x86-64 vs x64

[jack100]

freedquaker said:

Pemalite said:

freedquaker said:

There are a lot of disadvantages with 64 bit (but of course it depends how much it matters to you)

-64 bit Win7 uses almost twice as much RAM

-64 bit uses more CPU processes and more CPU time

-64 bit version almost takes twice the Hard disc space

-64 bit version is slightly slower in many 32 bit apps (85% of my software)

-64 bit version is incompatible with many 32 bit software (10-20 % of my pprograms)

-64 bit version creates a separate directory for program files, adding to the mess

-64 bit version is less customizable in deep system settings, 32 bit is easier to slim down

etc...

 

Basically as of now, there is absolutely no benefit that I get from the 64 bit, but lots of costs! This gets a lot worse when your PC is older.

.....
Most of that simply isn't true or blown out of proportion.

The reason why 64bit version may use up more drive space and memory is because the 64bit version can handle much larger operations, the pointer size got bigger, doubled in fact ....
However, that doesn't mean an application is automagically going to be using twice the Ram and taking up twice the drive space.
.....

 

Well, do you notice that you understood my words the way you wanted to understand? Because I never talked about the application memory size or hard disc allocation size. I was merely talking about the WINDOWS itself. So it is a comparison of 64 BIT WINDOWS vs 32 BIT WINDOWS, not 32 bit apps vs 64 bit apps. All the points I have made are true and measured and felt and experienced personally by me, as I have 6 freaking laptops and desktops which run both 64 bit and 32 bit versions of Windows 7 (in addition to XP and Linux).

And yes, there is only 1 thing I didn't count or care on a PC. Gaming. I don't do PC Gaming. If I did, I'd definitely upgrade that specific PC to 64 bit, at least for the sake driver compatibility and the new generation of games that require Direct X 11, and 64 bit OS as well as 4 GB of RAM. 32 bit Windows can run 4 GB but the 32 bit apps cannot utilize it separately.

Other than the big budget PC Games or some rare and far between professional programs, there is almost no program out there that utilizes 64 bit or gains a speed advantage. On the contrary 32 bit is almost always faster. On the vanilla state, the differences are not huge but with the given tweaks that are mostly possible on 32 bit only, 32 bit becomes not only faster (in raw performance) but also MUCH snappier.

Let me give you an extreme example... I did slim down the Windows 7 32 bit to 4 GB, including the entire program files and Windows folder. I created a 4G Ram disk to go with this, and installed the Win7-32 bit on a virtual disk, which is located on the RAM Drive. Then I connected my regular main hard disc through the shared folders, where I put all my life but the system. That Virtual PC is faster than any PC I have ever encountered in my life. YOU CANNOT DO THIS with 64 bit Windows 7 because it will take much more space than 4 GB.

There are dozens of other reasons why 32 bit Windows 7 is better suited to me than a 64 bit one. But this is true for Windows. My argument is specific to Windows, because I can't say the same thing for most Linux distros. Linux Mint 64 bit, for example, is easily better than its 32 bit counterpart in almost every way.

What you say is true, the 32 bit version of windows 7 is a 16 gigs install whereas the 64 bit version of Windows 7 is 20 gigs.  IN terms of RAM, 32 bits need 1 gig and 64 bits needs 2 gigs.  I'm not sure, but I can understand the extra data needed.  You at least need more data to be both 32 and 64 bit application compatible.