Should You Install Windows 7 32-bit or 64-bit?

jmke · 31st July 2009, 12:18

With the upcoming release of Windows 7, the question is raised again on whether you should install the 32-bit version (x86) of the operating system or move up to 64-bit (x64).

This is something that's been asked since the introduction of consumer-level processors bearing the “x64” nomenclature. It feels like just yesterday that Intel and AMD fanboys were at odds over the Athlon 64. At that time and even as recently as the introduction of Windows Vista, software and drivers for 64-bit setups were slim-pickings.

Analogous to the shift from 16 to 32-bit computing, the jump to 64-bit has been a slow one. Windows XP x64 never took off, though 64-bit versions of Vista did, thankfully. The ride was a bumpy one, but hardware manufacturers and software developers alike have finally widely adopted the 64-bit architecture - and there’s no turning back now.

http://www.techspot.com/guides/177-w...l-32bit-64bit/

2nd August 2009, 09:56

I personaly thing Microsoft is slowing down the x64 transition by forcing signed drivers and by dropping support for a lot of legacy hardware.
I'm now running Windows 7 x64 and it's a bit annoying that I can't use my old, yet trusty HP Laserjet 4L anymore. The same goes for some programs (like i8kFancontroll, speedfan or RMClockUtil) which use homebrew drivers to access hardware, pitty I can't use them anymore.

Driver signing appears to be ridiculously expensive, adding an extra cost to products which -of course- the user will have to pay for.

Using Windows 7 in test mode and signing the drivers yourself seems to fix some problems, but in my humble opinion these problems should have never existed...

jmke · 2nd August 2009, 10:03

driver signing is maybe expensive, but if you want a better OS, it starts with making sure that any and all programs can that access lower level programming use verified drivers

2nd August 2009, 11:10

I personaly don't see the advantage of signed drivers. I've never cared about them and I also never had any problems with using unsigned drivers, the only thing that matters is the added functionality.
Best example is the giveio driver, I can't install it on a 64-bit OS and a lot of applications (with the same functionality) rely on this driver.

31st July 2009, 12:18	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	Should You Install Windows 7 32-bit or 64-bit? With the upcoming release of Windows 7, the question is raised again on whether you should install the 32-bit version (x86) of the operating system or move up to 64-bit (x64). This is something that's been asked since the introduction of consumer-level processors bearing the “x64” nomenclature. It feels like just yesterday that Intel and AMD fanboys were at odds over the Athlon 64. At that time and even as recently as the introduction of Windows Vista, software and drivers for 64-bit setups were slim-pickings. Analogous to the shift from 16 to 32-bit computing, the jump to 64-bit has been a slow one. Windows XP x64 never took off, though 64-bit versions of Vista did, thankfully. The ride was a bumpy one, but hardware manufacturers and software developers alike have finally widely adopted the 64-bit architecture - and there’s no turning back now. http://www.techspot.com/guides/177-w...l-32bit-64bit/ __________________

2nd August 2009, 10:03	#3
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	driver signing is maybe expensive, but if you want a better OS, it starts with making sure that any and all programs can that access lower level programming use verified drivers __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
175 Windows 7 Tweaks, Tips, and How-To Articles	jmke	WebNews	2	23rd October 2009 14:00
How to Install DirectX 11 on Windows Vista	jmke	WebNews	0	19th October 2009 10:00
Microsoft Patch Tuesday: 5 Criticals, 2 Important, 1 Moderate Patch	jmke	WebNews	0	14th April 2009 18:47
Install Windows 7 from USB	jmke	WebNews	1	16th January 2009 22:13
Microsoft Security Bulletin Summary for September 2008	jmke	WebNews	0	9th September 2008 19:20
Moving existing Windows XP Install from AMD nForce3 to Intel P35	jmke	General Madness - System Building Advice	2	2nd August 2008 17:38
Microsoft Security Bulletin Summary for August 2007	jmke	WebNews	0	14th August 2007 22:21
Microsoft Security Bulletin Summary for June 2006	jmke	WebNews	0	14th June 2006 20:51
List of fixes included in Windows XP Service Pack 2	jmke	WebNews	1	17th August 2004 15:03
Making a Windows XP Slipstreamed Install CD	jmke	WebNews	0	20th June 2004 21:58

2nd August 2009, 09:56	#2
wutske Posts: n/a	I personaly thing Microsoft is slowing down the x64 transition by forcing signed drivers and by dropping support for a lot of legacy hardware. I'm now running Windows 7 x64 and it's a bit annoying that I can't use my old, yet trusty HP Laserjet 4L anymore. The same goes for some programs (like i8kFancontroll, speedfan or RMClockUtil) which use homebrew drivers to access hardware, pitty I can't use them anymore. Driver signing appears to be ridiculously expensive, adding an extra cost to products which -of course- the user will have to pay for. Using Windows 7 in test mode and signing the drivers yourself seems to fix some problems, but in my humble opinion these problems should have never existed...

2nd August 2009, 11:10	#4
wutske Posts: n/a	I personaly don't see the advantage of signed drivers. I've never cared about them and I also never had any problems with using unsigned drivers, the only thing that matters is the added functionality. Best example is the giveio driver, I can't install it on a 64-bit OS and a lot of applications (with the same functionality) rely on this driver.