# Windows 7 - 32 bit versus 64 bit



## shedberg (Jan 20, 2007)

I am looking for a new computer that needs to be Windows. I was looking at some good prices for Windows 7 but they all seem to be 64 bit. My current system is 32 bit. What are some of the downsides to switching? Will my applications work? There are two that I must have - NeatReceipts and Quicken.

Any thoughts would be appreciated!


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Im not an expert, since I use the 32 bit version of Windows 7, but the main differences I am aware of is the 64 bit version requires signed drivers, while the 32 bit version can still use unsigned drivers...important if you have a older device in your system that doesnt have updated 64 bit drivers...and the 64 bit version allows more system memory to be addressed. As far as programs without drivers, I think they all run ok. Most programs are only 32 bit anyway.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

How old are the versions? If they are really old (like Windows 95ish), they may be a problem if they are 16 bit apps or 32 bit apps with a 16 bit installer.

64 bit is the way to go, and if the system has 4 gig of RAM or more, the only option to use all the memory.

Also, if you have hardware you'll use with the system, like a scanner etc, make sure there is a 64 bit driver or can run on drivers built into Windows.


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

The last couple versions of Quicken should run fine in 64 bit Windows 7. I have run 2009 and 2010 without trouble.


----------



## shedberg (Jan 20, 2007)

Thanks! I though Quicken might be okay. I'm thinking a new Neat Receipt scanner will be necessary.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> How old are the versions? If they are really old (like Windows 95ish), they may be a problem if they are 16 bit apps or 32 bit apps with a 16 bit installer.
> 
> 64 bit is the way to go, *and if the system has 4 gig of RAM or more, the only option to use all the memory*.
> 
> Also, if you have hardware you'll use with the system, like a scanner etc, make sure there is a 64 bit driver or can run on drivers built into Windows.


You put a carriage bofore a horse.

If you'll need more then 4 GB RAM (do you have a proof of that ?) for run your programs, then the RAM increase you will force you to find x64 drivers for all your devices before start using benefits of big RAM and speed of x64 architecture.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

shedberg said:


> Thanks! I though Quicken might be okay. I'm thinking a new Neat Receipt scanner will be necessary.


You might not need a new scanner. I'm not familiar with the software, but looks like the driver is part of NeatWorks. If you have v3, you will need to upgrade to version 4, which they say is $30.

http://www.neatco.com/support/windows-7-and-64-bit-support


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

Many big box/web site Windows 7 laptops and desktops come with 64 bit Windows now. Too many for my taste, but that's what the manufacturers are using. Why someone sells a PC with 3GB of RAM and a 64 bit OS is a mystery to me.

Having said that, applications compatability has not been an issue for me. 

The exception to the rule is 64 bit Internet Explorer. Fortunately they package both a 32 and 64 bit version. The 64 bit IE won't run many toolbars which people may rely on. So use the 32 bit version!


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

P Smith said:


> You put a carriage bofore a horse.
> 
> If you'll need more then 4 GB RAM (do you have a proof of that ?) for run your programs, then the RAM increase you will force you to find x64 drivers for all your devices before start using benefits of big RAM and speed of x64 architecture.


Well, I know I need more than 4, some of the software I use has minimum requirements of 8, I just went to 12,. Don't know if the OP does. But if someone buys a new system with 6 gb etc, it will have a 64 bit OS. I don't think Dell even sells home systems loaded with a 32 bit OS anymore. You can install a 32 bit version, but they have to know the consequence.

64 bit drivers when buying a new system like the OP is isn't as big of a deal. Finding drivers for the internal components is usually the hard part, if the computer maker doesn't offer them. On a new computer it's generally just some scanners and printers. Heck, sometimes you'd have to get a new printer anyway, if it's legacy like using a parallel port.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

njblackberry said:


> Many big box/web site Windows 7 laptops and desktops come with 64 bit Windows now. Too many for my taste, but that's what the manufacturers are using. Why someone sells a PC with 3GB of RAM and a 64 bit OS is a mystery to me.


Increased security with Kernel Patch Protection? User can easily upgrade memory later without doing a full OS install?


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

Absolutely right. I'm not convinced many consumers actually upgrade their PCs. We do (of course) but I don't believe the average home user does. 

In any event, if you need more then 4GB, 64 bit is the only choice. I haven't found a device in a while that doesn't have 64 bit drivers available. And with Win 7, older drivers should work.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Good thread. 

I just had to make a choice and picked Windows 7 64-bit. Have been all XP up to now 

So far so good all week as I install everything. 

Haven't found any issues yet, but I have had to install more recent versions of a number of programs, which cost $, but that was mostly because I had really old versions.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

njblackberry said:


> The exception to the rule is 64 bit Internet Explorer. Fortunately they package both a 32 and 64 bit version. The 64 bit IE won't run many toolbars which people may rely on. So use the 32 bit version!


Conversely the 64 bit version of IE won't get so gummed up with crapware. So use the 64 bit version!!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> Well, I know I need more than 4, some of the software I use has minimum requirements of 8, I just went to 12,. ...


May I ask what was the RAM hungry SW ?


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Photoshop, AutoCAD...


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

P Smith said:


> May I ask what was the RAM hungry SW ?


My wife needs to learn Sharepoint and some other things, probably SQL stuff etc running multiple server VMs. I may have been able to get buy with less, but considering the price of RAM, I didn't really think twice. And the one thing that aggravates her more than anything PC related is it running slow.

As for 32 vs 64, I figure that at some point everyone will have to deal with it. Eventually, client versions of Windows might only be 64 bit. That's happening on the server side, though who knows if it will be Windows 9 on client.


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

I remember reading/hearing somewhere that Windows 7 was the last desktop OS that would offer a 32 bit version..

Of course that doesn't mean all the apps will follow. Office 2010/64 bit has a lot of issues working with 32 bit programs.... They have a ways to go.

What does it matter anyway, won't we be doing everything In The Cloud? I've seen the commercials


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

I’m running 64b Win 7 on most of the PC’s at my house (the rest are XP SP3 32b). The only software I had that wouldn’t run on 64b was DVD43 (because they don’t sign their drivers). However, after using SlySoft’s Virtual Clone drive for all these years, I finally broke down and bought a copy of AnyDvd HD which runs on 64b Win 7. So I don’t need to use DVD 43 any longer.

On the Quicken front, I’m running Quicken 2002 on my 64b box and it runs fine.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I've got 64b on two machines and have yet to run into anything that won't run. I have some very old programs (too cheap to buy new versions) and they all installed. Even the old HP PSC 1350 printer installed with the new drivers from WindowsUpdate.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Isn't *x64* or *64-bit* the correct designator ?


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

^^^
Yes

----------------------
One should always go with 64 bit these days. 32 bit is almost as obsolete as 16 bit!

10 years from now, 128 bit will be normal.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I'm waiting for Larry Flowers to share his wisdom on this topic. He's pretty much forgotten more on WIN7 than most of us will ever know.


----------



## shedberg (Jan 20, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> You might not need a new scanner. I'm not familiar with the software, but looks like the driver is part of NeatWorks. If you have v3, you will need to upgrade to version 4, which they say is $30.
> 
> http://www.neatco.com/support/windows-7-and-64-bit-support


Thanks! I'll try what I have first and see.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

RasputinAXP said:


> Photoshop, AutoCAD...


I'm curios if you have real info, like TaskMgr Memory log for the apps. Or it came as generic knowledge (like everyone here) that apps support x64 OS.
I have first hand knowledge of some Autodesk products' (AC, MDT) requirements for CPU/RAM/network/server parameters, but it outdated from time of x32 environment.
That time HUGE (1000 components of complicated device) AutoCAD assembly didn't require more then 2 GB of RAM.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

While those apps may not REQUIRE more than 4 GB of RAM, they often run MUCH better/faster/smoother when they have a lot more RAM to use, instead of constantly swapping to the hard drive.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

BattleZone said:


> While those apps may not REQUIRE more than 4 GB of RAM, they often run MUCH better/faster/smoother when they have a lot more RAM to use, instead of constantly swapping to the hard drive.


Plus it's really just not worth doing that for what memory costs. I mean, going from 4 to 12 gb RAM cost me under $100 for good quality Crucial memory. That and the 5 minute or so install time (thumbscrew was really tight) it's worth things running smooth.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

BattleZone said:


> While those apps may not REQUIRE more than 4 GB of RAM, they often run MUCH better/faster/smoother when they have a lot more RAM to use, instead of constantly swapping to the hard drive.


That's why I did ask to show TskMgr log.

And you did get awkward understanding - the swapping process happening when SW using more RAM them physically installed.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> Plus it's really just not worth doing that for what memory costs. I mean, going from 4 to 12 gb RAM cost me under $100 for good quality Crucial memory. That and the 5 minute or so install time (thumbscrew was really tight) it's worth things *running smooth*.


What I'm try to get is objective info not each one subjective "run smoothly". But if the 'Task Manager log' words doesn't ring the bell, you are not obligated to respond.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

There has been a ton of information written on 32 bit vs 64 bit operating systems. You can read all the technical jargon on line with a Google search.

Let's talk realities.

Windows Vista, for all its faults did serve a particularly useful purpose in that it woke the industry up to 64 bit. Not that everyone wasn't aware of 64 bit, but it was kind of the elephant in the room.

The most important thing for the end user is that a computer with a 64 bit capabiltiy can see, and more importantly use, more than 4 GB of memory.

The first and most noticeable effect will be that out of the box the computer will run faster... a lot faster.

Windows 7 64 bit has energized the computer manufacturers, who particularly took advantage of 64 bit with laptops. Let's face it, laptops are not known for being speed demons.

That has changed with Windows 7 64 bit. People like Dell & HP realized that they could "speed up" their laptops this way and almost overnight they made laptops with Windows 7 64 bit & 4GB of ram a standard. Jumps to 6GB & 8GB were cheap.

Without getting too technical, Windows operating systems have always used the hard drive of a computer as "memory storage" and anytime Windows had to do this it automatically slows the system down. Even a 7200rpm drive is slow compared to the speed of a memory chip.

Now you can throw a ton of memory at Windows and it doesn't have to resort to the hard drive.

But other than Windows itself, does 64 bit really help? That's a question with a mixed bag of answers. Software must be written to take advantage of 64 bit or it still is limited to 32 bit memory. Not all software creators have gotten this through their thick heads, but the number that have is rising... fast.

Adobe is on the bandwagon and anyone knows how memory starved Adobe software has been for years, an immediate benefit.

Ironically, Microsoft Office was never available in 64 bit until now. Office 2010 is available in both 32 bit and 64 bit versions and particularly spreadsheet gurus are dancing with joy.

There is a caveat with Office 2010 and it is a big one for right now. If you own many of the various smart phones available there are synchronization issues with 64 bit Outlook 2010. These will eventually be resolved but keep it in mind if you are upgrading.

Everything we do on computers becomes more and more graphics intensive by the day. Heavy use of video and high resolution photography is greatly enhanced by 64 bit. Again, memory is the key.

Windows 7 64 bit is also inherently more secure, though there are a number of reasons for this: 
1. Windows 7 64 bit has made it extremely difficult, though not impossible to tamper with the core kernel.
2. Windows 7 64 bit enjoys the same protection from malware authors that the Mac OS does, i.e. why bother? 32 bit is still more prevalent though this is rapidly changing.

A lot has been said about 64 bit browsers and Adobe Flash & Java... that is a dead horse now as both have 64 bit version.. Important note: you must install both versions (32 and 64) of Java. 90% of my browsing is on the 64 bit browsers, with no problems.

This discussion can go on and on but let me bottom line it for you:

1. Going to Windows 7 64 bit and having at least 4GB of memory will pretty much future proof the computer... everything will only get better for this environment. A little news flash here... *there will be NO 32 bit Windows 8.*

2. 32 bit software will run in the 64 bit environment

3. If you have critical attachments to your computer, it would be worthwhile to determine if there are any 64 bit issues before converting. This is becoming a rare problem, but if you have something like an old scanner that is critical in some way to what you do... check for problems first.

4. 64 bit has made memory the most important aspect of your hardware. If you have an computer powered by an Intel Core 2 Duo 3.0GHz chip with 3 GB of memory and you go 64 bit and toss 6 or 8 GB of memory at it, you will be stunned by the difference. Same chip, just lots more "room". All of my PC's are 64 bit. The "slowest" has 8 GB of memory, the fastest has 16GB.

And bottom line.. the price differential between 32 bit and 64 bit is almost non-existent (minimal) so why limit yourself?


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

I'm currently running Photoshop CS5 x64 and it's not a huge memory hog, but large PSDs are far easier to deal with in 4GB than 2.


----------



## HDJulie (Aug 10, 2008)

LarryFlowers said:


> ... All of my PC's are 64 bit. The "slowest" has 8 GB of memory, the fastest has 16GB.


Very nice write up as usual, Larry, but I think more clarification is needed on the amount of memory that might be necessary. For most casual users, 4GB or 6GB would probably be enough with 8GB maybe being better, but anything more likely being overkill. Unless you have one highly intensive memory application open, or have multiple say medium intensive memory apps open, you just aren't going to use over 8GB. I personally have 8GB in my PC & when I build for family members, I'll put 8GB for them as well but none of us, including me, need that much. According to Windows (7, 64-bit) I'm using just 38% of my memory which if I did the math right is 3.2GB. The PC has been up for several days & I have iTunes, Outlook, several sidebar gadgets, Windows Live Messenger & various & sundry other programs open. So, while more memory is indeed good, I think there is a point of diminshing return & while some people will need & use more than 8GB, probably most folks can easily get by on 6GB or 8GB.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

LarryFlowers said:


> There has been a ton of information written on 32 bit vs 64 bit operating systems. You can read all the technical jargon on line with a Google search.


Thanks Larry.

I just knew you could enlighten many, based on your extensive knowledge of Windos &.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

HDJulie said:


> Very nice write up as usual, Larry, but I think more clarification is needed on the amount of memory that might be necessary. For most casual users, 4GB or 6GB would probably be enough with 8GB maybe being better, but anything more likely being overkill. Unless you have one highly intensive memory application open, or have multiple say medium intensive memory apps open, you just aren't going to use over 8GB. I personally have 8GB in my PC & when I build for family members, I'll put 8GB for them as well but none of us, including me, need that much. According to Windows (7, 64-bit) I'm using just 38% of my memory which if I did the math right is 3.2GB. The PC has been up for several days & I have iTunes, Outlook, several sidebar gadgets, Windows Live Messenger & various & sundry other programs open. So, while more memory is indeed good, I think there is a point of diminshing return & while some people will need & use more than 8GB, probably most folks can easily get by on 6GB or 8GB.


My usual recommendation to users is generally based on how they use their systems. For many users who spend a lot of time on the internet and with their email, 4GB will in fact be just fine in conjunction with Windows 7 64bit.

A lot depends on the number of slots in your computer, ironically. For example many memory manufacturers have better deals on 4x2GB memory chips than you would get buying 2x1GB & 2x2GB. It's all about the kits.

Most of my clients will run laptops on 6GB and desktops on 6 to 8GB.

My high end machine has 16GB which may be overkill but sometimes I get a little carried away with the multi-tasking:lol:


----------



## shedberg (Jan 20, 2007)

Thanks all! I really don;t need anything super fast as this computer will only really be used for those two programs. I just couldn't find a Windows 7 32 bit computer and wasn't sure of the potential issues. I use a Mac for my workhorse but didn't want to get parallels so I need a Windows computer for a couple programs. I called neat receipts and I think I will need to upgrade to the newer scanner but I am planning on trying the old one first.


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

shedberg said:


> Thanks all! I really don;t need anything super fast as this computer will only really be used for those two programs. I just couldn't find a Windows 7 32 bit computer and wasn't sure of the potential issues. I use a Mac for my workhorse but didn't want to get parallels so I need a Windows computer for a couple programs. I called neat receipts and I think I will need to upgrade to the newer scanner but I am planning on trying the old one first.


Why the opposition to Parallels or Fusion? My wife and I switched to iMacs a little over a year ago. I installed Fusion on both for things like Quicken and few other things that needed Windows. Works great.


----------

