64-bit vs 32-bit

[arabella]

There doesn't YET seem to be any overriding reason to go for 64-bit rather than 32-bit as most stuff requyires some osrt of 32-bit emulation to run properly and external stuff needs special drivers.
At what point will this change - what level of futureproofing FAIL will I commit if I go for a 32 bit laptop?

[plum]

I think it's gone past that stage. On a 64 bit Windows OS everything pretty much works now [or at least as well as before] so there's almost no reason not to use one. Memory is cheap, processors run cool, software has been updated and rebuilt. Apps compiled for 64 bits will run quicker than 32 bit counterparts, can't remember the last time I tried to run something that wouldn't work on W764, unless you have a box of legacy hardware somewhere that you insist on using drivers ceased to be an issue a long time ago.

Unless you can save money there's not much point deliberately opting for an OS that is being phased out.

[Kim]

Hang on, are we talking hardware or software?  I didn't think they still made laptops with 32bit CPUs.

Windows, well, depends on whether you've got stuff that'll only run on 32bit Windows, I reckon.

(Other OSes, with everything compiled for 64 bit and Just Working, are available.)

[matthew]

I had to go 64bit at uni 6 years ago because I was bouncing off the memory limit for a 32bit array!!

Prompted the company my dad works for to produce a 64bit version of their software as if I needed it then their paying customers would benefit.

[ed_o_brain]

W7 64 bit has optimisations that the 32-bit counterpart doesn't, particularly in the network stack.
If you use a W7 machine in a networked environment, you will feel the benefit.

[Feanor]

On Windows machines, I went 64-bit with win7.
There didn't seem any reason not to.
I've never regretted it.

Most of the compatability issues are history.

If you have some legacy hardware/software that you *must* have but which simply won't work in x64, then that's your show-stopper.
If that's the case, 1980 called, and wants it's shit back.

Most machines these days are going to be >4GB RAM, so 64-bit is indicated.

--
Ron

[arvid]

Hang on, are we talking hardware or software?  I didn't think they still made laptops with 32bit CPUs.

My 5yr old laptop is the last generation of 32-bit laptop cpu's. But Netbooks are all 32-bit afaik (I might be behind), so maybe arabella is after a netbook.
I would really really want to be able to address more than 3.2GB of memory.

[mrcharly-YHT]

Nope, they are nearly all 64bit these days

[Biggsy]

I regret not installing the 64-bit version of Windows 7 now, instead of 32-bit.  It wouldn't have costed me any more, since I got both versions in one pack.  I thought too many programs wouldn't work with it.

[arabella]

OK, so the bargain 32-bit machine (laptop) is probably a mistake then ....  thanks.
I will be keeping the old machine for fun stuff like homework and anything else that won't port, should I find there is anything that we still use of the like.

[Biggsy]

OK, so the bargain 32-bit machine (laptop) is probably a mistake then ....  thanks.

Hold on.  I'm not sure if you're sure that the machine is 32-bit, or if just the Windows version is 32-bit.  Anyway, it still could be a good buy in either case.  I don't agree that you've got to have 64-bit.  Will you really be needing more than 3GB of memory on a laptop?  It's not like a netbook with no hard drive.

The above posts seem to be answering the question as if 64-bit won't cost you any more than 32-bit.

[frankly frankie]

I've got some pretty old software that I still like, but so far I've only found one item that won't install and run under W7-64.  That's much better than I anticipated.

I did have to replace my (not very old) Canon scanner however - no Canon 64-bit drivers and I tried a couple of 3rd-party hacks but they were rubbish - adware and time-limited dross.

[Jacomus]

I regret not installing the 64-bit version of Windows 7 now, instead of 32-bit.  It wouldn't have costed me any more, since I got both versions in one pack.  I thought too many programs wouldn't work with it.

Indeed, I am now having exactly the same regrets.

[Biggsy]

Since my post, I've managed to install a 64-bit version on another partition, as part of a dual-boot, so I'm going to have my cake and eat it.  32-bit on one partition, 64-bit on another (actually different disks as well). 

It did have Windows XP on this machine too (dual-boot), but I never use it, so it might as well go.

[Biggsy]

Can't get ancient-but-still-great Lotus Ami Pro word processor working with 64-bit.  Does work with 32-bit W7.

Also, so-called "Easy Transfer" to port settings and programs from one computer (or partition) to another doesn't completely work.  It never does, with any version of Windows.  Always lots of manual fettling and reinstalling is required.

[frankly frankie]

Can't get ancient-but-still-great Lotus Amipro word processor working with 64-bit.

I agree 100% with your assessment of Ami Pro.

Word Pro which was the next version (and yes, not as good) works fine, and the files are more accessible to other software (even OpenOffice doesn't know what a .sam file is!)