4GB+ memory support
Faster
"Future Proof"
Costs the same.

So why not?

No reason not to make the move, but I'm just sort of surprised that they are going 64 bit even on really cheap rigs like Emachines.

All you need are some nice WHQL 64 bit drivers and I would think you'd be okay.

Ditto. Would be nice if Microsoft just released a 64-bit version, but some people just love their Pentium 4s and don't want to upgrade.

I just don't see how they could do that. It would hammer Corporate America. There might be a problem getting 64 bit drivers for expensive legacy hardware.

I'm glad that you can have an option. 32 bit for those who need it but when it makes sense, being able to migrate on their time table. 32 bit and 64 bit on one chip has been around for quite some time, so the move to 64 bit should be fairly painless if you can get those drivers.

Their fault for sticking to Windows 2000... It's 2009, get with the new technology.

Everyone shouldn't be punished just because a few companies like windows 2000 and don't want to upgrade their hardware or OS.

This Acer T135 handles Win7 64-bit just fine. CS:S runs smoother than on 32-bit.

In many cases it's hard getting Vista or Win7 drivers for any legacy hardware, 32 bit or 64 bit. It really shouldn't get worse going from 32 bit or 64 bit, because from the older hardware I've seen that had Vista/Win7 x32 drivers, they also had x64 drivers as well. Seems like most companies make both, rather than one or the other.

At one time I thought I heard that Windows 7 would be the last 32 bit Windows variant available, but that will probably change (if it hasn't already).

Nobody is being punished.

They are simply providing BOTH solutions to meet the needs of their customers.

I think going 64 bit only at this stage is just not very realistic.

On an app basis - it doesn't matter since 32bit apps run fine in a 64bit OS (in my experience).

On a driver/hardware basis - meh, sorta. Most corporations using legacy products stick with the old OS anyway and don't upgrade. I don't see any legacy corps using Vista, and they probably wouldn't jump to Win7 either. They'll either wait til XP hits EOL and jump, or they'll stick with XP even though it's EOL and has no updates. Depending on the IT staff, they could possibly do 7 with an XP VM, or have a dedicated machine running the old stuff under XP while all the other workstations are running 7.

If the EOL for Windows XP is 2014 and the corporate entities know that Windows 7 is the base platform for Windows beyond that date, I would think that would give them plenty of time to prepare. Windows 7 does not seem to be getting hammered like Vista was when it first hit, so there may be a more positive attitude in regards to the transition.

I think MS did a pretty cool thing by including the Windows XP Virtual Machine code in the OS as well as making Windows 7 much more "Laptop Friendly" by streamlining and optimizing the OS to run better on less powerful hardware.

All of those 32 bit / 64 bit chips that AMD started to push years back, which eventually caused Intel to dump the idea of providing 64 bit in hardware but 32 bit in software emulation and not in hardware, may start to pay dividends.

I'm just surprised at the pace. Even lowly eMachines are including the 64 bit Win 7 OS. Sure didn't see that with Vista.

And remember that a quad-core 2.8GHz CPU is actually 11.2GHz :Wink.

:P Well said, robodude!

Unless your target computer doesn't support 64bit, there is no reason why you shouldn't get it. My predictions are that Windows 7 will be around for a long time so you probably want to use the same license on your future 4GB+ RAM PC, if you don't have that yet.

To answer your question and im sure it was answered before but...

32bit hardware is obsolete and there is no need for it.

Most apps that are out there, are still 32 bit. It's kind of hard to find the app you need in a 64 bit version. Yes video encoding, and rendering apps are available in 64 bit variants as well as Photoshop.