64-bit or 32-bit Windows 7

Microsoft Windows 7 ultimate 32-bit
September 5, 2010 at 14:35:32
Specs: Windows 7, 2.5gb
my brother just gave me a 2gb ddr2 ram
which windows 7 i should use?
32 or 64 bit?
my brother said that the 64 version has more beautiful graphics

intel pentium dual core e5400 3.1ghz overclocked
2.5gb of ram
370gb HDD
intel gma x4500


See More: 64-bit or 32-bit Windows 7

Report •

#1
September 5, 2010 at 16:31:20
Get some more RAM (4GB at least) before going 64-bit:

http://gizmodo.com/5133771/why-you-...

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."


Report •

#2
September 6, 2010 at 06:26:57
If you have any very old software (16-Bit), use a Windows 7 32-Bit, because the 64-Bit Version of windows 7 does not support 16-Bit applications anymore, except you use the WinXP mode in windows 7.

The original poster should always write the last response !!!
Let us know, if the problem is solved !!!


Report •

#3
September 6, 2010 at 07:31:18
if i sell my current pc & my brother's pc
is the money enough to build a core 2 quad/core i3 system

my pc

atx-300watts PSU
Intel Pentium Dual Core E5400
Intel Graphic Media Accelerator X4500
2.5gb ddr2 400mhz RAM
370gb HDD 7200rpm
Asus P5QPL-AM

my brother pc

Atx-230 watts PSU
Gigabyte motherboard ( i cant remember the board but on the dvd driver it says 'Gigabyte 6-QUAD/S-series)
Intel Core 2 DUO 2.8ghz
Nvidia 9400GT
3gb ddr2 800mhz RAM
250gb HDD 7200rpm


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
September 6, 2010 at 12:36:55
There is so much loss on a 64 bit and so little use you would be much better off with the 32 bit version. Only people who have more than 4G should even consider 64 bit. Even then you have to have a supported board/system.

Why did it take me over a year to phone in a problem to ATT?


Report •

#5
September 6, 2010 at 12:38:09
Oh, you won't be much better off with an i3.

Why did it take me over a year to phone in a problem to ATT?


Report •

#6
September 6, 2010 at 13:13:29
IMHO 64bit is the best choice simply because it is the future. 32bit has memory limits which cannot be overcome, however Win64 can still handle the vast majority of 32bit programs - I don't know the technicalities of why, it just does. I have not found any mainstream program that will not run on my Win7/64 bit machine - in fact I've just installed 32bit VLCPlayer with no problems and it's working fine. Even if you only have 2,5Gb RAM at the moment it still gives you the opportunity to increase that over the 3.3Gb limit in the future. Together with the fact that the vast majority of software is now produced in 64bit as well as 32bit versions means that to limit yourself to 32bit would be pointless in the long run.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us..."


Report •

#7
September 6, 2010 at 19:05:36
"There is so much loss on a 64 bit and so little use you would be much better off with the 32 bit version."

There's very little memory overhead and no processor performance overhead to using x86-64 vs. x86. Virtually all hardware manufactured in the last three years has 64-bit drivers available, and compatibility with 32-bit software is usually equivalent to the 32-bit version of the same operating system. An increasing amount of software is available in a 64-bit version, and those that are can often perform faster, even with less than 4 GB of RAM. Where did you get the idea that there is "so much loss?"

"Only people who have more than 4G should even consider 64 bit."

False. The x86-64 architecture provides a speed increase even with less than 4 GB of RAM.

"Even then you have to have a supported board/system."

Which virtually all computers made in the last four years have.


Report •

#8
September 6, 2010 at 19:18:02
so guys..
what's the conclusion?
should i stick with 32-bit or install a windows 7 64-bit
and another question
my friend said that upgrading an os doesnt effect the performance much
example: Vista to 7
he said it's better to install than upgrade
is it true?

Report •

#9
September 6, 2010 at 21:11:28
"should i stick with 32-bit or install a windows 7 64-bit"

I would go with the 64-bit version. The fact that so many machines come with the 64-bit version preinstalled should show that its ready for the primetime.

"my friend said that upgrading an os doesnt effect the performance much
example: Vista to 7"

That depends on how much of an improvement the new version is over the last one. Windows 7 does have some performance improvements over Vista; the difference may or may not be noticeable to you.

"he said it's better to install than upgrade
is it true?"

I assume he is referring to doing a clean install vs. performing the upgrade process and preserving the data from the older version. In my experience, going through the upgrade process is generally a waste of time, since many applications have to be reinstalled to work correctly anyway, particularly anti-viruses and those that have copy-protection.


Report •

#10
September 7, 2010 at 12:58:34
This is what MS says Remember every other version of MS OS said what the minimum was and we found out it didn't work very well with that??

" If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:

*

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
*

1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
*

16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)"

You WILL lose 1G of ram out of the box. This is without any applications!

Each application will use more ram if 64 bit.

Not all applications work with 64 bit. You will lose 16 bit apps.

No where would you find every 64 bit driver.

You will use more hard drive space.

Unless you have tons of hard drive space and a fully supported system and you have or will get more than 4 G AND you have some use for only 32 bit and 64 bit apps then consider the 32 bit. Otherwise you are simply fooling yourself.

Why did it take me over a year to phone in a problem to ATT?


Report •

#11
September 7, 2010 at 12:59:56
To me it is like putting chrome on a race car. You might think you are making it faster is all.

Why did it take me over a year to phone in a problem to ATT?


Report •

#12
September 7, 2010 at 13:42:23
Another vote for 64-bit.

HTPC | Pentium M @ 2.82GHz, 2MB L2) | 4GB | 1.0TB | Radeon HD5750
Blu-Ray | Win 7 Pro | HDMI out to Onkyo TX-SR707 AV receiver


Report •

#13
September 7, 2010 at 22:34:07
"1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)"

I assure you if you actually tried using the 64-bit version on 1 GB of RAM, it would work fine. It does not magically make an entire GB of RAM disappear. The extra hard drive space requirements is because it includes both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of various libraries.

"Each application will use more ram if 64 bit."

An infinitesimally small amount, on the order of a couple kilobytes apiece.

"Not all applications work with 64 bit. You will lose 16 bit apps."

Which most people no longer use, and even if they did, there are alternative ways of running them.

"No where would you find every 64 bit driver."

Like I said, almost all computer components manufactured in the last three or four years have 64-bit drivers available.

"You will use more hard drive space."

As I stated above, almost all of the additional space usage is because the system will include support for 32-bit applications.

"Unless you have tons of hard drive space and a fully supported system and you have or will get more than 4 G AND you have some use for only 32 bit and 64 bit apps then consider the 32 bit. Otherwise you are simply fooling yourself."

Most people have more hard drive space than they know what to do with as it is, I already explained most modern systems are fully supported, almost no one needs support for 16 bit applications anymore, and that there are performance advantages to using 64-bit applications over 32-bit ones on the x86-64 architecture, even with less than 4 GB of RAM.


Report •

Ask Question