2

Possible Duplicate:
32-bit vs. 64-bit systems

I just ordered a Dell XPS 9000 which runs Windows 7 64bit.

I was just talking to someone who said they hate 64 bit. I did not get a reason but I wanted to know if there were any drawbacks to 64 bit these days?

Community
  • 1
JD Isaacks
  • 8,354
  • 11
  • 40
  • 41
  • Take your pick - http://superuser.com/questions/149674/confused-between-32-bit-os-and-64-bit-os http://superuser.com/questions/149514/running-32-bit-vs-64-bit-programs-on-a-64-bit-os http://superuser.com/questions/145755/advantage-of-64-bit-os-on-system-with-only-2gb http://superuser.com/questions/56540/32-bit-vs-64-bit-systems – Sathyajith Bhat Jun 17 '10 at 15:41

2 Answers2

7

I'll just check the year - yes indeed 2010!

I'll try explain this quick - if you have less than 4GB's ram in your machine run a 32bit OS, if you have 4GB's or more then run a 64bit OS.

Mostly ALL of your 32bit applications will work on a 64bit version of Windows. Most recent devices have 64bit drivers. The only drawback I can think of would be if you had a specific device that you don't have 64bit drivers for.

64bit computing is pretty much defacto lately, 32bit is dying out.

Also I would question this friends motivations for hating 64bit computing, What exactly does he hate about it - the ability to use more than 4GB's of RAM, or the extra stability and slight speed increase of 64bit computing? Hating 64bit computing, is like hating "The Beatles"

JL.
  • 5,778
  • 21
  • 59
  • 86
  • 3
    I would argue that even if you have less that 4GB of RAM you should use a 64 bit OS if the rest of your hardware is relatively modern. If gives you an upgrade path later on. – MDMarra Jun 17 '10 at 16:03
  • 2
    The are perfectly good reasons to hate specific 64bit OS, just as there are perfectly good reasons to hate specific Beatles (Paul McCartney for instance). I won't get into the Beatles, but before Windows 7 came out (a full 2 months before 2010), XP64 and Vista64 were the only options for Windows users. Vista in general was buggy and clunky with driver issues, Vista64 was worse. XP64 had _major_ software support issues (iTunes and Quicktime for instance). Though with Windows 7, there's no longer a reason for Windows users to avoid 64-bit. – Lèse majesté Jun 17 '10 at 16:08
  • 1
    @Lese - I think you meant to leave that as an answer and not a comment. – MDMarra Jun 17 '10 at 16:48
1

As JL says the only real reasons why you shouldn't go for 64-bit is if you specifically have something that will not work on 64-bit, like an old scanner or other peripheral that has some special drivers.

I have a PS2 to USB converter that does not work, only a small loss but I would like it to work and the company that supplied it say they cannot make the 64-bit drivers as it costs money to get the certificate to sign the drivers so that Windows 7 64-bit will load them.

Past that I really don't see any reason not to go 64-bit, even if you only have 3GB of RAM you might want to upgrade later and having 64-bit on a machine will make it that much easier. If you're on an old machine that doesn't support more than 3-4GB of RAM then you're stuck to begin with but any modern machine shouldn't have that limitation.

Other than what I said the only times I have seen problems with 64-bit is with old programs that should have gone the way of the dodo many years ago, everything else just works.

Mokubai
  • 89,133
  • 25
  • 207
  • 233