Its threads like this that have really kept me quiet around because to many people are pushing stuff and talking more out their ass than anything.
People have been saying "64bit is the way to go" since Windows XP x64 came out and how far in progress have we really made? Very little.
Very few games support more than 1 processor let alone 2 and most applications aside from a few rare take advantage of 2 let alone 4.
Most software is also written in 32bit code so it doesn't take any advantage of 64bit or extra memory you have.
The only thing running a 64bit OS is gonna do for you is allow you to see 8gb of memory instead of 4gb of memory.
And just because 8gb of memory is so cheap doesn't mean its needed.
Thank you. Finally I see some sense in this thread :thumb:
64 bits, especially for a Windows OS is simply useless, unless as you said (and I said earlier in the thread) you really need it for something precise OTHER than gaming there's no problem in having more than 3-4GB of ram.
Hardware guys with more than 4GB of ram for gaming and 'casual' computing purpose are excused though... it's maybe that they don't know better or, well, that they are hardware guys and just like the idea of their computer having more than 4GB of ram because it fits well in a signature.
And what exactly is the downside to using a 64-bit version of Windows? There are few programs that do take advantage of it, but for those few programs there is a definite improvement. Office 2010 is also one of those programs, and it actually runs much better in 64-bit mode. The only advantage you gain from using 32-bit Windows is the ability to run 16-bit software, which is completely useless for the vast majority of people (and can be done through virtual machines running under a 64-bit host OS if it's really necessary). Vista and Windows 7 serial numbers work with both 32 and 64-bit versions, so there's no extra financial investment either.
There's not much improvement to see in programs that were written in 64 bits but not optimised for it. If you have the same number of instructions on any given piece of code, either 32 or 64 bits, it will run at the same speed and that is what is happening currently with about any software available on the market.
Though if you have highly optimised complex mathematical/cryptographic/tweaked software (as in do more with less instructions because you know tricks to make it run faster) that can take fully advantage of a 64 bits architecture for example, it will run multiple time faster.
Also just as a pointer, if you think that you would need a 64bits OS for having more than 4GB of addressable space, well I don't know why you are even arguing with anyone on that subject. :haha: (but that's just my opinion)
...now if you want to start a discussion on badly ported drivers and kernel code, this 32 vs 64 bits thread might be a bit more interesting and might be settled in a few posts instead of going on indefinitely with useless -opinions-
Didn't think I'd even consider moving over to 64-bit until Windows 8+ either, but then with the pending 3TB HDDs I now have to reconsider, along with UEFI mobos...
But for about any computer user I'd agree that 32 bit will probably be enough for a long time.
Fixed.
You don't need 64bit for 3TB hdds
This thread keeps getting better and better eh? :haha:
