Should I go 64 bit with Windows 7?

[Deleted User]

slushpuppy wrote: »

if you have no intention of buying photoshop for £350 (for example) then its a total waste, the casul home user will be more than fine on 32bit

I can't see any reason to not go for the option that gives you the best performance and security both at present and during the 3-5 years lifespan that Windows 7 will have. x86 support needs to be depreciated, there's very little reason to stick with it now.

Even MS Office 10 is native 64 bit, I predict that an awful lot of programs are heading in the same direction. We're not just on about the big packages, we're looking at anything to do with multimedia and games, ie the home market.

There's no point buying into old technology now to have to waste money in upgrading in the near future.

-TangleFoot-

slushpuppy wrote: »

32bit will be arounf or years to come

And what do you think will happen when a 'home user' tries to install a graphics card with 4GiB of RAM on-board, hmm?

[Deleted User]

slushpuppy wrote: »

Old technology?

The software is limiting the potential of the hardware, it's old technology.

honestly some folk just dont know how to

A, Save money.

What savings are these?

32bit will be arounf or years to come maybe when windows 9 comes out then i would agree but not yet, especially for the home user < somehow this keeps being ommitted. :rolleyes:

OEM's will start phasing out x86 editions of Windows when 4GB of RAM becomes the minimum standard memory configuration, this will become even more accelerated when DDR3 configurations of 6GB+ become more affordable.

Vista has paved the way for 64 bit to reach maturity, 7 should see it become mainstream. Aren't Intel even introducing x86-64 Atom processors in the near future?

[Deleted User]

slushpuppy wrote: »

you failed to read my earlier post, you know the one about what its going to be used for the PC that is.

I did read it, I'm just not sure how relevant it was.

If you have a look here http://www.ebuyer.com/search?store=2&cat=230 better cpus cost more and then theres the cooling etc, that costs more, 64bit is dearer than 32bit

Don't all of those processors have the AMD64 instruction set anyway?

In the future, I agree but for a home user just to use email surfing, blah blah blah, are you getting it yet?

The only thing I'm having difficulty in understanding is why you're advocating a slower and less secure operating system

Jaffa.

-TangleFoot- wrote: »

And what do you think will happen when a 'home user' tries to install a graphics card with 4GiB of RAM on-board, hmm?

They will use it to play runescape in HD?

DatabaseError

@ slushpuppy - You tell'em - Yeah!


...now...where did I park my horse?

[Deleted User]

slushpuppy wrote: »

Umm in what post did I say 32bit is more secure? Id love to know.

You haven't taken into consideration what security enhancements Microsoft implemented into the x64 edition of Vista that wasn't possible in x86, the main ones off the top of my head are:

ASLR
NX (DEP) enabled to protect all code, not just opt-in like under x86
Kernel Patch Protection (Patchguard)
Driver Signing

amd 64 is a superset, the link was an example, if you look on ebuyer they have a link for intel chips aswell.

Which I'm sure all have the Intel 64 superset. In fact, isn't it difficult if not impossible for an end user to buy anything other than a netbook which doesn't have that. Cooling shouldn't even be a factor since if somebody is just using their computer for basic tasks then they are highly unlikely to be doing anything to their hardware that would necessitate anything other than the stock cooler.

So in a nutshell, if you have no future plans to invade N Korea 32bit will do.

Seems to be more akin to driving around in your car with bags of sand in the boot, but whatever.

-TangleFoot-

Jaffa. wrote: »

They will use it to play runescape in HD?

Assuming they can get it to boot in the first place: remember, 32-bit operating systems are limited to 4096MiB of virtual address space.

Did you know that the first dedicated 3D accelerators had just a few megabytes of RAM? Look how they've grown since then!

Jaffa.

Okay okay...

32 Bit is like having a push bike, 64Bit is like having a motorbike Slushpuppy if you want a push bike that's fine but most of us will go with the motorbike because of the awesomeness

[Deleted User]

slushpuppy wrote: »

youre really clutching at straws now, I want to know where I said 32bit is more secure, go on where, you said that I did so prove to me I said that, you cant because I didnt.

I'm not clutching at straws at all, I'm pointing out major security enhancements that aren't present in the x86 edition. You never stated that it was more secure, which is why I chose to use the word advocate, which is exactly what you did.

now as for me taking anything into consideration is another failure of yours, I never failed to take that into consideration at all as its already been covered, so yet again you have nothing to say about what i posted.

So, you've considered standard security features that Linux, BSD, & OS X all have implemented in one form or another and made a recommendation that's against that?