Micro Mart Forum / Microsoft Windows / Technical Forums / Windows 7 / Latest Posts

RE: Windows 7

FM — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:41:12 GMT

64-bit CPUs are able to number crunch huge numbers that tiny bit faster. (Edit: When in used in a completely 64 bit environment)

Other than that, it's really just the advantage of the memory, but then a 64 bit OS needs a 64 bit driver layer, which means coding two sets of drivers for every product, and then testing them etc.

They might just keep the 32 bit OS for things like the Asus Eee or the MSI Wind.

RE: Windows 7

Teafie — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:35:29 GMT

M$ should work closer with 3rd parties and there drivers.
3rd party drivers should be bullet proof tested with any new O/S.
Its all just betatastic.

RE: Windows 7

maticus2 — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:56:54 GMT

true 64bit may be overkill for home apps, But at the same time most new PC`s are been sold with 2gig and some of the high end with 4gig, so we have reached a point were were we can already max out the address space so 64bit is a must for PC`s in the not to distant future or we will just end up back in the days of the 640k limit (kinda)

RE: Windows 7

ricedg — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:42:24 GMT

As far as I can see, the only advantage of 64bit is the memory addressing.

As we know that is an artifical limit that has been overcome, so why not shift that technology to "Home" o/ses?
64bit applications are by and large not required.

RE: Windows 7

FreakShow! — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:37:33 GMT

Yes as does all the memory parts, which includes (but not limited to) BIOS addressing space.

That is the biggest reason to move over to 64-bit, the ability to access more RAM (and before Jason or someone else being pedantic, I know that it is possible to do so with 32-bit with advanced mechanisms, but they are not included in the home versions of OSs so we need to do it via 64-bit route).

RE: Windows 7

DaveHand — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:32:26 GMT

Does the RAM on the GPU count toward the 4GB limit of system addressable memory for a 32-bit OS?

RE: Windows 7

marc.knuckle — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:37:58 GMT

l know about the memory benefits of 64 bit but is there any other current benefits?

RE: Windows 7

-Wiz!- — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:12:10 GMT

I agree I used Vista 64 for ages... But it is still just 64bit bloat ware as opposed to 32bit. It does nothing better and XP does it quicker...:)

RE: Windows 7

cheyworth — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:58:30 GMT

Vista 64-bit is fine, some programs wont work but the system is fine.

RE: Windows 7

-Wiz!- — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:37:46 GMT

Because all there 64bit attempts have been pants and poorly supported. :)

RE: Windows 7

maticus2 — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:01:45 GMT

Yep Microsoft should be trying to phase 64bitness in by now. they [b]gradually [/b]moved away from 16bit to 32bit via windows 3.1, win 95/98 and finally win 2000 so they should of been starting the ball rolling towards 64bit with vista.

me wonders why they haven't

RE: Windows 7

FreakShow! — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:56:47 GMT

Windows 7 is going to be a replacement for the aging systems that currently run Windows XP and are unable to run Vista. A 32-bit version will most likely be for those that don't need ultimate power and are happy with Onboard graphics and 1Gb of RAM.

I agree in the high end though, 32-bit will easily be a no.

By the time it is released (2010 ish) they may have revised their plans though. More info is coming on 27th October as said here: http://forum.micromart.co.uk/Topic304415-31-1.aspx

Windows 7

cheyworth — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:22:15 GMT

MS still look like they will ship Win7 as both 32-bit and 64-bit variants, with the speed that graphics cards are increasing memory a 32-bit looks obsolete.

AS cards now have 2GB, and you could end up with 4 cards giving 8GB now, in 2 years we may have cards with 4GB or 8GB on there own.