# 4 gigs with windows 7?



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

hey i was wondering, when i get my new cpu/mobo/ram im prly gonna install windows 7, and my question is, is 4 gigs of ddr3 1333 good enough for windows 7, or should u rly have 8 gigs like some people are sayin

either getting one of these sets of ram if u need to know what exact ones im gettin 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231189
or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148261


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 9, 2009)

4GB is more than enough, unless you do some serious memory intensive stuff(video editing/hi-res photo editing), you will likely not notice the difference between 4GB and 8GB.


----------



## kuroikenshi (Sep 9, 2009)

fish00 said:


> hey i was wondering, when i get my new cpu/mobo/ram im prly gonna install windows 7, and my question is, is 4 gigs of ddr3 1333 good enough for windows 7, or should u rly have 8 gigs like some people are sayin
> 
> either getting one of these sets of ram if u need to know what exact ones im gettin
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231189
> ...



4GIGs is more then enough. Be aware though that if you want to use all 4gigs that you will need a 64bit version of it. Otherwise you will only use 3.25 give or take.

I have 4gigs of DDR2 800 ram and windows 7 runs fine!


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

yeah i plan on using ultimate 64bit cause my new cpu will support 64bit


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Sep 9, 2009)

fish00 said:


> yeah i plan on using ultimate 64bit cause my new cpu will support 64bit



Yeah, 4GB is plenty! Hell, even 3GB will work flawlessly


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 9, 2009)

I run it on 2GB...


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 9, 2009)

Here's the deal with 4GB+ of memory and the OS of your choice:
-32bit Win7 will show 4GB but will only use +/- 3.25 (something someone else already mentioned)
-32bit Win7 can only use up to 4GB of virtual address space which is broken up into 2GB for the user space and 2GB for the kernel (I think, this part is a lot more involved then this).
-64bit Win7 increases the virtual address space beyond 4GB.  Allowing it to use more then 4GB of ram for the games and applications you use (only if the game/applications is 64-bit).
-64bit OS will only run games made for 32bit in a 32bit environment making your 64bit OS moot (if all or the majority of the games/applications are 32bit) .  


So you have 2 choices:
A. Use a 32bit Win7 and increase the user's virtual address space so some/most game/applications can run more smoothly
B. Use a 64bit Win7 and know that it finally recognize all your ram however, run in a 32bit environment for those games/apps that use it.  Again, unless you have plenty of 64bit apps/games. 

It can get a bit more detailed then this but I think I made the point.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 9, 2009)

Not really, unless you point was use 64-bit either way because there is no advantage to 32-bit when it comes to memory and address space...


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 9, 2009)

Not at all if most/all of his applications and games are 32bit.  With no sign of mass adaption of 64bit games/application I would suggest to them to just get the win7 32bit.  He would only see a need in 64bit win7 when all the applications/games he uses are also 64bit.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Sep 9, 2009)

Who the hell is telling you you need 8GB of RAM for Win7?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 9, 2009)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Who the hell is telling you you need 8GB of RAM for Win7?



Man, you be surprised what people will say just to get you to use a 64bit os


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Sep 9, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Man, you be surprised what people will say just to get you to use a 64bit os



8GB is a little over kill. I can see saying 4GB but fuck 8?


----------



## a_ump (Sep 9, 2009)

yea haha seriuosly. like 2gb ram for vista runs fine on my friends computer and windows 7(from what i've read and heard) is less resource demanding or at least runs smoother and manages resources better than vista. 4gb is plenty.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 9, 2009)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> 8GB is a little over kill. I can see saying 4GB but fuck 8?


but it scores higher on some benchmarks yeah i went back to 4gb for real performance, seems my AMD machine actually runs a little faster with just 4 gb, at least to me


----------



## a_ump (Sep 9, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> but it scores higher on some benchmarks yeah i went back to 4gb for real performance, seems my AMD machine actually runs a little faster with just 4 gb, at least to me



i'm not positive and this is just a guess, but could that be because its only having to access a single set of dual channel(2 dimms) instead 2 dual channel? just an idear .


----------



## Wile E (Sep 9, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Not at all if most/all of his applications and games are 32bit.  With no sign of mass adaption of 64bit games/application I would suggest to them to just get the win7 32bit.  He would only see a need in 64bit win7 when all the applications/games he uses are also 64bit.



Massive multi-tasking also benefits from 64bit. I would not suggest 32bit, as it is just limiting himself for no good reason. 32 and 64 both cost the same, and 64 bit offers larger memory support if he ever needs it, but still offers equal compatibility to 32bit. There's no downside to using 64bit, so why wouldn't you?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Massive multi-tasking also benefits from 64bit. I would not suggest 32bit, as it is just limiting himself for no good reason. 32 and 64 both cost the same, and 64 bit offers larger memory support if he ever needs it, but still offers equal compatibility to 32bit. There's no downside to using 64bit, so why wouldn't you?



yup, exactly



windows 7 (and vista) both run just fine for gaming on 4GB.


The reason many people have 8GB is because DDR2 ram is cheap


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 9, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Massive multi-tasking also benefits from 64bit. I would not suggest 32bit, as it is just limiting himself for no good reason. 32 and 64 both cost the same, and 64 bit offers larger memory support if he ever needs it, but still offers equal compatibility to 32bit. There's no downside to using 64bit, so why wouldn't you?


Very well said


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 9, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Massive multi-tasking also benefits from 64bit. I would not suggest 32bit, as it is just limiting himself for no good reason. 32 and 64 both cost the same, and 64 bit offers larger memory support if he ever needs it, but still offers equal compatibility to 32bit. There's no downside to using 64bit, so why wouldn't you?



+1

Was going to say exactly this.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 9, 2009)

*AMD's IMC limitations*



a_ump said:


> i'm not positive and this is just a guess, but could that be because its only having to access a single set of dual channel(2 dimms) instead 2 dual channel? just an idear .



Probably exactly right, and maybe and issue with AMD's IMC


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Probably exactly right, and maybe and issue with AMD's IMC



more than likely - just like how many AMD's cant run 4 sticks of 1066MHz ram, and drop to 800 to make it work.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Sep 9, 2009)

Mussels said:


> more than likely - just like how many AMD's cant run 4 sticks of 1066MHz ram, and drop to 800 to make it work.



Yeah it makes for sloppy timings, or high voltages, neither are worth it
Oh and  don't forget about Video memory with x64 OS's


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

thx for the help, ill just stay with the 4 gig crucial cause its faster then the gskill


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

fish00 said:


> thx for the help, ill just stay with the 4 gig crucial cause its faster then the gskill



but it requires higher voltage, too.

we dont know your specs so we cant advise you properly - for example on intels latest platforms (i5/i7) 1.65v is the maximum, so the crucial ram would be unusable.


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

ok here is my specs/ soon to be specs

mobo:  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128392
CPU:    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103649
PSU:    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153052
VGA: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130469&Tpk=evga gts250 1 gb
one hard drive, on cd drive

so what should i do?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

that board can take either ram.

personally i always prefer low voltage ram, less chance of overheating, and therefore less chance of it failing.


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 9, 2009)

fish00 said:


> so what should i do?



Get a different PSU.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341016


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

yeah i was thinkin about getting a new one, but many ppl have said it will do fine for what my system is gonna be in about a week. so im gonna wait on getting it, and if i run into problems ill get a new one, but as i understand i dont need a new one


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 9, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Massive multi-tasking also benefits from 64bit. I would not suggest 32bit, as it is just limiting himself for no good reason. 32 and 64 both cost the same, and 64 bit offers larger memory support if he ever needs it, but still offers equal compatibility to 32bit. There's no downside to using 64bit, so why wouldn't you?



A bit specious claim there when there is no bottleneck with current 32-bit OS and multi-tasking.  Specially when we are just talking about typical home type of use here.  For example, if one uses:
-IE/FF
-Open Office/MS OFFice
-Outlook/ Other email application
-Windows Explorer
which are typical applications here, there is no degradation using 32bit OS over a 64bit OS.  They will both allow you to multi-task with those applications opened  when 4GB of ram are used in this example.  As for the "large memory support" it goes back to what was said earlier about 8GB of ram.  People aren't just going to get a 64-bit OS so they can use 8GB of ram so they can claim massive mult-tasking benefits.  The same can be said about mixing "jet fuel" in your car to claim higher octane benefits.  Just because you can doesn't mean it should be done when there is no practical need for it.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> A bit specious claim there when there is not bottleneck with current 32-bit OS.  Specially when we are just talking about typical home type of use here.



just like in the other thread, you seem to be missing the point.

option A is limited
option B has every feature of A, plus more at no extra cost.


who in their right mind would choose 32 bit windows, when 64 has zero negative effects, for the same cost?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 9, 2009)

Mussels said:


> just like in the other thread, you seem to be missing the point.
> 
> option A is limited
> option B has every feature of A, plus more at no extra cost.
> ...


Just because my opinion is different doesn't incur that I've missed anything.  Through the use of my example's its clear why we don't agree.


----------



## Meltdown (Sep 9, 2009)

Well if he plans on oc, there are limits to 64bit OS but that might be mute, talking 2Hz

I know you guys talking about apples I bring oranges


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

what do u mean there are limits to OC in 64 bit? would i be able to over lock from 2.8 to at least 3.4 cause if so im fine with it


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

fish00 said:


> what do u mean there are limits to OC in 64 bit? would i be able to over lock from 2.8 to at least 3.4 cause if so im fine with it



some people achieve lower overclocks in a 64 bit OS than a 32.

Its because their CPU is actually unstable, just in the parts that dont get used in a 32 bit OS.


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

so would i be ok with oc from 2.8 to 3.4 or not in a 64 bit? 
ive never heard of this issue before


----------



## Meltdown (Sep 9, 2009)

Mussels said:


> some people achieve lower overclocks in a 64 bit OS than a 32.
> 
> Its because their CPU is actually unstable, just in the parts that dont get used in a 32 bit OS.



Yes that is true but it has been proved by many that the 64bit OS gives lower clocks but only matters to users chasing high clocks  

yes 2.8 to 3.4 is good, it wont be OS that stops him from reaching that


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

fish00 said:


> so would i be ok with oc from 2.8 to 3.4 or not in a 64 bit?
> ive never heard of this issue before



it all comes down to your hardware and how well it OC's - there are no set limits.

you'll find we know lots of things around here at TPU, that most people dont know of.
In its simplest form, there are parts of a CPU that are only used in an x64 operating system. if you OC in a 32 bit OS and those x64 parts are unstable - you'd never know.
If you then upgraded to an x64 OS, you'd find out your OS was unstable.

start with an x64 OS, and work in your OC from there - the benefits of being x64 outweigh the small OCing differences. (we're only talking 100Mhz or so here at most, its not too big an issue)


----------



## Meltdown (Sep 9, 2009)

Mussels said:


> it all comes down to your hardware and how well it OC's - there are no set limits.
> 
> you'll find we know lots of things around here at TPU, that most people dont know of.
> In its simplest form, there are parts of a CPU that are only used in an x64 operating system. if you OC in a 32 bit OS and those x64 parts are unstable - you'd never know.
> ...



I wish i could have said it that well


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

thx alot guys, but someone earlier on the post told me to get a new psu, do i rly need a new one, many ppl have told me that the one i have is fine, but just to make sure, what u guys think?

this is the one i have http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153052


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

fish00 said:


> thx alot guys, but someone earlier on the post told me to get a new psu, do i rly need a new one, many ppl have told me that the one i have is fine, but just to make sure, what u guys think?
> 
> this is the one i have http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153052



that one is very weak. two 12V rails at 14A and 15A respectively is ridiculously low for modern systems.

The minimum most people around here would use for a single GPU system would be 2x 18A rails.


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

alright so i should get a new one?
can u show me a good one that isnt over like 70 bucks, i dont have all that much to spend


----------



## Meltdown (Sep 9, 2009)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703015

this is better it has single rail, i am not saying the other ps wont work


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

you broke that link rather badly, meltdown.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703015

single 35A rail (more than sufficient for any single GPU setup), from a known quality brand.


----------



## Meltdown (Sep 9, 2009)

Mussels said:


> you broke that link rather badly, meltdown.
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703015
> 
> ...


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

i got the link from your post, its just that you broke it somehow... (and have since fixed it) much like you broke the quote of my post.


----------



## Meltdown (Sep 9, 2009)

i am bad boy:shadedshu


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

well do i actually NEED a new psu, like will the one i have now slow down my performance at all?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

fish00 said:


> well do i actually NEED a new psu, like will the one i have now slow down my performance at all?



PSU's dont affect performance. they just make your PC suddenly turn off or restart, or they blow up and take your PC with it.

Running a cheap PSU is like not wearing underwear. You might get away with it for a while, but when shit happens it happens in a messy fashion and has good odds of spreading trouble to everything nearby.


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

well u didnt fully answer my question 

will the psu i have now work fine or do i rly need a new one, i dont rly want to spend the money cause i was planing on gettin new headphones and a new hard drive, but if i need a new psu i guess i have to get it? 

so is mine ok?


----------



## Meltdown (Sep 9, 2009)

Fish fill out your system specs that way we know what have write now 

Mussels rofl


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

fish00 said:


> well u didnt fully answer my question
> 
> will the psu i have now work fine or do i rly need a new one, i dont rly want to spend the money cause i was planing on gettin new headphones and a new hard drive, but if i need a new psu i guess i have to get it?
> 
> so is mine ok?



you have a low end PSU, but we dont know what power your system uses since you havent given us its specificaitons.


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

well what i have right now is different from what im about to get, and i posted what im getting earlier in this thread but ill post it again i guess

WHAT IM GETTING:
mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128392
cpu: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103649
RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231189
or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148261
havnt decided what ones to get, maybe u guys could help on that subject as well

WHAT I ALREADY HAVE THAT IM NOT UPGRADING:
VGA: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130469&Tpk=evga gts250 1 gb
1 120mm fan and 3 80mm fans
i have a plain cd/dvd burner
i have one 250gb sata hard drive

almost forgot i have a creative x-fi extreme gamer sound card


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

thats borderline.

i suggest the new PSU, yes.


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

lol i might seem cheap but is there any good ones that are cheaper then the one u guys linked me to a few minutes ago?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

fish00 said:


> lol i might seem cheap but is there any good ones that are cheaper then the one u guys linked me to a few minutes ago?



probably. Look for corair, seasonic, PCP&C yourself on newegg. anything with either 2x18A rails or above, or a single 30A rail and above.


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 9, 2009)

What bothered me with the psu he listed is that it doesn't list what the combined amp/wattage is for the two 12v rails but tells you what the combined is for the 3.3v and 5v! Your just asking for problems from that unit and the video card you listed.

The psu I listed is the $10 more after rebate then the one you listed. Its got two 18a 10v rails that account for almost all of the rated capacity of the unit.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

mastrdrver said:


> What bothered me with the psu he listed is that it doesn't list what the combined amp/wattage is for the two 12v rails but tells you what the combined is for the 3.3v and 5v! Your just asking for problems from that unit and the video card you listed.
> 
> The psu I listed is the $10 more after rebate then the one you listed. Its got two 18a 10v rails that account for almost all of the rated capacity of the unit.



PCP&C is OCZ's high end line, the one you listed was OCZ's budget line.

I'd never pay $10 more for a lower end unit.


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

the ocz u posted is only 60 bucks, how is that more then the PCP&C

hmm is this the right link?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341016

is that the one u posted?

this one would be great, it is modular, has a 8pin cpu, i think the other one did too but still, and its cheaper, as long as it will work ii think ill get the ocz


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

prior to the rebate, they're the same price.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703015
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341016

the OCZ model will work, and it is cheaper. if you can afford the PCP&C however, go for it instead.


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

the ocz says 59.99 then 39.99 after rebate, what r u lookin at?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2009)

fish00 said:


> the ocz says 59.99 then 39.99 after rebate, what r u lookin at?



i misread it.

    Original Price: $89.99
    You Save: $30.00
    $59.99
($39.99 after $20.00 Mail-In Rebate Card pdf )

i thoguht the "you save" was the rebate


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

ooo i see haha, i hope the ocz still has the same price when i go to buy it, i might buy the psu before i get the other stuff just to make sure price dont go up, i wont have the money to get the motherboard, cpu, ram for like 4 days to a week, but i have enough to buy that psu right now


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 9, 2009)

It maybe budget, but from the numbers, it can't be bad as some of the others I looked at in the same price range of the initial psu he post. Though, if you do have the extra coin, definitely go for the PC&C unit. It will be of much, much better quality than the OCZ. BTW, I ran my 4870x2 on a 650 Antec unit that had three 18a 12v rails. That OCZ unit is more than enough if you can't spring for the PC&C unit.

Oh, and about the 4gb or 8gb of memory...I'm running a laptop with W7 on 1gb of memory. This with Norton Anti-virus, Everest with sidebar, and 3 other sidebar apps loading at startup. Its a little slow, but I know for a fact that Vista would choke. W7's memory management is tons better.


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

well im kinda tight on money right now, and as long as the ocz will do the job i dont wanna pay the extra money, and the ocz is modular which is rly nice cause my case is kinda bad with cable management so the less cables the better.


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 9, 2009)

lol, I know about that. When I went to the Antec, which was also modular, inside my Cooler Master C5 case that had no room to begin with it really made a difference.


----------



## t77snapshot (Sep 9, 2009)

Unlike Vista, Win 7 is not a ram hogger  I had 7 RC1 running fine on my old computer with only 1 gb (X4 256's) of ram.


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

yeah lol this is the case i have now, i know its junk.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811144103

there isnt much room to manage cables in the case

this is the best i could do, but i have a diff gfx card now

http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/1268.html

i posted that a while back lol


----------



## mastrdrver (Sep 9, 2009)

lol, that's like a full parking garage compared to the train wreck in the rail yard I had in my case. I wish I had pics. I built it back in mid 07 and was the first system since my K8 that I had done. Needless to say, I didn't realize how much warmer things ran then. Since I never had heat problems with my K8 and never once entertained the thought of cable management, I didn't even think about it when I initially put the system together. It was probably the cause of my 1950 Pro running a little hot and causing the vpu reset to kick in under XP.


----------



## fish00 (Sep 9, 2009)

haha yeah i wanna get the cooler master storm scout case, its prty good with cable management. but like i said im tight on money so dono when that will be


----------



## Wile E (Sep 9, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> A bit specious claim there when there is no bottleneck with current 32-bit OS and multi-tasking.  Specially when we are just talking about typical home type of use here.  For example, if one uses:
> -IE/FF
> -Open Office/MS OFFice
> -Outlook/ Other email application
> ...


But putting jet fuel in your car costs extra money and has negative side effects. Choosing x64 Windows ovewr x86 windows doesn't. Again, it's getting more for your money to choose x64 windows. It provides everything tat 32bit does, plus extra, all with no negative side effects. You have given little reason not to choose 64bit, other than a stubborn refusal to change, which is exactly why there aren't more x64 apps to begin with.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Sep 9, 2009)

I'm using 4gb on 32bit win7.The reason i am on 32bit is the forced driver signing on 64bit.A driver for my 4x20 usb lcd will just not work on 64bit.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 9, 2009)

tigger said:


> I'm using 4gb on 32bit win7.The reason i am on 32bit is the forced driver signing on 64bit.A driver for my 4x20 usb lcd will just not work on 64bit.


Now that's a rare occurrence. Is it an older model? What model is it?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Sep 9, 2009)

It uses a little board to convert from parallel to usb,the driver is not signed so it will not install.Maybe i should just bin it and use 64bit.

Heres the one it is-
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/USB-HD44780-LCD-Computer-Case-Drive-Bay-PC-Modding-FBA1_W0QQitemZ220476395576QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20090906?IMSfp=TL090906164001r10134

I can upload the driver,if anyone can find a way to get it to install on 64bit i will be grateful.

These lcds cost so much in the uk,50-100 quid ish,so i got this one.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 9, 2009)

tigger said:


> It uses a little board to convert from parallel to usb,the driver is not signed so it will not install.Maybe i should just bin it and use 64bit.
> 
> Heres the one it is-
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/USB-HD44780-LCD-Computer-Case-Drive-Bay-PC-Modding-FBA1_W0QQitemZ220476395576QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20090906?IMSfp=TL090906164001r10134
> ...


Well, it works with either LCDSmartie or LCDProc. Neither of which have been updated in a while tho. Did you try the latest versions of both?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 10, 2009)

Wile E said:


> But putting jet fuel in your car costs extra money and has negative side effects. Choosing x64 Windows ovewr x86 windows doesn't. Again, it's getting more for your money to choose x64 windows. It provides everything tat 32bit does, plus extra, all with no negative side effects. You have given little reason not to choose 64bit, other than a stubborn refusal to change, which is exactly why there aren't more x64 apps to begin with.



Actually it doesn't for those in the know but that's getting OT.  The point being having a 64-bit OS is useless if the user doesn't use it.  It doesn't benefit the user in this regard.  And, saying that it can do what a 32bit OS only diminishes it's value because it reinforces the fact that there is very little games/applications that use 64bit. 

My reason is simple:
-no mass adaption of 64 bit applications and games
-no tangible benefit from having more ram in the games/applications I use
-no need/desire to have 2 copies of the same OS version

Therefore, it's actually you who has given very little reason to use 64bit OS.  By your own admission you are doing no more then what you would normally do with a 32bit OS (IE: "It provides everything that a 32bit does...").  Therefore, it makes no since to use it.  It's not about having a refusal to change but having a progragative to make a decision.  Which is not influenced by peer pressure.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> -no mass adaption of 64 bit applications and game


no need, when 32 bit apps run in a 64 bit OS. the ones that need it use it, the rest dont.


EastCoasthandle said:


> -no tangible benefit from having more ram in the games/applications I use


No negative effects either.


EastCoasthandle said:


> -no need need/desire to have 2 copies of the same OS version


Your attitude is the EXACT REASON there is two. if everyone moved to x64 no one would lose anything, as 32 and 64 bit apps would run on every machine. Your simplistic, stubborn attitude of sticking with a 32 bit OS is whats causing there to be two.



EastCoasthandle said:


> Therefore, it's actually you who has given very little reason to use 64bit OS.  By your own admission you are doing no more then what you would normally do with a 32bit OS (IE: "It provides everything that a 32bit does...").  Therefore, it makes no since to use it.   Once there is a proven beneficial need for a 64bit OS.  I am sure the masses will re-evauate it.  But until then, no...



i'm sorry, but this last part makes me laugh. take this as from a fellow user and not a moderator and report it if you want - but my god does that make you sound stupid.
Can you really not see that that an OS that does both, is better than an OS that only does one?


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 10, 2009)

tigger said:


> I'm using 4gb on 32bit win7.The reason i am on 32bit is the forced driver signing on 64bit.A driver for my 4x20 usb lcd will just not work on 64bit.



Just disable driver signing?



EastCoasthandle said:


> Actually it doesn't for those in the know but that's getting OT.  The point being having a 64-bit OS is useless if the user doesn't use it.  It doesn't benefit the user in this regard.  And, saying that it can do what a 32bit OS only diminishes it's value because it reinforces the fact that there is very little games/applications that use 64bit.
> 
> My reason is simple:
> -no mass adaption of 64 bit applications and games
> ...



Jet fuel doesn't cost more?  You sure?

He never said he wasn't doing more with the OS, just stated that the OS allows the user to do everything they do on a 32-bit OS.  It also allows them to do more.

It doesn't matter if there is mass adoption of 64-bit applications and games, the OS runs 32-bit programs just fine.  Why would anyone in their right mind not go 64-bit?  What reason can you give against it?  You have failed to provide is single benefit of going 32-bit over 64.  64-bit can do everything 32-bit can, and more.

You entire argument is basically "I see no benefit, so there is no reason to use it".  That is an idiotic view.  Even if it runs just one 64-bit program better, it is worth it.  It is always better to have the opition available.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 10, 2009)

Mussels said:


> EastCoasthandle said:
> 
> 
> > My reason is simple:
> ...


----------



## james2008 (Sep 10, 2009)

gigs are like inches

nowdays no one like to say they have 4 inches, that you
need 8. But don't listen, you're man enough!

I only have 2 and proud!
James


----------



## rampage (Sep 10, 2009)

hang on, everyone step back and think at hat 32bit and 64 bit provide?

what are the differance?

as said there and not many differances at all, so what are the benifits of a 64bit os over a 32bit os?? 2 mostly that ability for the pc to use more then 3 GB of ram efficently and thability for the OS to run 64 bit software

no lets think why dont we see many games programs that use alot of ram or 64 bit programs, it is besause most people just buy a 32 bit os or it come with there oem machine

just think if m$ only provided us with 32bit OS's it would be a step back not forward, but if m$ only provided us with 64 bit Os's yes it provides the same things as a 32bit os but with a few added benifits (the ability to use extra ram, and the ability to run 64 bit apps) BUT ISNT THAT A GOOD THING  to have more features and possibilitys to exapnd and have more efficent apps 

but neither of these will ever become popular untill ONLY 64bit OS's are made, the day that happens it will make things alot easier for the end consumer and game/program develepors who would no longer have to code for 32 and 64 bit apps..

just think what would happen is the next biggest and bad ass game was to released only on 64bit (and hell only on DX11), imadgin all the ppl that would cry and cry  becasue of it, its because of the unwillinesss to change buy the enduser and the OEM manurfactures that pc's are stuck in the stone ages

(i look at 64bit OS's and DX11 as the same type of step forward.  they dont give a great deal to the end user, but they offer a great benifit to the software designers to geive the best that there hareware can give them)  it like wow i have this fancy new DX11 game but oh shit no one ever upgrades and devs never force a change no now we get stuck with shitty DX9 games when we have the potential of DX11

its a catch 22 someone has to make the first move the end user, its the only 1 advantage consols have over pc's devs can max out the hardware and not have to worry pll stuck in the stone ages and have to backwars support their software'

//END RANT god this lack of change drives me bonker


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 10, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Ad hominem replies like this really don't offer real opinion to reply to when you resort to name calling.
> 
> You seem to forget that we can agree to disagree.  But it should be done regarding the information presented not name calling. I am still entitled to my opinion here be it you agree or otherwise.
> 
> ...



So basically, your whole reasoning is that you should keep 32-bit because you don't need 64bit... at least that is what I am getting from your replies.

_-no mass adaption of 64 bit applications and games - No but some games do benefit from it, _
*just look at the benchmarks of i7 systems with 3 vs 6gb of ram.*

_-no tangible benefit from having more ram in the games/applications I use_
*Maybe not yet, but why limit yourself if you do not have to?*

_-no need/desire to have 2 copies of the same OS version_
*any 32bit key works for the equivalent 64-bit version.*

basically gaming benches show that systems with 6GB of ram are tangibly faster than those with 3GB.  Also, since all modern hardware supports 64bit and all 32bit keys work with 64 bit, there is no reason to keep 32bit around.

The driver signing thing can be fixed with a utility from NGOHQ.com... you can put the feature on "test mode" and use all the hacked drivers you want.  (1000Mhz mouse fix?)


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> The driver signing thing can be fixed with a utility from NGOHQ.com... you can put the feature on "test mode" and use all the hacked drivers you want.  (1000Mhz mouse fix?)



driver signing is a beautiful thing. its the reason vista x64 and 7 are so stable compared to vista and XP 32 bit - no more shitty chinese webcams with drivers made by one hurried guy. drivers had to be tested before release, so you dont get that whole "insta BSOD" crap or systems failing to boot after a driver update.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 10, 2009)

Mussels said:


> driver signing is a beautiful thing. its the reason vista x64 and 7 are so stable compared to vista and XP 32 bit - no more shitty chinese webcams with drivers made by one hurried guy. drivers had to be tested before release, so you dont get that whole "insta BSOD" crap or systems failing to boot after a driver update.



yeah it is... but some driver hacks allow one to say "overclock" the polling rate of their mouse, which can turn a comfort mouse 3000 into something with the response time of a razer mouse.  

it all depends... Its always best to let the user decide IMO.  PC's are about customization and flexibility - we should at least have some way to turn certain features on and off.  If I wanted everything decided for me, I would just buy a mac and forget about it. 

But yeah... those cheap chinese webcams :shadedshu


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 10, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> So basically, your whole reasoning is that you should keep 32-bit because you don't need 64bit... at least that is what I am getting from your replies.
> 
> _-no mass adaption of 64 bit applications and games - No but some games do benefit from it, _
> *just look at the benchmarks of i7 systems with 3 vs 6gb of ram.*


It's an i7 system. What you are saying here is that one would need to completely update their entire PC.  Which really isn't the topic here.




_-no tangible benefit from having more ram in the games/applications I use_


phanbuey said:


> *Maybe not yet, but why limit yourself if you do not have to?*


Maybe not yet has been said for the last few years and nothing has changed yet.




_-no need/desire to have 2 copies of the same OS version_


phanbuey said:


> *any 32bit key works for the equivalent 64-bit version.*


I didn't post about the keys but the OS copies.  






phanbuey said:


> basically gaming benches show that systems with 6GB of ram are tangibly faster than those with 3GB.  Also, since all modern hardware supports 64bit and all 32bit keys work with 64 bit, there is no reason to keep 32bit around.
> 
> The driver signing thing can be fixed with a utility from NGOHQ.com... you can put the feature on "test mode" and use all the hacked drivers you want.  (1000Mhz mouse fix?)


What so hard to understand?  My points are right there as to why I don't see the need.  If all is well with 32-bit OS and based on how I use the PC I don't see the need, desire or benefit for a 64-bit OS.  Therefore, it's a none issue for me.  And from what I've seen the games I play don't benefit from it use.  Again, making it moot.


----------



## qubit (Sep 10, 2009)

I see there's some disagreement on using 32-bit over 64-bit. However, I can offer one _totally compelling_ reason to use 32-bit. No flames, please! lol 

If you're an enthusiast like me, then you'll have several older 32-bit computers, some with enough processing power to run Vista or 7 well, such as my P4 2.8 HT o/c to 3.5GHz I built in 2004. In this case, running a 32-bit operating system is a no brainer.  Otherwise I would always use 64-bit now on a 64-bit CPU as the support is there and it can do all that 32-bit does and then some. My main OS is 64-bit 7 RTM and it runs like a dream.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Sep 10, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> It's an i7 system. What you are saying here is that one would need to completely update their entire PC.  Which really isn't the topic here.



If you wanna go that route, go benchmark a non i7 rig with a 32 bit and 64 bit OS on a fresh install with nothing installed other than benchmarks and see what the difference is. 

If I feel like it, maybe when I get my new HDD in today I will do it. But the lack of ambition on my part and not being a benchmark whore like I used to be will most likely prevent me from doing that. 



> _-no tangible benefit from having more ram in the games/applications I use_
> 
> Maybe not yet has been said for the last few years and nothing has changed yet.



Some benchmarks show that given a 32 bit OS and a 64 bit OS there are a slight increase in performance with some games. And yes, there is a slight decrease too. Big whoop. 


> _-no need/desire to have 2 copies of the same OS version_
> 
> I didn't post about the keys but the OS copies.



Who cares? The whole purpose of the keys are so you can run both a 32 bit version or a 64 bit version. No need to rebuy the OS if you decided to upgrade your version. 


> What so hard to understand?  My points are right there as to why I don't see the need.  If all is well with 32-bit OS and based on how I use the PC I don't see the need, desire or benefit for a 64-bit OS.  Therefore, it's a none issue for me.  And from what I've seen the games I play don't benefit from it use.  Again, making it moot.



Yeah as to why YOU dont see the need. There is no reason NOT to go a 64 bit OS no matter how you look at it. RAM is cheap, all CPU's support 64-bit, and 32 bit apps work just as great in a 64-bit OS as they do in a 32 bit OS if not better. If the only reason I were to go x64 would be to fully utilize my processor, then that would be my reasoning since it would handled the processes quicker and more efficiently in a 64 bit OS than a 32 bit.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 10, 2009)

1st of all... why the hell would you need two OS copies?  Just DL and burn the 64bit version and install it... then _throw away_ the 32bit - viola - one copy.

The i7 systems were the same except for the amount of ram.  Im not saying you have to update your computer, but that "all else being equal, more ram>less ram."  Im 100% sure that if you compared a 3.25GB of ram (or whatever 32 bit windows sees) c2d or PII machine against the same one with 6 you would see a similar boost as the i7 comparison.

If you want to drop some dough on a top-notch rig, only to run software that can't support its full capacity (when there is a better alternative of the same software available).  Then by all means.  But don't be surprised when onlookers don't understand your logic.

Its really simple 64bit > 32bit.  More ram > Less ram. Windows 64bit 128GB of Ram > Windows 32bit 3.25-4GB of ram.  Upgrade cost: $0 and a few hours tinkering on the rig. 

I understand your "if it aint broke don't fix it" point.  But if you look closer at the aging 32bit architecture you will find alot of programmers (especially game developers) who have to actively find workarounds for their code (STALKER for instance) so that the game runs error free in a 32bit environment.  Programmers have also expressed difficulties in confining some apps to 32 bit.

64 bit is without the limitations of 32bit, its ever-so-slightly faster than 32bit when running in native mode (winrar 64bit vs 32bit is an example), and many newer applications (and esp games) benefit from the additional memory.  The upgrade cost is $0.  

If you are building a rig with 4GB of ram, and you have the choice of installing 32bit and 64bit, the latter becomes irrational when all things are considered.  Do you _need_ it? no.  Is it the better option? definitely.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 10, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Edit
> newtekie1, the above can also apply to you as well.  Don't troll my post because you don't agree with my reasons of why I don't see any benefit to a 64-bit OS.



When you come into a topic trying to convince others why they should use 32-bit, you not seeing benefit isn't a valid argument.

You have yet to give one valid reason for others to use 32-bit over 64.  You not seeing a benefit isn't a valid reason for others.  Try to make a better argument next time, otherwise when you just post crap with no valid reasoning behind it, you come off as a troll...but then again I guess that is why you are on my ignore list...


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 10, 2009)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> If you wanna go that route, go benchmark a non i7 rig with a 32 bit and 64 bit OS on a fresh install with nothing installed other than benchmarks and see what the difference is.


I honestly don't have to.  The use of an i7 rig isn't what's being discussed but the use of virtual space is.  



CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> If I feel like it, maybe when I get my new HDD in today I will do it. But the lack of ambition on my part and not being a benchmark whore like I used to be will most likely prevent me from doing that.


This post says it all.  




CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Some benchmarks show that given a 32 bit OS and a 64 bit OS there are a slight increase in performance with some games. And yes, there is a slight decrease too. Big whoop.


So, why are you arguing with me about it?  Why not complain to those developers to support your OS of choice instead of trying to argue about it here.  



CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Who cares? The whole purpose of the keys are so you can run both a 32 bit version or a 64 bit version. No need to rebuy the OS if you decided to upgrade your version.


Obviously you do.  If I don't want to use/own multiple OS's, how one can use the key becomes moot.




CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Yeah as to why YOU dont see the need. There is no reason NOT to go a 64 bit OS no matter how you look at it. RAM is cheap, all CPU's support 64-bit, and 32 bit apps work just as great in a 64-bit OS as they do in a 32 bit OS if not better. If the only reason I were to go x64 would be to fully utilize my processor, then that would be my reasoning since it would handled the processes quicker and more efficiently in a 64 bit OS than a 32 bit.


Here found within in your quote is reason enough not to use it.  There is no need to expect anyone to have to upgrade or use 64-bit  when 32 bit runs fine 












phanbuey said:


> 1st of all... why the hell would you need two OS copies?  Just DL and burn the 64bit version and install it... then _throw away_ the 32bit - viola - one copy.


This makes no sense.  If you are currently using 32-bit you should know that if you get 64-bit would make a 2nd OS which makes a 2nd copy. .  It's silly to tell someone to throw away something they paid for anyway.  




phanbuey said:


> The i7 systems were the same except for the amount of ram.  Im not saying you have to update your computer, but that "all else being equal, more ram>less ram."  Im 100% sure that if you compared a 3.25GB of ram (or whatever 32 bit windows sees) c2d or PII machine against the same one with 6 you would see a similar boost as the i7 comparison.


Actually no you won't.  I've seen some games were a 64-bit OS with more memory offers the same performance as 32-bit.   And I thought by now it was common knowledge do to how that game was designed to use virtual space, etc.



phanbuey said:


> If you want to drop some dough on a top-notch rig, only to run software that can't support its full capacity (when there is a better alternative of the same software available).  Then by all means.  But don't be surprised when onlookers don't understand your logic.


It's fine if you disagree however, don't expect me to understand your logic (IE; 2 way street).  



phanbuey said:


> Its really simple 64bit > 32bit.  More ram > Less ram. Windows 64bit 128GB of Ram > Windows 32bit 3.25-4GB of ram.  Upgrade cost: $0 and a few hours tinkering on the rig.
> 
> I understand your "if it aint broke don't fix it" point.  But if you look closer at the aging 32bit architecture you will find alot of programmers (especially game developers) who have to actively find workarounds for their code (STALKER for instance) so that the game runs error free in a 32bit environment.  Programmers have also expressed difficulties in confining some apps to 32 bit.
> 
> ...


Again in a nutshell if I am not seeing any benefit from it's use I don't recommend it (and I've explained why).  There have been a lot repeated posts saying the same thing as to why one should use 64bit.  It's is not for me to prove .   



newtekie1 said:


> When you come into a topic trying to convince others why they should use 32-bit, you not seeing benefit isn't a valid argument.
> 
> You have yet to give one valid reason for others to use 32-bit over 64.  You not seeing a benefit isn't a valid reason for others.  Try to make a better argument next time, otherwise when you just post crap with no valid reasoning behind it, you come off as a troll...but then again I guess that is why you are on my ignore list...


I honestly don't have to validate my reason to you.  All I can do is provide my reason why.  Which I have done in this thread.  All name calling can do is show that you really don't have anything on topic to discuss.  Perhaps it's best that you return me to your ignore list


----------



## erocker (Sep 10, 2009)

You all disagree, (with something off topic) we get it. No need to continue beating a dead horse about it. Frankly I'm sick of coming into threads where people feel the need to break down every word of someone elses post over and over and over and over again. If you want to leave your opinion on a subject, post it on the forum fine. All points are made. If you want to try to convince someone else of your kind of reasoning then do it in PM's. This thread has enough information, misinformation, contradictions, cannon, hyperbole and whatever to leave anyone stupefied. The beat information into head with hammer approach isn't working, nor will it ever. To the original question. 4gb's of RAM with Windows 7 is sufficient.


----------

