Windows 7 32 or 64 bit?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I've never had compatibility issues with 64 bit windows.
Thanks Christian :P
You realise when CG says 'never', it means 'just not yet, but oh boy it will' ?
xacc.ide
IronScheme - 1.0 RC 1 - out now!
((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x))) The Scheme Programming Language – Fourth Edition -
You realise when CG says 'never', it means 'just not yet, but oh boy it will' ?
xacc.ide
IronScheme - 1.0 RC 1 - out now!
((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x))) The Scheme Programming Language – Fourth EditionMy first thought was that perhaps he'd never used 64-bit Windows, and therefore never had a problem. It wouldn't, technically, be a false statement. :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
-
My first thought was that perhaps he'd never used 64-bit Windows, and therefore never had a problem. It wouldn't, technically, be a false statement. :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
Yeah, I can't recall him mentioning that OS ever! ;P
xacc.ide
IronScheme - 1.0 RC 1 - out now!
((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x))) The Scheme Programming Language – Fourth Edition -
Yeah, I can't recall him mentioning that OS ever! ;P
xacc.ide
IronScheme - 1.0 RC 1 - out now!
((λ (x) `(,x ',x)) '(λ (x) `(,x ',x))) The Scheme Programming Language – Fourth EditionI think it varies a lot on your hardware: I use Win 7 32 bit at home on a 4GB (but 64 bit capable) PC and at work on a Win 7 64 bit 12GB RAM monster PC. Let me explain my answer (it's not a simple one!) Running legacy (badly written, eg writing to HKLM / Program Files) software I have _sometimes_ found a major pain under Win 7 x64 (because it redirects the apps into \Program Files (x86)\......, which keeping their data files under \Program Files. For a number of apps this is a pain. This is only a issue on x64 OS's with bad x86 (Win32) code. But for me it has been quite a big annoyanace. BUT: There's no doubt Win7 x64 flies, it's noticeably quicker than x86. BUT: Win7 x64 requires a bigger memory footprint itself (the kernel and apps being 64 bit require more RAM). Now let me explain further... My home PC is physically incapable (motherboard and socket issue) of handling more than 4GB RAM, so I can't upgrade beyond 4GB. Thus using Win 7 64 bit would allow me to address all 4GB RAM (unlike 3.25GB) BUT would take a bigger footprint of the 4GB itself, and will give me back some of the incompatibilities.... So at home I stick to 32 bit Win 7, which is VERY back compatible. But thats a fairly special case. In general, I'd also say go x64, but bear in mind if you're doing it on hardware that can't go beyond 4GB RAM (even in future), you might be best staying with x86 Hope this helps Mike
-
I am sure this question has been posted to death however I would like to know if I would be advised to install the 64 bit version over 32 bit, having a 64bit core 2 processor ect and 4GB of memory performance should be greater but is the compatibility still an issue? (And dam visual studio 2010 for not supporting 64 bits !) :laugh:
If your all your hardware supports it then go x64. Regarding memory issues - it should be used as much as possible - that's what it's there for, I've got 6GB in my desktop but very rarely use all that the only time I've come close is playing a 64-bit version of Crysis. Normally it sits at about 2.25GB. That's with a couple of VMs, movie playing and Visual Studio, and Office open.
I doubt it. If it isn't intuitive then we need to fix it. - Chris Maunder
-
My first thought was that perhaps he'd never used 64-bit Windows, and therefore never had a problem. It wouldn't, technically, be a false statement. :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
you evil, evil man: how dare you speak like that about CG. ;P few days later post from CG
Why 64-bit Windows Sucks:doh:Yusuf May I help you?
-
I've never had compatibility issues with 64 bit windows.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Driven to the arms of OSX 64 bit Windows by Vista.
ftfy
Yusuf May I help you?
-
I am sure this question has been posted to death however I would like to know if I would be advised to install the 64 bit version over 32 bit, having a 64bit core 2 processor ect and 4GB of memory performance should be greater but is the compatibility still an issue? (And dam visual studio 2010 for not supporting 64 bits !) :laugh:
I think 32-bit version only supports 3GB, so it'd give you use of the extra 1GB and allow more memory expansion in the future. I've had compatibility issues with some software that interacts with hardware such as older versions of Nero. Also, Office 2007 has some minor compatibility issues which have been resolved in 2010. And a few things are more complex regarding the organization of the filesystem and registry.
-
I am sure this question has been posted to death however I would like to know if I would be advised to install the 64 bit version over 32 bit, having a 64bit core 2 processor ect and 4GB of memory performance should be greater but is the compatibility still an issue? (And dam visual studio 2010 for not supporting 64 bits !) :laugh:
The only problem I've run into has been 32bit vs 64bit applications. Either will run fine on 64bit OS - but most applications have been written against a 32bit model, so they don't play well with 64bit applications. Try syincing your phone against 64bit Outlook - won't work, for example.
Phil
-
I am sure this question has been posted to death however I would like to know if I would be advised to install the 64 bit version over 32 bit, having a 64bit core 2 processor ect and 4GB of memory performance should be greater but is the compatibility still an issue? (And dam visual studio 2010 for not supporting 64 bits !) :laugh:
I would see no reason to use 32-bit since your hardware supports 64-bit OS. And why do you say VS2010 doesn't support 64-bit - it certainly does. You have to create a new platform from the configuration manager to enable it. I'm actually compiling much of my code for as 32-bit apps and as 64-bit apps with VS2010 on a Windows XP machine with 32-bit OS. The 64-bit apps work well on Windows 7 64-bit.
Karl - WK5M PP-ASEL-IA (N43CS) PGP Key: 0xDB02E193 PGP Key Fingerprint: 8F06 5A2E 2735 892B 821C 871A 0411 94EA DB02 E193
-
I would see no reason to use 32-bit since your hardware supports 64-bit OS. And why do you say VS2010 doesn't support 64-bit - it certainly does. You have to create a new platform from the configuration manager to enable it. I'm actually compiling much of my code for as 32-bit apps and as 64-bit apps with VS2010 on a Windows XP machine with 32-bit OS. The 64-bit apps work well on Windows 7 64-bit.
Karl - WK5M PP-ASEL-IA (N43CS) PGP Key: 0xDB02E193 PGP Key Fingerprint: 8F06 5A2E 2735 892B 821C 871A 0411 94EA DB02 E193
I think the OP might've meant that there's no 64bit version of visual studio itself. The VS team considers rewriting the remaining legacy code components a very low priority since they think there's room for larger speedups from enabling parallelism than from going x64, although since they are making sure their new code is x64 compatible once almost everything has been reworked they'll be able to do the last step cheaply.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18