Why is there such a push for 64 bit Windows 7 instead of 32 bit?

19 replies [Last post]
SubZero
SubZero's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2007
Posts: 112

I notice many of the new systems with Windows 7 at places like Best Buy, Office Max, Costco, Dell, Gateway, etc. have Windows 7 64 bit instead of 32 bit.

It is good to have 64 bit but I wonder why they are pushing that so heavily with so many of the new PC's.

What think?

Thanks,

SubZero

robodude666
robodude666's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/16/2006
Posts: 103

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

So why not?

SubZero
SubZero's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2007
Posts: 112

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.

robodude666
robodude666's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/16/2006
Posts: 103

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.

SubZero
SubZero's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2007
Posts: 112

robodude666;737010 wrote:
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.

robodude666
robodude666's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/16/2006
Posts: 103

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.

MrGreen
Offline
Joined: 09/26/2009
Posts: 142

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

zero2dash
zero2dash's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Posts: 4073

SubZero;737026 wrote:
There might be a problem getting 64 bit drivers for expensive legacy hardware.

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).

1 quad, 2 duals, GTX 260 216 SC, 8800GT = 3 F@h boxen
Idle machine? Fold! http://folding.stanford.edu/
http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=60698

SubZero
SubZero's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2007
Posts: 112

robodude666;737027 wrote:
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.

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.

zero2dash
zero2dash's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Posts: 4073

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.

SubZero
SubZero's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2007
Posts: 112

zero2dash;737082 wrote:
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.

robodude666
robodude666's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/16/2006
Posts: 103

Salavat23;737051 wrote:
64bit = 32bit x 2. Therefore, 64 bit = 2x faster.

There is not much to understand here folks. Just simple math.

:lmao

That's how many people buy computers. One has a 80GB HDD, the other has a 320GB HDD. Therefore, the latter system must be 4x faster.

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

nilzxx
nilzxx's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2007
Posts: 160

: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.

--complete specs-- Intel Quad Q6700 | Tt TMG i2 | 4GB Crucial Balistix Tracer PC6400 | 1TB Seagate Barracuda | 500GB Seagate Barracuda | XFX GeForce 9800GTX | Asus P5N-D | XION 600W PSU | DVD-RW 16x | DVD 16x | SABRENT TV Tuner | Saitek Cyborg Mouse 3200dpi | Cyba Snipa LED Mousepad | Logitech G15 Gaming keyboard | Aspire Blue X-Dreamer Case | VisionQuest 2ms 22" 19:10 LCD screen (1680x1050) | Logitech Z-5500 Surround Sound

d3uS2029
d3uS2029's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/20/2003
Posts: 291

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

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

:.: Intel i7 920 @ 3.8Ghz :.: 12GB Corsair XMS3 @ 1704Mhz :.: ASUS P6T V2 Deluxe :.: ASUS 5870EAH :.: 120GB Vertex 2 (OS) :.: 120GB OCZ Agility (Games) :.: 2x WD Black 2TB (Data) :.: Zalman 850w PSU :.: Lite-On Blu-Ray Burner :.: HP w2207h LCD :.:

mimart7
mimart7's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/14/2007
Posts: 105

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.

"Real men do it with their bios"

"Je plie, donc je suis"