windows 7 64 vs xp 32

[foq]

2GB has been the "standard" for a while now, even in typical machines from Dell and the like. It won't be long before it becomes obsolete for gaming. Shit, it already is. Right now my system is using 1.37GB memory, with just pidgin, steam, and Chrome running. No firewall or antivirus. You can probably skid by on XP with that, but not 7.

[DeadTenor]

I'd say go for Windows 7 x64.

Better multi-processor support, newer support for the latest and greatest technology.

It's 2011-- Windows XP is ten year old technology.
Yes, Windows 7 takes more RAM than XP. But RAM is exponentially bigger now too-- more RAM for the dollar. The same goes for storage.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

2GB has been the "standard" for a while now, even in typical machines from Dell and the like. It won't be long before it becomes obsolete for gaming. Shit, it already is. Right now my system is using 1.37GB memory, with just pidgin, steam, and Chrome running. No firewall or antivirus. You can probably skid by on XP with that, but not 7.

LIES!

Well,atleast in my experience on Windows 7 32bit ....



32bit is by FAR the more supported version. They do not write 64bit code first,and then write 32bit code. That is not the current order of the universe !!
Although on rare occasions, for dual monitor multitasking and what I'm doing,I'm sure more memory wouldn't hurt. BUT, does that mean I would go straight from 2gb 32bit Windows7 to 5+gb 74bit Windows7? Hardly....

My motherboard support 16gb memory, and I doubt it will ever need to be running all 16gb capacity. It just seems ridiculous, but maybe thats what enthusiast PC stands for....

Getting more than 2gb memory, for me, would be doing the same thing I am now, just slightly more efficient. Doesn't seem worth it,especially factoring in old hardware and their nonexistant 64bit drivers/support !!!!
32bit still reigns supreme !!

[Magnus]

Where's the facepalm.

64 bit runs 32 bit apps just the same as a 32 bit app OS, but it can also run 64 bit apps unlike 32 bit apps.

32 bit OS is not supreme at all.

2GB of RAM is pretty weak. My video card has that much RAM.

The more RAM you have, the more your PC can use, the faster it can run, etc..

:facepalm:

[Mindf!3ldzX]

Don't they write 32bit app's first, not 2nd?!!

Yea, I have 2gb VRAM too(total). But thats entirely different than System memory.

I understand a increase in memory = better, but is it REQUIRED? no! it isnt!

Same as 64bit OS, is it required? no!

[Lerster]

64bit is good for the recongition of more then 3 gb of ram, as i have 8gb of ram in my pc, and on a 64bit os it reconizes it all (my spelling is such crap).

On a 32bit os, my 8gb of ram is only: 3071mb (3gbs)

64 bit is also good for making use of ur dual/quad/sixtuplet core cpus. (in other note tho these multi-cores are still reconginized by 32bit os's least by taskmanager and device manager) i dunno why the ram isn't... but w/e. (btw all this is my opinion, i don't have paper knowledge of all the facts, just experience) :p

If your computers older, and doesn't use over 3gb of ram. Then i'd stick with 32bit.

But if your actually buying the software, if u buy retail then u can continue to use that software even if you upgrade your mainaboard as long as u use it with one pc only.

OEM brands of windows bind themselves to the mainboard, so if u buy oem b/c its cheaper. 32-or-64bit, it will be useless if u upgrade your board.

Also, retail copys come with both 32bit and 64bit windows architectures.

So in most cases if you have more than one cpu core, i'd say install 64bit, as they still run all 32bit apps anyways.

I've had no issues with 64bit versions of windows.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

Windows 7 system requirements - Microsoft Windows

I recall Windows7 system requirements for 64bit clearly stating 3gb once upon a time. It appears,that is no longer the case. Microsoft has even stated 2gb is fine, the proof is in MrsMindz plays Quake with all bells and whistles enabled (400mb Qrack install),on a dualcore 32bit Windows 7 1gb.

Runs realtime anti virus, and tons other background and foreground apps.

Touting that anyone needing more than 2gb is just plain wrong, and microsoft NOW says so too. (even though I swear I remember 64bit windows requiring 3gb ram!!!!)

[Lerster]

The ram i have came with the system. I personally don't disagree with you on the ram.

2-4gbs ram is more than enough.

This is the first pc i didn't build myself, and i've changed out the dual 9800GT 512mb sli bridged cards with a 560Ti 1gb card, and replaced the power supply with a 1200W power supply.

Aside from that tho, the pc is a gateway pc.

Never again will i buy brand name though, i could've build myself a dual quadcore cpu, and/or sixtupplet pc, for what this thing costed me.

But w/e.

Another live an learn lesson, i used to always do the 600$ rip and chuck - aka replace board/cpu/ram and transfer the gfx card over.

Which worked fine, but, i've been getting lazy these days.

O well.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

The ram i have came with the system. I personally don't disagree with you on the ram.

2-4gbs ram is more than enough.

This is the first pc i didn't build myself, and i've changed out the dual 9800GT 512mb sli bridged cards with a 560Ti 1gb card, and replaced the power supply with a 1200W power supply.

Aside from that tho, the pc is a gateway pc.

Never again will i buy brand name though, i could've build myself a dual quadcore cpu, and/or sixtupplet pc, for what this thing costed me.

But w/e.

Another live an learn lesson, i used to always do the 600$ rip and chuck - aka replace board/cpu/ram and transfer the gfx card over.

Which worked fine, but, i've been getting lazy these days.

O well.

I've never bought a pre-fab system, or anything resembling one....

although I know to pay attention to what socket im investing into, making sure I buy hardware that will have a better than good lifespan of support (example, am2+/am3 vs 939)

[Lerster]

the SLI bridge dual 16x pcie slots caught my eye, as did the soundcard since i record alot of (bs recordings), and uh... it had an audiogy card or so i was told i think its a live music card tho but w/e. However the chip is what i was told i twas an xtreme intel core.

Probably the cost of my pc was for the damn extreme core since that chip is like 2k, alone.

O well. But i'm still on old skewl 775 =)

Shrugs, its a quadcore tho 3ghz with a 12mb cache. An no hyper threading Intel Core 2 Extreme X9650

An yes i agree, normally i never buy prefab either, i always built my own this is my first prefab.

It's only a total disappointment when i think about the beast i could've built for the price this thing was... but on the lazy side, i had jack shit to do but plug it in.

lol. Still it is fun building ur own pcs, i was a fool in that part. As i found out later/after the fact i could've financed the parts from my favorite comp store that i buy most all my parts from if it was over a certain $$$$ amount. lol.

As i said, live an learn.

[Magnus]

You only need 64 bit if you have more than ~3GB of ram or you wish to run 64 bit apps.

You do not need it to utilize multi-core CPU's.

Also, Mindz, I have 24GB in one of my PC's. Some of the work I do can utilize up to 16GB of it. In my main dev box I have 8GB and often use a good chunk of that as well.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

I'm sure your doing something CAD related though, or something along those lines. I know there IS a reason for having that much memory, but for doing the things most of us do (Play quake, sometimes venture outside quake) , 2gb memory is getting the job done.

The benifits of 64bit arent as lucrative as they should be (the 32bit vs 64bit implies double your bang, but in the performance area, it isnt true. total memory does see a benifit, but does a large amount of games/applications see significant increase in speed when comparing 32bit to 64bit? Not from what I read online.

64bit in my previous experiences, lacks in support when hardware venders like netgear or linksys don't write 64bit drivers for your older hardware. I've largely avoided 64bit OS's for this exact reason, it causes kinks in the chain in terms of vender support, it just isn't garunteed and some times it makes shit become useless (like USB dongles,these are awesome for lacking 64bit drivers)

[foq]

Don't they write 32bit app's first, not 2nd?!!

Yea, I have 2gb VRAM too(total). But thats entirely different than System memory.

I understand a increase in memory = better, but is it REQUIRED? no! it isnt!

Same as 64bit OS, is it required? no!

Vram counts to that total memory address space of 4GiB in 32-bit.

[Magnus]

The benifits of 64bit arent as lucrative as they should be (the 32bit vs 64bit implies double your bang, but in the performance area, it isnt true. total memory does see a benifit, but does a large amount of games/applications see significant increase in speed when comparing 32bit to 64bit? Not from what I read online.

I think this is your confusion. Perhaps you remember the days of nintendo going from 8 to 16 to 32 bit versions.

The number of bits has nothing to do with performance, its all about addressing.

32 bits is represented as follows:
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
That's 4bytes, each byte is 8 bits.
This allows you to hold a maximum value of 4,294,967,295
It's all about accessing RAM, that's it.

64 bit lets you have access to more than 4 Gig of ram.

More bits does not mean more performance.

This is not like the days of 8/16/32 bit where there was an obvious increase in graphics clarity on consoles.

[foq]

4,294,967,296

64-bit offers 16 exabytes of memory address space... oddly enough 4,294,967,296x the amount 32-bit offers. You won't see 16 exabytes of memory any time soon though, and don't forget that MS purposefully puts limits on the amount of memory their OS will recognize, even the 64-bit versions, to encourage you to buy the more expensive version.