Windows 7 32-bit vs 64-bit

jake000 · 26 Sep 2011 at 22:10

Im about to re-install windows 7 and I usually use the 32-bit version because the 64-bit driver support (especially with usb drivers) had always been bad and the 32-bit version just seemed to run a bit better.

I was wondering if things have changed and if the drivers and software have improved now?

Apart from it being able to handle more ram what other features make it worth installing over the 32-bit version?

Thank you

thingemajib · 26 Sep 2011 at 22:28

personally i think driver support has really improved. When i got the first 64 bit release candidate of vista, hardly anything worked. Now, with 64 bit 7, i think the only thing that doesnt work on either my desktop or laptop is colin mcrae 2005.

aside from more ram, i dont really think theres much else the average person would notice. I guess its supposed to be more secure with driver signing and what not, but i dont really know much about that...

pingwing · 26 Sep 2011 at 22:33

Honestly there hasn't been 64bit driver problems since the amd64 bit xp from 6 odd years ago. Since vista and 7 there hasn't been any problems that are really the end of the world (sometimes its good to accept that a 10 year old printer or 10 year old joystick is probably too old)

opethdisciple · 26 Sep 2011 at 22:33

Been using 64bit Windows since Vista first was released.

The tide has turned these days.

When you buy a new system 64bits is the normal, 32bits is not.

jake000 · 26 Sep 2011 at 22:43

Thank you for the replies everyone

Looks like I will be going 64 bit and the sooner the better

jas72 · 27 Sep 2011 at 08:47

doubt you'll notice any difference really.

True_Scotsman · 27 Sep 2011 at 08:50

Probably wont notice any difference TBH, but if you have a 64bit capable processor then you should use 64bit.

As said above, things have changed a lot with win7 driver support has improved a lot.

Begbie · 27 Sep 2011 at 21:09

64 all the way.

Magic_x_uk · 27 Sep 2011 at 22:01

jas72 said:
doubt you'll notice any difference really.

I agree. For normal computer use. I cannot see any advantage over 32.

be interested in knowing what the point of 64 is though, in all seriousness, for the average computer user, what does 64 give us?

Destination · 27 Sep 2011 at 22:39

Magic_x_uk said:
I agree. For normal computer use. I cannot see any advantage over 32.

be interested in knowing what the point of 64 is though, in all seriousness, for the average computer user, what does 64 give us?

It gives you the current set of drivers, everything now is based on 64, not 32. Same as when 32 replaced 16, once stable, modern is best.

JimAroo · 27 Sep 2011 at 22:58

I've been using Windows 7 64 bit since release, I've not had any troubles with it in the past year.

Everything seems to work fine.

And if everything works fine, then why not run 64 bit? It's not like 4GB of RAM is expensive these days, even 8GB is cheap now.

theheyes · 27 Sep 2011 at 23:03

Magic_x_uk said:
I agree. For normal computer use. I cannot see any advantage over 32.

be interested in knowing what the point of 64 is though, in all seriousness, for the average computer user, what does 64 give us?

You have it backwards - the question should be "what does 32 give us?"

For a modern OS on modern hardware, the standard is 64 bit. If you have a 32bit OS now then obviously there is no value in replacing it with a 64bit version (unless you have oceans of RAM) but there is very little reason to consider 32bit for your next purchase.

The two instances where I personally use 32bit Windows -

- When there is old hardware or 16bit software that can't be replaced

- For virtual machines that I'm not particularly bothered about. 32bit versions are slightly easier on disk space and RAM - but there isn't a lot in it.

Meatball · 28 Sep 2011 at 06:39

Microsoft will not sign Windows Vista and Windows 7 drivers unless 32-bit and 64-bit drivers are submitted so the drivers argument is defunct. You're crippling your system for no reason having 32bit on your computer.

Jay794 · 28 Sep 2011 at 07:05

I've been using 64bit for ages and never had any problems, especially since 32bit stuff works on 64bit. The only issues I've run into is with 64bit Photoshop, so I just use the 32bit instead.

The main advantage of 64bit is the extra RAM support

SiriusB · 28 Sep 2011 at 15:02

People are still asking this? Nothing changes 'round here, I see!

64 is bigger. Therefore betterer. Install 64-bit.

theheyes · 28 Sep 2011 at 18:30

SiriusB said:
People are still asking this? Nothing changes 'round here, I see!

64 is bigger. Therefore betterer. Install 64-bit.

To be fair it's not been asked for a while. Not had as many antivirus threads either come to think of it.

robinbredin · 28 Sep 2011 at 18:59

Meatball
You're crippling your system for no reason having 32bit on your computer.

I would not say that, Microsoft are still producing a 32 bit version for windows 8.

ChrisGTL · 28 Sep 2011 at 19:03

Windows? Whats that?

BlackAle · 28 Sep 2011 at 19:16

ChrisGTL said:
Windows? Whats that?

The Dominant OS.

Azuse05 · 28 Sep 2011 at 22:48

robinbredin said:
I would not say that, Microsoft are still producing a 32 bit version for windows 8.

You are, having an x64 cpu running x86 makes zero sense. These days chips are so powerful you don't notice, but back in the day jumping from x86 to x64 you used to notice a system being more responsive, everything executing at a slightly quicker rate. X64 is faster, which matter when crunching numbers and these days everyone is either watching, editing or transcoding h.264 on their machines. The x64 version of handbreak is ~15% faster than the x86 build.

Walk into pc world today and all the new laptops come with x64 oem. The drivers are all certified (more stable) and it's much more secure than x86 (highly important given the market that company targets

)

Windows 8 will come in a x86 build because windows 7 has an x86 version of it's kernel. From their view point it makes sense since they invested so much time in coding that but sadly even tables run x64 today so by release it'll be totally pointless. We can always hope ms only ship x64 disk and make x86 an optional download to discourage use

To quote quite an old artical:

It’s crazy: almost every modern computer now has a 64-bit processor under the hood, but only Firefox on Linux and Safari on Mac are 64-bit applications; 64-bit Chrome and Opera simply don’t exist, and the 64-bit version of Internet Explorer 9 has a broken JavaScript engine. Some 90% of desktop and laptop users are still using Windows machines, and the bulk of their time is spent in a 32-bit version of Internet Explorer, Firefox, or Chrome. With 64-bit Firefox it looks like the vast majority of computer users might finally start using the full potential of their hardware, which is certainly a good thing.