Poll: 32-bit vs 64-bit (2009)

[Black Viper]

Discuss the "why's" you have chosen a particular bit depth structure below, such as:
1) More memory availability
2) Performance increase
3) Driver Support

No flaming others for their opinion, but constructive complements and criticism is welcome.

The 2008 results and discussions:
http://bbs.blackviper.com/index.php/topic,134.0.html

[Black Viper]

I choose 64-bit due to increased memory support beyond 4GB RAM. I do a lot of work with multiple Virtual Machines that suck up lots of memory. 4GB 32-bit barrier just is not enough.

[Spawn]

Memory support and speed.  The 64bit OS is faster.

Spawn

[twoturnin]

got updated rig back from builder----SLI dual GT 9800 cards and slower dual core AMD Athlon 6000 +-----builder suggested VISTA 64 bit----tested out top 13 % on PCPITSTOP

[Dakota]

Now since Vista has been out for awhile, I have a question about the difference in 32 or 64 bit.  Is it worth installing Vista if you are unable to afford upgrading to 64 bit?

[Black Viper]

Is it worth installing Vista if you are unable to afford upgrading to 64 bit?

If you are unable to afford (I am assuming purchase price) any item, I would advise against getting it.
If your system does not support 64-bit instructions, I would strongly suggest not getting Vista of any flavor.
I would also wait for Windows 7, however, again, if your system does not support 64-bit, I would not suggest getting Windows 7, either.

[DJanda]

64-bit for speed and memory availability. I was used to using large-word-sized processors at work, so I waited until a 16-bit bus computer was available to buy a PC (got an early Compac Desk Pro with an 8086 in it). As soon as 32-bit became available, I switched to it. Didn't go to 64 bit until now due to unhappy experiences with the early XP (I was the "guinea pig" at Honeywell) and an even worse experience with the early Vista (set up a laptop for one of my sons). Windows 7 looks to be the way forward. Always, always, always go for the largest word-size available (unless you just can't stand the OS  ).

[Dakota]

Is it worth installing Vista if you are unable to afford upgrading to 64 bit?

If you are unable to afford (I am assuming purchase price) any item, I would advise against getting it.
If your system does not support 64-bit instructions, I would strongly suggest not getting Vista of any flavor.
I would also wait for Windows 7, however, again, if your system does not support 64-bit, I would not suggest getting Windows 7, either.

Thanks BV, appreciate the honesty.  I don't know what it will cost to go 64 bit but right now I am a little strapped.

[VampireMuffinMan]

Personally, I'm sticking with the x86 installations.  Only real reason for this is that I have a really nice printer that doesn't have x64 drivers available (that I've found).  I've found x64 drivers for my wireless adapter  and...hmmm...I think my old scanner? (scanner died recently, though) Wireless is through a WUSB54GS v2.1, btw.  So, yeah...  I like my printer and I've really been trying to cut down on the number of drives and OSs on my computer.  At one time I had 5 physical drives (2 250 GB SATA 2, 1 120 GB SATA 1 [the amazing $4 HD!], 1 250 GB EIDE, and 1 80 GB EIDE) with 7 partitions and 4 Windows installations.  One Home x86, one Pro x86, one Pro x64, and one Vista Ultimate x86 (yes, I have all the disks).  Now I'm down to 2 installations on 2 drives.  Well, three drives again, but the 3rd isn't even allocated at the moment.  I'm going to use it to test my System Disk back up image.  If it works, then it can be relegated to the shelf in case I need it, probably with the image in tact.

[Maestro]

Went with 64 bit due to increases memory so that I could install Windows 7 when it come out.  Will probably set up a dual boot.

[VampireMuffinMan]

Windows 7 x64 (7000) seems to be working just fine on my rig.  Even recognizes my printer (HP Deskjet 9800)...something Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 didn't do.  It also seems to boot a bit faster than x86, which could just be due to not having everything installed on it yet.  Not going to play around with it too much more than seeing how it prints out a couple of AutoCAD drawings though with RC around the corner.  Strange thing:  AutoCAD 2010 x64 (trial) took at least twice as long to install as x86 did on my 32-bit Windows 7, though the download size was the same.  Oh well.  Going to see how it (AutoCAD x64) handles for a bit maybe tonight.  Play with the new modeling tools.

[AljonGuzman]

              I am in memory availability. I spend my time on searching about this.


_________________
Programmable Thermostats

[john ranger]

When I can run all my programs on 64 b I will switch to 64. But right now I can't:(

[ChiefZeke]

I have XP Pro x64 on my #1 system; installed just fine.
 
Tried to install Win7 64-bit; got BSOD MULTIPROCESSOR_CONFIGURATION_NOT_SUPPORTED  - it appears no one in the Win7 forums has arrived at a fix yet. Many other folks with single cpu but multiple cores are having same problem. (Though I had no issues with XP Pro x64 - go figure.)

[WildcatDan]

I prefer 64bit for speed and for increased RAM abilities.  My company services computers and builds a custom line of computers.  I've been a bit frustrated with the lack of 64bit support in both software and hardware industries.  We've always offered the 64bit option for our customers but we've only begun choosing the 64bit OS for some of our higher end systems in the past 6 months.  For us it's all about a smooth transition for our customers.  Those buying the high end systems are usually ready to replace hardware and software alike if necessary.  Lower end system are bought by those who are a bit more money-conscious in their decisions.  We're hoping to be building nothing but 64bit systems in the next year or so.
 
Just thought I'd throw that perspective in there.