Why do people use Windows 7 32bit ?

[3Z3VH]

The topic really says it all. Can anyone out there who is running Windows 7 RC 32bit tell me why they did not go 64bit ?

I can not for the life of me fathom a guess as to why anyone would use 32bit.

[jas420221]

I dont care about seeing all 4GB of my ram (3.3GB is plenty I can run anything I want while doing anything I want). There really isnt any difference in performance for meconsidering most anything I use is a 32bit app in the first place.

For the record, this topic is not exlusive to W7. 32bit vs 64bit OS in general (ok well aside form the crap that is XP64).

[Logos]

the myth of compatibility issues with 32 bit programs in a 64 bit OS I suppose...

[Jochenp]

Not having a 64 bit processor (T2300)

[3Z3VH]

Wow, I couldn't imagine anyone even trying to run Windows 7 on anything that would not run Vista. Amazing !

[jas420221]

Huh?

[WhiteFireDragon]

the download and installation files are different sizes. if someone is running a low end netbook and only has a stock 8gb SSD, you can't install the 64bit. i think the 32bit will be able to fit though, i may be wrong.

[3Z3VH]

Hmm... I was of the opinion that people with low-end machines or high efficiency machines would be avoiding things as flashy as Vista and Windows 7... I know if I was using a low-end netbook, I would not even consider either one, I would stick with XP, or even the Linux that came with it.

[PeterStoba]

As stated, 32bit fits onto smaller drives, and a machine with an 8GB hdd isnt gonna have more than 3GB is it really?

[EniGmA1987]

the myth of compatibility issues with 32 bit programs in a 64 bit OS I suppose...

Thats not a myth. the company I work for has some serious issues with business software on Windows XP 64-bit. I couldnt even imagine the nightmare on W7 x64. UPS Worldship and Quickbooks for example. They definitely do not like 64 bit.

Also, I have played a few games with compatibility issues. Stupid no name games though that no one would care about. But the issue exists nonetheless.


A friend of mine is runnign W7 x32 on his comps cause they are old and his best one only has 2GB of memory. SO there is no need for a 64 bit version for him. However, if 64 bit were to be all that is released I wouldnt care. I think it would be great actually. It would force all these issues to be fixed and everyone would begin to code in 64bit only.

[3Z3VH]

Of the few compatibility issues, they are the fault of the app, not the OS. If they had stuck to programming within MSDN Best Practices (using registered MS DLLs) they would not have issues in 64-bit. Also, any programs that do have these issues, can easily be run in a 32bit virtual machine within a 64bit OS until the programmers get their collective heads out of their asses and makes a decent piece of software.

[bazx]

you seem to have hit the nail on the head

I can not for the life of me fathom a guess as to why anyone would use 32bit.

Of the few compatibility issues, they are the fault of the app, not the OS. If they had stuck to programming within MSDN Best Practices (using registered MS DLLs) they would not have issues in 64-bit. Also, any programs that do have these issues, can easily be run in a 32bit virtual machine within a 64bit OS until the programmers get their collective heads out of their asses and makes a decent piece of software.

[EniGmA1987]

The problem is, UPS Worldship probably does conform to all the standards. The reason why it doesnt work in 64 bit is because Microsoft never got around to making 64 bit versions of some of the dll files that it needs. Stuff to do with MS Access, SQL, and the like.

[road-runner]

the myth of compatibility issues with 32 bit programs in a 64 bit OS I suppose...

Definitely not a myth, I have IP camera surveillance software that will not work on 64 bit along with scanners, printers and medical equipment software that will not work and a smart card reader...

[LagunaX]

My buddy Jolly Roger says half of the time the cracks/patches don't work properly on 64 bit but I wouldn't know...

[3Z3VH]

Bazx, you would think the benefit of having more than 3GB of RAM would outweigh the fact that you have to use a workaround to use a shoddily programmed piece of software, such as those that are not compatible with 64bit... but I see people's points here.

I am just rather angry at Microsoft for not being more forward-thinking in their approach with Windows 7, and making it 64bit only. For the minor loss they would have due to people not being able to run it on sub-par machines, it would be more than made up for in the fact that they only have to maintain one set of patches and updates, rather than two.

Microsoft is the only player left that is allowing 32bit to remain in the industry. If they made Windows 7 64bit only, we could finally see software that is written with native 64bit code, and possibly even see true multithreading support as a by-product. I loathe them for making a 32bit version of Windows 7.

[3Z3VH]

The problem is, UPS Worldship probably does conform to all the standards. The reason why it doesnt work in 64 bit is because Microsoft never got around to making 64 bit versions of some of the dll files that it needs. Stuff to do with MS Access, SQL, and the like.

They don't need the program to be native 64bit to run in a 64bit OS. They simply need to use MSDN Best Practices when coding, rather than just slapping it together. If they used the 32bit MS DLLs, they would be compatible with 64bit Windows. Problem is, they do not.

I assure you, Access and SQL work in 64bit OSes just fine.

[Easybeat]

Microsoft is the only player left that is allowing 32bit to remain in the industry. If they made Windows 7 64bit only, we could finally see software that is written with native 64bit code, and possibly even see true multithreading support as a by-product. I loathe them for making a 32bit version of Windows 7.

Its not going to happen in Windows 7 simply because of netbooks and old hardware, but from what I have been reading Windows 8 (or whatever its called) will probably be 64 bit only.

http://www.dailytech.com/Majority+of...ticle13983.htm

[EniGmA1987]

http://www.ups.com/media/en/gb/world...klist_intl.pdf
Read down just a little bit in that.


The Microsoft Jet Engine Database and Microsoft Data Access Components do not have 64-bit drivers. Nor does Microsoft plan to make any.

[HoJo]

For me it's a matter of having a Canon laser printer that they refuse to make a 64 bit driver for. This printer was still readily available for sale after x64 Vista hit the streets so in my opinion there is no excuse for not having one. I can't believe it takes that long to come up with an x64 driver. Because of this they have lost a life long customer.

[zanzabar]

there is no point in using 32bit if u have a 64bit cpu with visualization support u can get virtual xp to load drivers and 16 bit apps. and there is a performance difference it takes a little longer to boot 32bit and the 32bit is a companion os and not the primary

[3Z3VH]

http://www.ups.com/media/en/gb/world...klist_intl.pdf
Read down just a little bit in that.


The Microsoft Jet Engine Database and Microsoft Data Access Components do not have 64-bit drivers. Nor does Microsoft plan to make any.

When you speak of JetDB and MDAC, you are talking about software that was retired back in 2004 with the release of .NET. If UPS thinks they can have a current piece of software written with Dev tools that are 5 years old, they are sadly mistaken.

Also, last I checked the MS Jet DB 4.0 was all the way up to SP8, and they even had SP8 for Windows 2003 x64 Edition back in 2004. And 32bit MDAC has support in Windows XP x64 SP2 and Vista x64 SP1 via the SYSWOW. 64bit MDAC support was added in MDAC 2.7, and further polished in MDAC 2.7 SP1, then 2.8 and 2.8 SP1... so I have no idea where you get the idea it has no 64bit support. Not to mention, JetDB and MDAC are all server-side apps for SQL, so they couldn't care less what OS the client is on.

Bottom line is; UPS is lazy, and feels they don't NEED to upgrade their software to work with current computers. As I said before, they can blame MS all they want, but this is the fault of the developer, not MS.

By now, UPS should have converted their entire system to a web-based database.

[Logos]

...but from what I have been reading Windows 8 (or whatever its called) will probably be 64 bit only.

hopefully yeah...they (MS) already made the mistake of allowing a 32 bit version of Vista, then they said, OK, that was the last time (although they previously announced that Vista would be 64 bit only), next OS will be 64 bit only...see the result, Seven is available as 32 bit...again, not surprising as Seven is not a new OS , but Vista at a (much) more advanced development stage (I'm not bashing Seven, I run Seven)...so I guess next time will be the time when it finally happens

[dan7777]

64bit is faster in my experience ive used both and now useing win 7 7021 x64 and would never go back for alot of reasons of course me 8GB ram benefits etc...

[RejZoR]

I dont care about seeing all 4GB of my ram (3.3GB is plenty I can run anything I want while doing anything I want). There really isnt any difference in performance for meconsidering most anything I use is a 32bit app in the first place.

For the record, this topic is not exlusive to W7. 32bit vs 64bit OS in general (ok well aside form the crap that is XP64).

If you'd have way over 4GB, you wouldn't be talking like that. For me with 6GB of RAM it's just a no go. Especially if i'll upgrade to 8GB or more someday.

Also thinking that not using 64bit OS just because majority of programs are still 32bit is not realistic. Most of 32bit programs actually run FASTER on 64bit processors and operating systems even though they are just 32bit.
Bottom line, 64bit is always better than 32bit, even if you don't have 4GB+ of RAM. Unless you plan on running very old software (16bit) that just doesn't work at all on 64bit OS. But i run that in VirtualPC anyway if needed.