Win7 32 or 64-bit?

[Animeniax]

Is it worthwhile to get Win7 64-bit? I already have a copy of 32-bit, but the system only sees 3GB of the 6GB RAM installed. Not sure I want to re-image just to get to 64-bit, but it was surprisingly quick to go from clean install to fully functioning PC with Windows 7 (in about 2 hours) so it might be worth it to go to 64-bit.

[David75]

It all depends on your needs.
An average user, with no poweruse needs will live well with win7x32

I have tried both and see no real differences, nothing worth it for my needs.
It might become useful in the future, but not right now.

It adds a little more compatibility issues, potentially, so you really need to see for yourself.

Unless you have many apps needing lots of ram, do it.
If you want to experience it, try it.
Ram was cheap, not too long ago, so many people had too much of it and absolutely wanted to use that ram space, thus decided to try a 64bit os. I guess you're near that category of users.

[Buffalobiian]

Is it worthwhile to get Win7 64-bit? I already have a copy of 32-bit, but the system only sees 3GB of the 6GB RAM installed. Not sure I want to re-image just to get to 64-bit, but it was surprisingly quick to go from clean install to fully functioning PC with Windows 7 (in about 2 hours) so it might be worth it to go to 64-bit.

I upgraded from XP 32bit to W7x64 around 5 months ago or something. I've only got 3GB of system RAM, but to my knowledge, upgrading to 64bit lets me use a videocard with more video RAM while allowing me to address that 3GB of RAM in full (since memory addressing and its limit applies to both system and video RAM).

I have ran into compatibility issues with software, but I can't really remember the specifics of the few, so I guess it's not that important. It's actually probably more of a W7/XP issue than a 32/64bit issue.

Besides the extra memory, there isn't much else beneficial about it, from experience, since there's hardly any commonly used programs that are written for other x64 performance gains anyway.

The only times I've actually hit my 3GB limit was with Nero and Borderlands.

Both times were due to memory leaks and/or memory hogging bugs.

[Kraco]

For somebody with no copy yet it's absolutely 64-bit since I dare say going for 64 doesn't have any adverse effects unless you plan to run some special software (that might not work on Win 7 anyway like Bill said), but it's more future proof. But if you needed to shell out money for the 64-bit version when you already had the 32-bit one (for some reason), then it's another matter.

If it costs you nothing, switch to 64-bit. A real man won't be satisfied with 32-bits if 64-bits are available.

[Animeniax]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I've had the copy of 32-bit for a while since by previous setup was 32-bit, but since my CPU died I had to replace it and the motherboard. I went with the 6GB of RAM because of the triple channel memory and I didn't do the research to see if it was necessary or if 4GB could run in triple channel or if it would drop to dual channel and I'd see a performance hit, so I went with 6GB triple. Of course, Win7 32-bit only uses 3GB of it so it feels like a waste of resources, which is why I'm considering getting 64-bit. As a student, I can get a copy of 64-bit for $34US, so it's not an issue of expense.

I didn't want to wait until Monday to get the copy of 64-bit so I installed 32-bit on Friday when I installed the new motherboard and CPU. Now it's a question of whether or not it's worth it to re-image again to install the 64-bit and all of the updates and programs.

[David75]

The story is a little different then.
It's too little a hassle, not to directly go for it.
So, just go.

[Kraco]

I needed to install Win 7 three times when I built this machine, for various reasons. It sucked to need to reinstall it two extra times and it took hours with all the programs and stuff. But on the other hand, now I don't see a need to do it again for the foreseeable future and there's nothing in the back of my mind telling me everything's not right. If you now stick to the 32-bit just because of avoiding a few hours of work, you might find yourself regretting it many more hours down the road in the future.

Like they say: If you do something, do it properly.

[Animeniax]

Good points, I'm buying the copy of Win7 64 today.

I've always thought about taking an image of the system right after it's built with all of the software and updates installed but for some reason I've only ever done it once, and then I ended up not using the image when I had to re-image my system.

[David75]

Good points, I'm buying the copy of Win7 64 today.

I've always thought about taking an image of the system right after it's built with all of the software and updates installed but for some reason I've only ever done it once, and then I ended up not using the image when I had to re-image my system.

You can also create a savepoint for your system after your clean install, rename it.
It's very efficient too.

I tend to create such points before installing any software or making changes to the system.
The rollback is painless and quite quick.
I can not tell wether it will save the system in all cases, but up to now, in the 50 times I had to use it on different boxes, I had no troubles.

[Animeniax]

I might give that a try, but I've never had to utilize that kind of recovery method before. I'd only do the image process so I could quickly re-image after a harddrive change or something similar.

[David75]

I might give that a try, but I've never had to utilize that kind of recovery method before. I'd only do the image process so I could quickly re-image after a harddrive change or something similar.

I admitt I never had to use a full backup, so I do not know how it works and if it works well.

[depthcharge]

I installed win 7 ultimate 64bit without any problem. I was using the RC about a year ago when my computer died, at that time I stop using it and went back to win xp pro 32bit. Just recently my mobo died again, so I went ahead and installed the win 7 64 bit. I was done in 30minutes and have not had problem in over 2months.(except when i shifted my graphic card-loose in the pci e slot- and the computer had problems when I wake it up from screensaver)

[Buffalobiian]

I admitt I never had to use a full backup, so I do not know how it works and if it works well.

Full backups take longer to do (generally a few hours), but store the PC's information in a much more comprehensive manner. You can reimage full backups when the OS can't boot as well.

The problem I had with Windows XP's System Restore was that it only partially saves my information, such that I've had cases where the computer thinks I've got a program installed (because it saved that registry info), but fails to run it because it failed to save my files for that program (which were wiped out), making re-installing a bitch because it won't re-install when it thinks it's already there, or when it can't find uninstall.exe on the file.

For my other household computers I've done an initial backup after the OS and essential programs have been installed, while I've done periodic full-backups of mine (monthly or so). I've never had to use them, so I don't know if they work.

It seems W7 comes with its own backup solution, but I have yet to try it out.

[David75]

I meant I never used W7 full backup solution ;)

I already imaged many systems and reinstalled full images with clonezilla or other solutions.

W7 has image and system snapshots backups solutions.
I used the snapshot rollbacks, but not the image one yet. From Jan 09 and my first win7 beta install, I never had a problem that would require a full image rollback.

Considering how prices have fallen, I love the win7+nas+logmein combo to manage average users desktops.

[Kraco]

I've been trying to keep weekly updated the full image of my System disk using Win 7's own backup functionality. It's on an external HD, though, and sometimes I forget to do it because the HD isn't normally powered. Now that small, old external HD is filling up so I'll need to swap a bigger disk in.

Luckily I've never needed to rely on it to restore anything.

[Buffalobiian]

I've been trying to keep weekly updated the full image of my System disk using Win 7's own backup functionality. It's on an external HD, though, and sometimes I forget to do it because the HD isn't normally powered. Now that small, old external HD is filling up so I'll need to swap a bigger disk in.

Luckily I've never needed to rely on it to restore anything.

You're not deleting the older images?

[Kraco]

The Win 7 backupper updates the old image. But I set it to backup the whole HD, which is actually two partitions, the other containing games, and that means it's taking a lot of space.

Or at least that's how I think it works. Otherwise I'd have run out of space on the external HD during the second writing. My system disk is 640GB and the external HD is measly 250GB...

[Animeniax]

I installed Win7 64-bit but I think I messed up and did an upgrade install instead of a clean install. It now sees all 6GB of RAM.

For some reason the system seems to run slower with 64-bit than it did with 32-bit. Is this something I should worry about?

[Buffalobiian]

I installed Win7 64-bit but I think I messed up and did an upgrade install instead of a clean install. It now sees all 6GB of RAM.

For some reason the system seems to run slower with 64-bit than it did with 32-bit. Is this something I should worry about?

A few variables may contribute to that:

1) file fragmentation
2) "dirty" upgrade by microsoft
3) Running 32bit software in emulation under a 64bit environment.

[Animeniax]

A few variables may contribute to that:

1) file fragmentation
2) "dirty" upgrade by microsoft
3) Running 32bit software in emulation under a 64bit environment.

Well the 32-bit install was a clean install less than a week ago and so there won't be much fragmentation. I'm using a WD Raptor 150 (it's about 1.5 years old, but still runs great and at 10k RPM).

What do you mean by "dirty upgrade"? I'm considering wiping it all out and starting from scratch with the 64-bit OS, but that will be another 2 hours I'd rather spend playing SC2.

The system runs slower all the time, even for file access and Windows explorer.

[David75]

clean the HDD then.

I wonder why you need 2 hours, I remember the installations I did being a lot quicker.

Maybe you could try installing from a usb drive, which is a lot quicker/quieter... the only catch is that you might need some time to learn how to do it ;)

I admitt I never had to install from the DVD, because I can't stand the slow speed and noises and Win7 allows for install from other means.

[Animeniax]

clean the HDD then.

I wonder why you need 2 hours, I remember the installations I did being a lot quicker.

Maybe you could try installing from a usb drive, which is a lot quicker/quieter... the only catch is that you might need some time to learn how to do it ;)

I admitt I never had to install from the DVD, because I can't stand the slow speed and noises and Win7 allows for install from other means.

Do you mean physically or logically? Because with the clean install of the 32-bit version, I wiped the partitions and created a new one and formatted the partition.

2 hours from start to finish, including all updates, antivirus, utilities, configurations, Starcraft II, and Battlefield BC2.

[David75]

From a clean HDD to first available desktop, I remember I needed around 20 minutes for an install from a usb HDD or uncompressed iso directly placed in the HDD. Yup I tried many things :D

But yes, other software install can be slow.

By clean, yup, partition/formating.

I would even have win7 to recreate the partition table, because of partition alignment.
I do not think it's possible your second install messed with that, because it means changing the partitions. If the install wasn't clean, I guess the main problem is thatthe registry is messed up. But hard to tell.

I just hope these 2 hours will prove beneficial.

Oh, I do not know about the budget, but you could see for a Vertex 2 or C300 SSD.
It will not improve your gaming performances, but will clearly make a difference in the way your computer reacts and feels snapier. I will probably upgrade in september or october, since prices have fallen a little.

[Animeniax]

It seems to be running a little quicker now, though boot times are not impressive. I might go SSD for that, but I doubt it. I think it'd be better to get a new WD Raptor 150 since the previous one is already 1.5 years old and might be slowing down due to age.

I might do a complete clean install this weekend to remove the possibility that the upgrade from 32-bit to 64-bit is causing problems.

I'm not too far off the 20 minute mark from clean HDD to Windows desktop. I think I'm around 22-25 minutes but I haven't really kept track. I prefer to count from start to completed setup (including all drivers, restoring bookmarks in Firefox, updated antivirus, all Windows updates, and the game I'm currently playing) which comes to around 2 hours.

[Buffalobiian]

Well the 32-bit install was a clean install less than a week ago and so there won't be much fragmentation. I'm using a WD Raptor 150 (it's about 1.5 years old, but still runs great and at 10k RPM).

What do you mean by "dirty upgrade"? I'm considering wiping it all out and starting from scratch with the 64-bit OS, but that will be another 2 hours I'd rather spend playing SC2.

The system runs slower all the time, even for file access and Windows explorer.

"Dirty" as in windows left stuff behind or otherwise didn't upgrade properly.

As for boot times, I've always been using sleep mode nowadays, so it hardly matters to me.

[Animeniax]

I normally use sleep mode too... but the system refused to wake up from sleep today. Hopefully it doesn't happen often. Sleep mode worked ok a few times yesterday after I finished installing everything.

[Killa-Eyez]

I have a 3 year old laptop that came with Vista32 and had al sorts of problems. Then I installed Win7 x64 and all problems were gone, except for a couple of compatibility issues, IF I were to run certain programs x64 mode (i.e. for example IE8 x64 - Adobe flash player). Most programs you use in Win7 x64 are still x86 (WMP, IE8, Office 2007, uTorrent etc.), except for essential system processes. So everything stays the same plus more RAM becomes available. Now hardware is a different story... Not all hardware is compatible with Vista/Win7. Or so it was a good while back. My 2 cents..

[Buffalobiian]

I have a 3 year old laptop that came with Vista32 and had al sorts of problems. Then I installed Win7 x64 and all problems were gone, except for a couple of compatibility issues, IF I were to run certain programs x64 mode (i.e. for example IE8 x64 - Adobe flash player). Most programs you use in Win7 x64 are still x86 (WMP, IE8, Office 2007, uTorrent etc.), except for essential system processes. So everything stays the same plus more RAM becomes available. Now hardware is a different story... Not all hardware is compatible with Vista/Win7. Or so it was a good while back. My 2 cents..

My wireless PCI card that was "meant" to work with W7 (32 AND 64bit) didn't.

I've managed to find a wired work-around at the moment. Again, I have no idea if it's a 32/64 thing, or an XP/Vista/W7 thing.

[Animeniax]

Generally if it's designed to work with Vista it will work with Win7, but XP to Vista/7 is too big a leap and drivers usually aren't compatible across this great divide.

@Killa-Eyez: I work at a helpdesk and we tell everyone to upgrade to Win7 to get away from Vista. It almost always resolves their problem and it increases the life of the PC and the user experience. I like how Win7 64 creates a separate x86 program files folder to help you determine which programs run in 32-bit and which are 64-bit.

[Buffalobiian]

Generally if it's designed to work with Vista it will work with Win7, but XP to Vista/7 is too big a leap and drivers usually aren't compatible across this great divide.


It was an XP-32 to W7-64 jump, but the drivers were al certified and all (it even recommended newer drivers through Windows Update), it was really disappointing.

[Animeniax]

My PC seems to be running faster now, though load times for SC2 are kind of slow.

I was reading reviews for SSD drives and someone posted raves about how his web browser opens in under 1 second with the SSD drive, like that's not standard on regular harddrives.

I'm still debating SSD vs SATA6 Raptor for a boot drive.

[Buffalobiian]

My PC seems to be running faster now, though load times for SC2 are kind of slow.

I was reading reviews for SSD drives and someone posted raves about how his web browser opens in under 1 second with the SSD drive, like that's not standard on regular harddrives.

I'm still debating SSD vs SATA6 Raptor for a boot drive.

If you find it worth considering, SSDs are also silent and much cooler. I can't say too much about performance, reliability and durability since they're still maturing, and I haven't gotten my head around everything yet.

Apparently Seagate made a pretty good hybrid drive though.

[David75]

If you find it worth considering, SSDs are also silent and much cooler. I can't say too much about performance, reliability and durability since they're still maturing, and I haven't gotten my head around everything yet.

Apparently Seagate made a pretty good hybrid drive though.

I would just forget that one, better stick to a mass storage drive and a good SSD, or just forget about SSDs until the prices fall down to better values in the next 3 years, maybe.

[Killa-Eyez]

To revive an old thread; in relation to my posts in the PC Problem thread, I am -just now- wondering if the overheating in my laptop is due to using the CPU's 64-bit feature by running Win7 x64? The laptop's standard install came with Vista x86, so I was thinking maybe it's architecture was designed to use in 32-bit mode only. Maybe used in 64-bit, it'd mean greater power consumption=increasing temperature, causing my overheating problems. Or should it not matter? I googled it but couldn't find anything.

I can't believe I didn't think of this sooner. I hope I don't sound like a n00b. :p

[David75]

I'd check vents for any obstruction, no really laptops really are badly designed there... you can't clean them easily.

regarding x86 vs x64, it's true the system is a little harder on memory for x64 but remember that it's in fact an hybrid system composed of both the x86 and x64 routines. So it should only be a memory burden.

Other than cleaning, the other factor I could see is drivers and overall win7 differences compared to vista. With laptops, you're never 100% sure you have the most efficient drivers as some/most parts are tailor made and probably will not have up to date drivers in all possible OSes.

Another thing to check is BIOS, maybe there's a version with updated thermal management? very unlikely, but I had that for my HP laptop so who knows?

A little trick that works on my laptop:
Do not let the battery in the laptop when it's already at 100% and your laptop is plugged.
Without the battery, the charging circuit will stop->less calories.
No battery means that you do not have that mass that is at least at the ambient temp (or a little more) sitting near vents and other parts-> less calorie retention.
Depending on the design of your laptop, might be useful (it's very useful in my case)


Last thing I'd do is closely inspect all resident programs/services. They tend to accumulate over time and most of them you use once a week/month/year... or just once but they keep launching and consuming your memory and cpu resources.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the aging of thermal glue for the cpu/gpu. I wonder how much of this is "internet fiction". Thing is, it's hard to get to those parts and even harder to solve the problem. Just for information then.

[Killa-Eyez]

So it shouldn't matter wether x86 or x64. Allright.

I will take all your advise in account as soon as I buy me a new VGA.

Cheerio mate.