason to go 64-bit.  That isn't
the case in my opinion.  I own just about every modern PC game and 99%
of them still perform the best on 32-bit Windows XP [versus Windows 7])

-- 
JJ
0
JuicyJ
9/3/2010 3:58:54 PM
"Jeffrey Kaplan" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]
> Previously on grc.techtalk, David Kerber said:
>
>> > I just discovered that I cannot use my Win7x64 system for work at my
>> > new temp job.  I need to VPN into the corporate server and the VPN
>> > client wont install on x64 systems.  If it were an x86 system there
>> > would be no problem.
>> Run in XP Mode?
>
> That's only available in Business or Ultimate, this is Home Premium.
> Once something is installed there is the Compatibility Mode, but the
> client won't even install.
>
>> Also, what vpn client?  There may be an updated version or a 3rd party
>> version that will handle x64.
>
> Cisco, and I have to use it via the corporate IT provided download.
>
> It's not all bad as I'd have to use two computers anyway since the
> corporate system blocks all of my own online use.  Use one for work and
> one for play.  It's just annoying that I can't choose which is which.



I can understand the annoyance, but imagine having to support all the dogs 
and cats of systems out there and troubleshoot vpn issues (but I was using 
filesucker.ru to get the latest movies... ) 


0
Kerry
9/3/2010 4:57:06 PM
On 9/3/2010 10:44 AM, Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:

> That's only available in Business or Ultimate, this is Home Premium.
> Once something is installed there is the Compatibility Mode, but the
> client won't even install.
>
>> Also, what vpn client?  There may be an updated version or a 3rd party
>> version that will handle x64.
>
> Cisco, and I have to use it via the corporate IT provided download.
>
> It's not all bad as I'd have to use two computers anyway since the
> corporate system blocks all of my own online use.  Use one for work and
> one for play.  It's just annoying that I can't choose which is which.

Since it's a corporate network/server do they
not have on hand or supply a licensed company
OS for you? Bulk pack workstation licenses?

-- 
How vain it is to sit down to write
when you have not stood up to live.
Henry David Thoreau, Journal, 19 August 1851
0
NT
9/3/2010 5:10:49 PM
In article <[email protected]>, 
[email protected] says...

....

> > Also, what vpn client?  There may be an updated version or a 3rd 
party 
> > version that will handle x64.
> 
> Cisco, and I have to use it via the corporate IT provided download.

Ask them if they can get Cisco's x64 vpn client; it just came out 
earlier this year, so they may not know about it yet.

D
0
David
9/3/2010 6:09:53 PM
Previously on grc.techtalk, Kerry Liles said:

> I can understand the annoyance, but imagine having to support all the dogs 
> and cats of systems out there and troubleshoot vpn issues (but I was using 
> filesucker.ru to get the latest movies... ) 

My basic point is that since MS and the manufacturers are all pushing
x64 systems on anything bigger than a netbook, and have been for two or
three years, that it's almost impossible to find an x86 laptop or
desktop anymore.  Yet the software support for x64 is still sorely
lacking.  Some that claim to be x64 really aren't, some are buggy in
x64, and some required software won't even install.

iTunes64 isn't 64bit, it's 32bit with x64 add-ins, and has an annoying
display bug.  Photoshop Elements STILL isn't 64bit (and that one I do
want in x64).  And if I didn't have an x86 system, I would not be able
to do this temp job I just got because the VPN won't install on x64.

How is supporting 32bit/64bit any different than 15 years ago during
the 16bit/32bit change?  Or for that matter, just XP/Vista/Win7 or
Windows/Mac?

I don't have to imagine having to support "all the dogs and cats of
systems out there", as I've done it.  I have 10+ years providing
product support for a niche market item in Windows, and I had been
using the product for several years prior.  The product was updated and
recompiled for 32bit more or less around the time Win95 was released so
we were ready to go with it within a month or so of '95's release, and
we maintained both 16bit and 32bit versions for several years, until
the next major upgrade release.  And I almost always had access to
every relevant version of Windows to trouble shoot on.

Now, just like then, some things will run fine as the "old" bitness in
the new, some would benefit from being upgraded and others need to be
updated.  Agent, Thunderbird, Firefox, ACDSee, Photoshop Elements all
work fine as x86 applications in an x64 system, though Elements would
benefit from being upgraded to an available x64 version in order to
take advantage of more RAM when working on a RAW file.  iTunes needs to
be fixed for x64, and the required VPN client won't even install.

-- 
Jeffrey Kaplan                                         www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

"I want you to be happy.  I want me to be happy.  I want you to be
happy for me and me to be happy for you.  Is that so much to ask
around here?"  (Amb. Mollari, B5 "Acts of Sacrifice")
0
Jeffrey
9/3/2010 6:30:42 PM
Previously on grc.techtalk, NT Canuck said:

> Since it's a corporate network/server do they
> not have on hand or supply a licensed company
> OS for you? Bulk pack workstation licenses?

So far as I know, only for corporate-owned systems.  Not that they
would for me anyway since I'm only a temp.  And not that I'd want to
destroy my setup on my own machine.

-- 
Jeffrey Kaplan                                         www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

"Does the phrase 'No way in hell.' ring a bell?"  (Cmdr. Ivanova, B5
"Divided Loyalties")
0
Jeffrey
9/3/2010 6:33:31 PM
Mr. Bill wrote:
> On 8/22/2010 4:02 PM, tbl wrote:
>> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
>> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
>> or 32-bit.
>>
>> My current machine runs a Gigabyte GA-M55plus-S3G (rev_1_0)
>> mainboard, 2 GB RAM, and soon to have a Seagate ST32000641AS
>> (2TB) hard drive.
>>...
> I built a system with a quad core processor and 8 GB of RAM. I installed
> 64 bit Win 7. I have two pieces of HW that are not supported. One is a
> label printer and the other is my LG Env2 cell phone. I can't fine 64
> bit drivers for either. I still have my old 32 bit XP system and they
> are supported there.

How did your 64 bit win 7 system disable running x86 code?


0
rickmerrill
9/3/2010 9:08:52 PM
David Kerber wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> Previously on grc.techtalk, tbl said:
>>
>>> I'm contemplating getting Windows 7 (for various reasons I'd
>>> rather not discuss here), and am wondering whether to go 64-bit
>>> or 32-bit.
>>
>> I just discovered that I cannot use my Win7x64 system for work at my
>> new temp job.  I need to VPN into the corporate server and the VPN
>> client wont install on x64 systems.  If it were an x86 system there
>> would be no problem.
>
> Run in XP Mode?
>
> Also, what vpn client?  There may be an updated version or a 3rd party
> version that will handle x64.
>
> D
>
>


To run the Global VPN client you have to run as x86 emulation.

IOW, David is right.

0
rickmerrill
9/3/2010 9:10:12 PM
Previously on grc.techtalk, David Kerber said:

> > Cisco, and I have to use it via the corporate IT provided download.
> Ask them if they can get Cisco's x64 vpn client; it just came out 
> earlier this year, so they may not know about it yet.

I did ask my supervisor about an x64 version, and he was disinterested
in pursuing the matter.  He is my only contact at the company, so I
can't go around/above him even if I wanted to.

-- 
Jeffrey Kaplan                                         www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended
up where I intended to be."  (Douglas Adams)
0
Jeffrey
9/3/2010 9:15:33 PM
Reply: