Windows 7 32 or 64bit?

Got Windows 7 on the way as I just found I qualify to get it for the cost of shipping after buying a new laptop last year.

Spec is Intel Core2 Duo T6400 and 3GB Ram.

Any advice as to install 32 or 64 bit versions?

Mainly use IE, Office 2007, Photoshop Elements and iTunes.

All drivers for both 32 and 64 bit version are availble from manufacturers website.

Thanks

Less than 2Gb ram = 32bit, more = 64bit.

I'd go with 64 bit - will handle 32 bit apps as well as 64 bit (the main 64 bit app I use in Ligthroom )

In reply to a post by Kenneth:

I'd go with 64 bit - will handle 32 bit apps as well as 64 bit (the main 64 bit app I use in Ligthroom )

2nd that too - go for 64bit unless you have a compelling reason to go for 32bit such an application or that your computer can doing 64bit .

I believe that Microsoft now see 64-bit as the "standard" operating system and they seem, after a slightly shaky start with XP and a better effort with Vista, to have got it right this time. This is the area that they will be concentrating all future efforts in.

I can think of no reason to install the 32-bit version (unless you have a 32-bit processor). I'm pretty sure that if you can't find a 64-bit Windows 7 driver for some piece of hardware you won't be able to find a 32-bit one either.

In reply to a post by chicken_stu:

Mainly use IE, Office 2007, Photoshop Elements and iTunes.

fwiw, you can switch to office 2010 x64 and itunes x64 too. IE comes in a 64bit version but it's no good without Flash.

IE comes in a 64bit version but it's no good without Flash.

That's one of the advantages of the 64-bit version as far as I'm concerned. Now if only it didn't work with JavaScript as well....

In reply to a post by Taras:

In reply to a post by Kenneth:

I'd go with 64 bit - will handle 32 bit apps as well as 64 bit (the main 64 bit app I use in Ligthroom )

2nd that too - go for 64bit unless you have a compelling reason to go for 32bit such an application or that your computer can doing 64bit .

I will 3rd that, that is as long as you can get 64 bit drivers for all the hardware. I have two webcams here that will not work with with windows 7 64bit due to know 64 bit drivers.

In reply to a post by AnotherExPipex:

Now if only it didn't work with JavaScript as well....

You can install both, which is what I've done. I dual-boot between them, with the default set to the 64-bit version. (I did this because my ancient slide scanner absolutely would not work with 64-bit - in fact, not the scanner so much as the SCSI port it attaches to.)

I had lengthy discussions with Microsoft about the legality of doing this, and eventually I was told that it was OK, as of course I'd only be using one at a time! So I could use the same activation code, and had absolutely no problem with this.

(Edit) I have 6 gig of RAM.

Edited by deleted (Mon 14-Dec-09 06:50:31)

In reply to a post by AnotherExPipex:

I'm pretty sure that if you can't find a 64-bit Windows 7 driver for some piece of hardware you won't be able to find a 32-bit one either.

My Canon Canoscan 3200F scanner says otherwise, works fine in Win7 32bit but nothing at all for 64bit. Thankfully I have Win7 Pro so I use the XP VM included and that gets round the problem.

Regards,
Steve

I've found that in various respects Windows 764bit just works better than 32bit regardless of the amount of RAM available.

In reply to a post by Desmond:

Windows 764bit

764 bits - must have missed that major jump in processors

I have had to go back to 32 bit as I cannot get 32 bit drivers for my colour printer / scanner and I am not prepared to spend more money

Less than 2Gb means the OS takes up near 50% of memory. Sure, the OS will run better, but when you start loading large programs they'll start touching the page-file too often.

I can't say I've noticed an issue there myself and the machine I've noticed the difference on most (a HTPC) has only 2 gig and a rather lowly 1.6 Ghz dual core pentium processor. Frankly, the whole machine is smoother and more responsive in 64 compared to 32 bit. Maybe if you ran memory hungry apps it might be an issue, but if you did then you'd surely have more than 2 gig of RAM anyway?

You don't appear to be disagreeing with me, just trying to nitpick?

I didn't disagree. I just pointed out my real world experience and supposed your observation might be an issue with RAM hungry apps. I then pointed out that a sensible user of RAM hungry apps wouldn't be using a miserly 2 gigs of RAM in the first place.

I currently have Vista HP (ver 6001 sp1) and there seems to be IE 32bit and IE64bit installed but not sure which ?bit of the O/S is installed.

I ran the Win 7 advisor on my XP PC and most of the software and half my peripherals can't be run under Win 7 so I'll put the Win 7 upgrade in the drawer until drivers are available and I can afford to update some programs.

If IE64 is installed, and runs, on your system then you must be running a 64-bit OS. It just wouldn't run on a 32-bit OS.

IE 64bit runs but flash is asking for an update and as I'm on mobile broadband I'll wait until I get back home and connect to the home network and test it out there.

What is an actual real world advantage of 64bit? excluding "it can use more than 3gb of ram"

Can someone name a normal everyday application that most people use that runs better on 64bit?

Can someone name a normal everyday application that most people use that runs better on 64bit?

Windows 7.

In reply to a post by AnotherExPipex:

Can someone name a normal everyday application that most people use that runs better on 64bit?

Windows 7.

Application

There is no Flash 64 bit available for IE 64 bit at the moment. Windows 7 64 bit automatically uses 32 bit IE as the default browser.

7 x64 is my first x64 bit OS and it is definitely recommended. Win7 is Vista completed (and then some). I use it more then XP Pro x32.

Edited by deleted (Sun 20-Dec-09 13:51:08)

Application: the act of putting to a special use or purpose.

I put Windows 7 to the special purpose of making my computer do more than flash pretty lights at me. I can't comment upon what others may use it for.

Your pedantry (especially when in the wrong) is well known, but referring to any version of Windows beyond Win95 as an application is scraping the bottom...

A rose by any other name....

What about if I run it within VMWare running on a Linux box. Is it an application then?

I find that the barriers between the OS and the application are fast disappearing nowadays, but if you want a real honest-to-god pedantic application then I'd say Visual Studio - that works far better on a 64-bit OS than a 32-bit one - especially when creating 64-bit applications. Or how about SimNow from AMD - again far better on a 64-bit OS (mainly because it doesn't run on at all a 32-bit one). That's just for starters - there are a host of similar apps.

In reply to a post by AnotherExPipex:

What about if I run it within VMWare running on a Linux box. Is it an application then?

Like I said... pedantry rather than admit any error.

In matters of opinion there are no errors, merely disagreements.

Visual Studio - that works far better on a 64-bit OS than a 32-bit one

Visual Studio is a 32 bit application. You will get the benefit of being able to use a full 4 GB of memory when running under a 64 bit O/S with more than 4 GB but then if you had 4 GB+ of memory you would have 64 bit anyway. I don't think VS is an answer to the question.

especially when creating 64-bit applications.

Yes, in that you can actually run them.

John.

It really doesn't matter whether it's a 32-bit application or a 64-bit one. The question wasn't "which 64-bit application runs faster than its equivalent 32-bit version?".

I still find that VS runs faster under the 64-bit OS the the 32-bit one. In fact, I find that - on my PC - almost all applications do. This is probably because the OS API is more efficient and because I can make use of all of my 4GB of memory. To say that I should ignore that factor - memory usage - seems a little artificial to me. Almost as artificial as complaining that the OS isn't an application.

Hi

What is an actual real world advantage of 64bit? excluding "it can use more than 3gb of ram"

Can someone name a normal everyday application that most people use that runs better on 64bit?

There is no performance difference between 32bit and 64bit, unless you have an application that needs gigabytes of memory, and for most people there isn't one.

For the OP with 3Gig of RAM running 64bit is a waste of memory as a 64bit OS requires more memory just to run, and each 64bit application you run uses more than memory again.

You need 6Gig or more memory to make 64 bit Windows really worth while (why 3 channel DDR was invented as it allowed 3x2GByte sticks of memory without breaking the bank), and even then unless you have a real need for that much memory it will be sat doing very little.

For those spouting 64bit is faster, go to Intel's website and find Intel telling it's customers that? If there was any real performance difference don't we think Intel would be shouting about it to push sales of new CPUs and hardware?...... The only performance difference comes from the ability to address more memory, and where you have a specific need for that memory, most people don't at this point in time.

Regards

Phil

That's a point of view that you're welcome to if it keeps you happy, and I really can't be bothered to yet again point out the fallacies in your argument.

All I know is that I've tried both and 64-bit is faster for me and uses no more memory. That's good enough for me. If others choose to stick with 32-bit Windows that's fine; I've no interest in persuading people one way or the other.

Hi

I still find that VS runs faster under the 64-bit OS the the 32-bit one. In fact, I find that - on my PC - almost all applications do. This is probably because the OS API is more efficient and because I can make use of all of my 4GB of memory. To say that I should ignore that factor - memory usage - seems a little artificial to me. Almost as artificial as complaining that the OS isn't an application.

Placebo effect, we've found no such thing in our company.

Also on a system with 4GByte of memory, you have less available for applications with a 64 bit OS then you would running 32bit even though you get to use only around 3.2Gig of it.

I've got 32bit and 64bit dual booting on a 4GByte machine, and the 32bit has more available memory even though it can only access 3.2Gig.

I know I will get flamed for this view, I always do as people are so blinkered over 32bit and 64bit it is untrue, so anyone who doubts me, dual boot between 64bit and 32bit with 4Gig of RAM and let me know what you find, otherwise don't bother arguing with me.

Regards

Phil

I know I will get flamed for this view

And by flamed you mean shown to be wrong. Again.

John.

Almost as artificial as complaining that the OS isn't an application.

By definition it is not. Although Windows is not just the O/S, it is also a suite of applications. So I agree that you can Windows 7 as an example.

To say that I should ignore that factor - memory usage - seems a little artificial to me.

You'll need a pretty hefty solution to max out your memory with VS. I think you're better off using properly compiled 64 bit apps as examples.

John.

In reply to a post by AnotherExPipex:

A rose by any other name....

What about if I run it within VMWare running on a Linux box. Is it an application then?

I find that the barriers between the OS and the application are fast disappearing nowadays, but if you want a real honest-to-god pedantic application then I'd say Visual Studio - that works far better on a 64-bit OS than a 32-bit one - especially when creating 64-bit applications. Or how about SimNow from AMD - again far better on a 64-bit OS (mainly because it doesn't run on at all a 32-bit one). That's just for starters - there are a host of similar apps.

neither of which are "Can someone name a normal everyday application that most people use that runs better on 64bit? "

just to clear up a bit of pedantry and the like.........
Can someone name a normal everyday application that most people use (excluding Windows 7) that runs better on 64bit?

TBH, I find your question a bit meaningless. Why omit the OS? What I am interested in is how fast the totality runs - OS and "applications", as I never run the applications without the OS; obviously I'm particularly interested in the applications that I run. For me the combination of a 64-bit OS and the applications I run is faster than a 32-bit OS with similar (or even the same) applications. Why that should be is irrelevant, and it matters not to me if others think differently.

You'll need a pretty hefty solution to max out your memory with VS.

You think I only run VS and don't have other applications open at the same time? Again, to consider only single applications is meaningless. You have to look at the totality. If I'm running Solaris in VirtualBox, with 2GB of RAM, at the same time as VS the totality becomes quite important - especially if the OS only lets me use 3GB of my 4GB RAM.

Placebo effect, we've found no such thing in our company.

And your computers have exactly the same spec as mine? I doubt it.

At this point I have 3103MB available RAM, out of a total of 4095MB. You are seriously telling me that I would have more available with 32-bit Windows 7?

You don't have to sell me on the benefit of more memory, my computers have 8 GB. But the scope of the question was a single application for an everyday user, not an arbitrarily complex set of interacting ones for a developer.

John.

True. I have failed by attempting to give a meaningful answer to a meaningless question.

Really, I don't give a damn whether people choose 32-bit Windows or 64-bit.

fair point about the OS, but to say my question is meaningless is daft. If the only benefit of 64bit Windows is Windows itself is it really worth it?

Photoshop/Lightroom, used by a lot of photographers, will give a 8% to 12% performance gain (excluding the ability to handle larger files/memory which can really make 64bit fly compared to 32bit)

A lot of applications aren't available in 64 bit - so comparing hard, but lets be honest most applications wouldn't be noticeably a slower on a slower CPU so any gains on them would be negligable in use

I'd put 64 bit on - it means if 64 bit versions become available that give you better performance, you can use them

If it doesn't cost any more and 64-bit Windows runs faster than 32-bit, is it worth it? Tricky question - I'll have to think that one over.

Remember - if you later add more memory and want to go to 64 bit from 32 bit is is a full clean install so you will lose everything and have to reinstall all your other programs etc.
The other thing, which I am sure has been mentioned, is that total memory includes the memory on the graphics card so a modern card with 1GB ram will reduce the effective available memory in windows 32 bit down to about 2.5GB

HI

At this point I have 3103MB available RAM, out of a total of 4095MB. You are seriously telling me that I would have more available with 32-bit Windows 7?

Certainly what I have seen dual booting with freshly installed Windows 7 comparing 64 bit/32 bit.

Some performance comparisons here on 64bit/32bit Vista, considering Windows 7 compared to Vista performs the same or slower readers can decide if they think the same is true for Windows 7 or not

The outcome in summary: "In general, though, the situation with 64-bit applications and 32-bit applications on Vista 64 isn't mature yet. While a user running large data sets will almost certainly see improved performance, users with less demanding needs may actually see reduced performance. As always, check with the software supplier, and see if you can run a few tests of your own first. " http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2280808,0...

The reviewer is writing from the point of view that they should be seeing a nice performance improvement, talk about popular myth. The results are as expected.

Regards

Phil

With a 1GB video card you think that I'd have had more than 3GB of available memory with 32-bit Windows 7. Somehow I doubt it. I never used to get that much free with XP.

Hi

Another article worth a read to dispel the myth that 64 bit Windows is automatically faster because it is 64 bit!

http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5709

A quote from the article:

"64-bit versions of operating systems such as Windows Vista and Windows 7 are not automatically faster than their 32-bit counterparts. In some cases, they may even perform slower because of the larger pointers as well unrelated OS overhead."

Regards

Phil

Edited by deleted (Sun 20-Dec-09 21:10:55)

I'm not surprised that they are not automatically faster than their 32-bit counterparts. I note that "in some cases" they may even perform slower; presumably this means that in some, if not most, cases they perform as well - or even faster - than their 32-bit counterparts. Taken with the extra memory they allow to be addressed this looks quite promising. But each to their own - it matters not to me what people choose to run.

I also note from the article:

For some, Windows 7 x64 Edition offers much needed performance improvement, while for others, it could needlessly complicate applications designed to operate on x86 platforms or even have a negative effect on performance.

I'd agree that the platform will only really come into it's own when more 64-bit applications are available. But it's heartening that for some (presumably I am one of them) it "offers much needed performance improvement".

If that article is supposed to support the argument against 64-bit Windows 7 it's perhaps as well not to link to one that supports it!

If you hate stupid flashing adds, as I do,
you can turn Flash ON or Off in the 'Manage add on' menu.

Better still use Firefox with No Script, Ad Block, and TOCA add ons
and you can turn off all the adds, scripts and tracking cookies.

The only trouble is you need to turn selected script on some websites to make them work.
Regards,
Martin

"What about if I run it within VMWare running on a Linux box. Is it an application then?"

And what exactly is the OS doing? Surely the OS just sits there.

But you keep chipping in, so you do care.

Oh I think the OS does rather more than just sit there!

Just because I choose to discuss things with my friends doesn't mean that I care what OS they run. Strange idea.

True, but MS still describes it as an OS and not an app.
By itself it doesn't do anything.

Not exactly a discussion!

Perhaps you were reading a different thread to me. I saw an interesting exchange regarding the merits of 32- and 64-bit operating systems and whether an operating system could be considered an application or not. Any open exchange of ideas is a welcome discussion in my book.

The fact that Microsoft describe it as an operating system, which it obviously is, doesn't preclude the possibility that it might also be considered an application. Things don't always fall neatly into a single category.

Do you really think that, by itself Windows 7 does nothing? Agreed it needs a human touch but, that aside, you can do a great deal without installing any additional software. And just have a look at all the tasks that are running in the background. That's not what I'd call doing nothing.

So enlighten me. Install an OS and nothing else. What does it do?

Actually, the question asked was what app runs better/quicker using 64 compared to 32. You said the OS. Being a pedant doesn't answer the question.

I'm sure 99% of users have applications on their computers and therefore your answer isn't helpful!

Can someone name a normal everyday application that most people use (excluding Windows 7) that runs better on 64bit?

Don't get hung up on the fact that the only benefit to x64 over 32 bit is a few specific applications coded to take advantage of x64. It's much more universal than that, in the overall responsiveness of your system when running with more RAM.

It's now being proven that even making the jump from 4GB to 8GB has large benefits aswell; from the time it takes to load photos, to boot times, to the time it takes the PC to sleep and resume from sleep, to the time it takes to load games. Like most things, sooner or later you reach the point of diminishing returns of course.

Multitasking is the keyword here.

Most home users probably wouldn't be sure what you ment if you said that term to them, but they don't realise they do it all the time, just on a small scale, eg. open email, minimize, open browser, flip between the two. Now, more RAM enables the home user to do it on a larger scale, with larger programs, which for a home user are plentiful, from games, to music creation, etc etc. Having to close one demanding program just to open another evaporates into thin air - leave them open as long as you want with plenty of RAM.

Its one of those things you end up getting used to and taking for granted very quickly, for example resuming from sleep 30 seconds quicker than you did when you had less RAM. Or that extra 20 seconds you had to wait while your page file was playing catch up with the rest of the system when you closed one large program to open another. The net gain over time is monumental.

Mechanical hard drives are the biggest bottleneck in systems today. Using technology that can reduce that bottlenecks footprint are only dismissed by the inept.

More RAM, and SSD (Solid State Drives) are the biggest means available to minimize the bottleneck, the former is still a lot cheaper than the latter as of this time. x64 enables us to take advantage of these technoligical advances better than 32 bit counterparts.

Forget the garbage about x64 having longer blah instructions blah, it means absoloutely nothing in the real world.

Edited by deleted (Mon 21-Dec-09 07:19:06)

You are so right. I am a fool.

If I install Windows 7, and nothing else, then I can browse the web, play media, edit files, .... I can even download other programs if I wish to.

But I'm probably unique in this.

it means absoloutely nothing in the real world

I don't think that some here are concerned with the real world - just benchmarking an arbitrary "application".

In reply to a post by PhilipD:

Hi

I still find that VS runs faster under the 64-bit OS the the 32-bit one. In fact, I find that - on my PC - almost all applications do. This is probably because the OS API is more efficient and because I can make use of all of my 4GB of memory. To say that I should ignore that factor - memory usage - seems a little artificial to me. Almost as artificial as complaining that the OS isn't an application.

Placebo effect, we've found no such thing in our company.

Also on a system with 4GByte of memory, you have less available for applications with a 64 bit OS then you would running 32bit even though you get to use only around 3.2Gig of it.

I've got 32bit and 64bit dual booting on a 4GByte machine, and the 32bit has more available memory even though it can only access 3.2Gig.

I know I will get flamed for this view, I always do as people are so blinkered over 32bit and 64bit it is untrue, so anyone who doubts me, dual boot between 64bit and 32bit with 4Gig of RAM and let me know what you find, otherwise don't bother arguing with me.

Regards

Phil

when you talk carp - then yes no one will bother with you ..

In reply to a post by Oldjim:

Remember - if you later add more memory and want to go to 64 bit from 32 bit is is a full clean install so you will lose everything and have to reinstall all your other programs etc.
The other thing, which I am sure has been mentioned, is that total memory includes the memory on the graphics card so a modern card with 1GB ram will reduce the effective available memory in windows 32 bit down to about 2.5GB

and if you have a 5970 .. ..

This x64 Vs x32bit convo is crazy...

In reply to a post by PhilipD:

Hi

You need 6Gig or more memory to make 64 bit Windows really worth while (why 3 channel DDR was invented as it allowed 3x2GByte sticks of memory without breaking the bank), and even then unless you have a real need for that much memory it will be sat doing very little.

HAHAHAHAHAH OMG..

The reason intel put trippe channel into their high end i9x series and Xenon chips is to feed the qpi paths not your crazy asumption intel did it feed your crazy assumption 6gb is the sweet spot for x64 oses ..

For those spouting 64bit is faster, go to Intel's website and find Intel telling it's customers that? If there was any real performance difference don't we think Intel would be shouting about it to push sales of new CPUs and hardware?...... The only performance difference comes from the ability to address more memory, and where you have a specific need for that memory, most people don't at this point in time.

Regards

Phil

Intel has had a weaker x64 implementation (don't know if this s resolved in the latest gen of chips from intel)>

Ahh Phill you make me laugh .. too much.

In reply to a post by 12eason:

Less than 2Gb means the OS takes up near 50% of memory. Sure, the OS will run better, but when you start loading large programs they'll start touching the page-file too often.

I am running windows 7 with 2GB of ram and don't have any problems here and I use some large programs like Vegas, photoshop and quark.

Don't know if this helps either, however, I am running Win7 64bit RTM and Office 2010 64bit beta from MS Partner site and we have a particularly large database file that we update hourly, I have to say that, whilst it may be a placebo affect, it seems to run a lot lot quicker when entering data and just a simple "lookup" is much much faster........
Perhaps we are just imagining it

No, we are not sad enough to have timed it, suffice to say that both of us, my partner and I, have both said, isn't this faster and much better than it used to be!

In reply to a post by TrevorSP:

Don't know if this helps either, however, I am running Win7 64bit RTM and Office 2010 64bit beta from MS Partner site and we have a particularly large database file that we update hourly, I have to say that, whilst it may be a placebo affect, it seems to run a lot lot quicker when entering data and just a simple "lookup" is much much faster........
Perhaps we are just imagining it

No, we are not sad enough to have timed it, suffice to say that both of us, my partner and I, have both said, isn't this faster and much better than it used to be!

Databases Luv 64bitness ...

Anything that manipulates large amounts of data will love the bigger size. (I suspect that a lot more work has been done o databases than many other programs.)

In reply to a post by AnotherExPipex:

Anything that manipulates large amounts of data will love the bigger size. (I suspect that a lot more work has been done o databases than many other programs.)

They are adding more and more support for SQL backends .. which will start to make acess less of a mickymouse operation

Surely you and everyone else requires a browser, not an operating system, to browse the web?

I'm probably being pedantic now, but mediaplayer is an app given away with the OS.

No not a fool just not very helpfool at answering this thread.
Other times you've been very usefool and helped others.

the OS itself is so much smoother, due to the improved 64bit memory and cache handling. Making the majority of apps I run faster.

The question should be what runs slower not what runs faster.

Even most 32bit apps are faster.

When most people buy a box with Windows 7 on the front they don't involve themselves in pedantic arguments about which part of it is an operating system and which is an application. They just want to be able to install the appliction on the DVD and then use their PC.

As someone on this thread said, Microsoft market Windows 7 as an Operating System. To nitpick about what different parts of it are called is silly. It's a whole, which allows users to use their PC. And the 64-bit version allows users, for whatever reason, to make better use of their PC than the 32-bit version. That's all that matters - ther rest is introspective pedantry.

Some may even find that I have helped them here.

A couple of interesting articles on the subject.

The Lifehacker Guide to 64-bit vs. 32-bit Operating Systems

Do You Really Need More Than 4GB of RAM?

Good article - particularly the explanation of the fallacy about memory usage.

Last point from me. I haven't read the report from a new poster about the tests done on memory and 32/64 bit systems but you stating that an OS is quicker doesn't answer the question about what apps run quicker using 64.

Surely just because the OS is quicker it doesn't follow that an older 32bit app or new 64bit app runs any quicker on the 64bit OS.

Do most people install the OS and the included apps/software (whatever) not install anything else? I think not!

Have the last say and we'll leave it at that.

I think this discussion ran out of steam about 50 posts ago. You stick with 32 bit and I'm happy with 64 bit.

haha on the do you need 4 gig of ram.

my task manager currently reports 905meg as free out of my 6 gig.

When I was still on XP with 3 gig of ram I had disk swapping.

mine reports 950 out of 6G free, however there is 3707M cached and the task manager shows 1.96G used- so I suspect if I fireup some memory hungry stuff it will kick out cache as required

I have the same situation - comes of using sleep mode instead of switch off - except mine got down to about 220MB free and running the Windows 7 system check it announced that the ram was very poor, disk drive poor, CPU poor and graphics card poor. A reboot and everything was in good shape.
I haven't found any method of manually clearing the cache in Windows 7

I am sitting here, typing this message on a machine running 64 bit.

Before Windows 7 I would've said, don't bother, XP and Vista really didn't bother too much with x64 so neither did the development community. The same can be said of Linux distros until recently.

I've always thought that luddism to be just a bit of a non sequitur - it's the modern day equivalent of replacing Windows 98/2000 with Windows 3.1 on the basis that you have a few 16 bit Windows applications.

I've benchmarked Windows 2003 x64 compared to its x86 brother, and while x86 did boot faster to the desktop, x64 was way more stable (and performed better overall) when IIS, Sharepoint and SQL were all running on the same box with the same amount of RAM.

Vista (even the x86 variety) failed my compatibility testing for some applications, but it is a reasonable performer in its x64 incarnation for 99% of the stuff I have to do, and I can run a VM to do everything else. So, I'm running Vista x64 on my work machine. Vista x86 was marginally faster when not actually having to do very much, but as soon as I put it under load, it had a tendency to get sluggish - the x64 version (on the exact same machine with the same apps loaded) doesn't experience that issue.

Windows 7 in both flavours trounces Vista for application compatibility and performance but again x64 does appear to cope with heavy workloads a lot better than x86.

Anecdotally, I know of a reasonable sized company (over 500 staff in over a dozen offices across the UK) who were already edging toward selecting Windows 7 for rollout to all their desktops, all the way back in June.

They found x86 was marginally faster for boot-up and "bog standard" apps like Office and Internet Explorer but as soon as they whacked something more intensive on the machine, like Visual Studio or video authoring applications, x64 just seemed to cope better.

Sorry had to add. I'm already using 64bit on Vista HP. Curious to find out if it is actually quicker with applications.

If it ran out of steam ages ago don't add any more.

I'll only add that I thought this thread was about Windows 7.

Have a look at;

http://www.pcwintech.com/node/145

Can be set to run on a schedule and/or run manually when required.

yes I Also got a fair bit cached. It should if doing its job properly use cache instead of pageing.

Now let me think. Both Vista and 7 are 32 or 64 bit therefore all previous applies.

A rather simplistic viewpoint. Vista and 7 are not equivalent and, IMO, Microsoft have made a better job of 64-bit in 7 than they did in Vista or XP.

Fact, 32 bit and 64 bit in both. Nothing more to say but I bet you will!

No point in saying more. You stick with your 32-bit; matters nought to me.

You are a bit thick! Already said I'm using 64 bit.

Enough said!!!!!

Not so thick as to continue with a pointless argument. You flatter yourself if you think that I bother to read, let alone remember, your every pearl of wisdom.