windows 7 64 vs xp 32

[Efess]

Actually, the 4GB limit seems to be more of a microsoft limitation than anything (surprise surprise). Using Physical Address Extension (PAE), you should be able to map memory above the 2^32 mark with paging - but the software won't allow it.

memory - Is there way to enable 4 GB RAM in 32-bit Windows OS? - Super User

[foq]

PAE is really a hacky trick... it uses 36-bit address width, addressing up to 64GB memory. That feature is typically reserved for server systems though, you won't see that on a normal machine.

[javimars]

4,294,967,296

64-bit offers 16 exabytes of memory address space... oddly enough 4,294,967,296x the amount 32-bit offers. You won't see 16 exabytes of memory any time soon though, and don't forget that MS purposefully puts limits on the amount of memory their OS will recognize, even the 64-bit versions, to encourage you to buy the more expensive version.

64bit is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. quake is 100 years old. based on 32bit memory addressing and it was original set for 16 bit direct color graphics. 64bit OS is future proof and you will need more than 4gigs of ram.i hope none of you build new PC just for quake.

LERSTER- why buy a 1200w PSU when you only have a gtx560? are you planning on getting 3 580gtx or 2 590gtx?

please if anyone is going to spend any money on new computer part PLEASE communicate with someone that can assist you. dont just go off and waste your money. if anyone needs help im always here or you can call me at 301-312-4634. im more than willing to help out on choosing the correct and necessary parts for a PC. i can also help you overclock the shit out of your PC as well.
ps. i do water cooling/phase cooling/LN cooling/LH cooling/thermoelectric cooling/ I DO IT ALL!

[Mindf!3ldzX]

When the next OS arrives, I'll bother with the 64bit flavor & a memory upgrade. I cheaped out on memory anyway ;O My entire reasonings for avoiding 64bit OS, is because I first tried XP 64bit and found NIL good to say about it,other than it was impossible to get the 3rd party vendor support.

Then again,I planned on utilizing my older peripherals,and sometimes the 64bit drivers weren't availible!

Javi knows his shit, unless he demands you go Intel Then he's clueless haha

Im not an AMD fanboy, really!

Hopefully Socket AM3 will afford backward compatibility to their next revision.... like AM2+ supported AM3 with bios upgrades

[foq]

You can't physically fit an AM2 or AM2+ processor in an AM3 socket, if that's what you mean. I personally have an AM3 processor running an in AM2+ board, though.

Vista/7 x64 is supported much better than XP x64 was. XP x64 was actually a hacky build that was patched together from Server 2003.

[Magnus]

Ditto what foq said. Win7 x64 does not compare at all to XP x64.

Also, as far as the next OS, I predict we'll be running 7 for a while. 7 is definitely the new XP. I LOVED XP and ran it on all my boxes. Now all I run is 7 x64 and server 2008 R2.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

You can't physically fit an AM2 or AM2+ processor in an AM3 socket, if that's what you mean. I personally have an AM3 processor running an in AM2+ board, though.

Vista/7 x64 is supported much better than XP x64 was. XP x64 was actually a hacky build that was patched together from Server 2003.

Hopefully Socket AM3 will afford backward compatibility to their next revision.... like AM2+ supported AM3 with bios upgrades

Maybe you just wanted to reword the shit I said,AM2+ mobo's can run AM3 CPU . I mentioned Backwards compatible for a reason, guess it was my health.
[/quote]
Do me a favor and actually allow your brain to process what I said.

Wow, face palm myself right out of this thread.

Not for any short comings of my own though.... NO! Thats not what I meant FOQ, but im definately gonna stick it some where!!!

*lights a cig*
winnning !

[foq]

I typically have a hard time understanding what you're saying, but I didn't feel like deciphering that one at the time.

[MH]

XP 64 was crap. PAE is crap - I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, even on a server.

Interesting note: the 4GB limit doesn't refer to how much memory the OS can handle, it refers to how much address space each process has. You can load a 32-bit OS with > 4 GB and if you have more than one process running each can in theory have a 4 GB address space that occupies different portions of that memory (well it's really 2, or sometimes 3, but let's not complicate things too much).

Back on topic. Windows 7 64 is good. Very very good. There's no longer a reason to hold off out of a sense of caution or because you might think 64-bit is new or risky. It's rock solid.

Advantages? You CPU is likely already 64-bit anyway, but emulating classic x86 instructions. Going native 64-bit on the OS side will bypass that emulation layer so you really get to extract the most perf from it. It's not going to be significant or measurable in day-to-day usage, but every nail in the coffin of x86 is a good thing; the technology has long outlived it's usefulness.

Hardware and drivers. You're going to have an increasingly difficult time getting 32-bit drivers for newer hardware and peripherals. Hell, you're going to have an increasingly difficult time even getting XP drivers. You might say that your kit is good enough right now, but any of your current printer, video card, sound card, etc may kick the bucket at any time. If you don't have an upgrade or replacement path that's supported on XP and valid for at least a year, you'll be screwed.

Motherboard and chipset support. You can no longer even install XP on even a 5-year old chipset without using the F6 + floppy disk method; no AHCI controller support. You'll see this more and more as time goes on.

Security. XP is already out of mainstream support. You're only going to get absolutely critical fixes for it, and when it goes out of extended support in a few years time the plug will be pulled. You're making yourself very vulnerable to exploits. Hope you don't visit too many "gentleman's websites".

The only valid reason I can possibly think of to prefer XP these days is if you have a really old system that you want to extract a few final years out of, but sooner or later you're going to need to get rid of it.

[Magnus]

Wow, you're not gaining anything AT ALL by going with a 32 bit OS over 64.

Win7 is the mainstream OS. Its basically a REQUIREMENT for any hardware manufacturer to provide 64 bit win7 support via drivers, software, etc..

:facepalm:

[Mindf!3ldzX]

I'm using Win7 32bit! 2gb of memory too !!

I own plenty of older peripherals / USB dongles that didnt get 64bit drivers/software written for it.

I'm clearly not slitting my e-wrists by using Win7 32bit over Win7 64bit. The original Win7 system requirements clearly stated 3gb memory recommended. I wasn't in that category.

[foq]

I own plenty of older peripherals / USB dongles that didnt get 64bit drivers/software written for it.

Like what, a dot matrix printer?

[dfsp_spirit]

Unless you are into PC status symbols you should ask yourself whether your current OS lacks something you urgently need. If this is the case, think about whether this new feature is worth the price and time (you'll have to reinstall everything etc).

It also depends on your hardware: if you have very new and powerful hardware and more than 4GB of RAM, a 64 bit OS is a good thing. As mentioned, parts of your RAM will just be ignored in that case if you're running 32bit (I'm not sure about the video memory claim though). If you have older hardware, chances are high that newer versions of Windows are going to slow things down instead of speeding things up. My laptop came with Vista pre-installed and it was unusable. Downgrading to XP made it work great. If I bought a new powerful desktop PC with tons of RAM, I'd use a 64bit OS.

I use 64bit systems under linux at work and if you're a programmer and often have to compile software made by others yourself you should also consider that there may be 64bit library terror and other incompatibilities with 64bit systems, the steps in manuals and HOWTOs will have to be adjusted etc, old documentation becomes wrong. 64bit trouble cost me a lot of time so far. While technically this can't be blamed on the 64bit hardware, in practice this doesn't matter to me.

[lennox]

Unless you are into PC status symbols you should ask yourself whether your current OS lacks something you urgently need. If this is the case, think about whether this new feature is worth the price and time (you'll have to reinstall everything etc).

It also depends on your hardware: if you have very new and powerful hardware and more than 4GB of RAM, a 64 bit OS is a good thing. As mentioned, parts of your RAM will just be ignored in that case if you're running 32bit (I'm not sure about the video memory claim though). If you have older hardware, chances are high that newer versions of Windows are going to slow things down instead of speeding things up. My laptop came with Vista pre-installed and it was unusable. Downgrading to XP made it work great. If I bought a new powerful desktop PC with tons of RAM, I'd use a 64bit OS.

I use 64bit systems under linux at work and if you're a programmer and often have to compile software made by others yourself you should also consider that there may be 64bit library terror and other incompatibilities with 64bit systems, the steps in manuals and HOWTOs will have to be adjusted etc, old documentation becomes wrong. 64bit trouble cost me a lot of time so far. While technically this can't be blamed on the 64bit hardware, in practice this doesn't matter to me.

Problem with that is, hes talking about windows, not linux, my laptop was made for windows vista, and runs atleast 1.5-2.5 times as fast on win7. Linux is terrible for deciding on 64-32bit, there simply isnt much that supports 64bit in linux.