Does the average user really need a 64bit OS?

Question

I have a 64bit processor(I didn't even know it was 64bit capable until now) and I decided to give a 64bit OS a try.

I researched as much about 64bit systems as I could, but I still don't see the advantages of the 64bit architecture.
They say it's faster with 64bit programs but slower with 32bit ones, capable of addressing more than 4GBs of RAM but most mainboards only support 4GBs tops anyway, and of course there is the lack of 64bit softwares and drivers for older hardware.

I noticed this lack of proper support when I tried to download my everyday softwares like VLC, Winrar and Total Commander, but either I didn't find anything or I only found betas.
I don't even want to imagine what would happen if I wanted to install a driver for my old TV- or sound card.

So what is the point of all this 64bit craze?

It's been on the market for 6 years now and most of the major software and driver developers still haven't got a perfectly working(mean non-beta) 64bit solution, or sometimes any solution at all.

Answer 1

The reason it's been around for 6 years and hasn't gone anywhere is because Microsoft has been putting off the transition to 64-bit for years. XP Pro x64 was a complete nightmare, and there have been all kinds of problems with Vista with trying to use certain 32-bit apps and drivers with Vista 64-bit. The fact that Microsoft has shown basically no interest in making the transition to 64-bit simple or easy, combined with the fact that almost all PCs sold come with a 32-bit version of Windows pre-installed, means that almost nobody is running a 64-bit version of Windows (hardcore gamers excluded).



That's not to say other OS's aren't struggling a little with the transition. For example, from what I understand you have to run the 32-bit version of Firefox in Ubuntu 64-bit because there's no 64-bit version of the Flash Player plugin and Firefox can't mix and match 32- and 64-bit plugins. This isn't really Ubuntu's fault as much as it is Adobe's, but again, very few people are using a 64-bit OS, meaning Adobe has little motivation to release and maintain a 64-bit plugin.



I think Apple is probably the only company doing a really good job of making the transition seamless. They've had 64-bit support for years, you just don't notice it. Leopard is a hybrid 32/64-bit operating system that will work on both types of CPUs. Meaning my MacBook Pro with a 32-bit Core Duo can run the same version of Leopard as the new MacBook Pros with a 64-bit Core 2 Duo. There's no Leopard 32-bit or Leopard 64-bit, and it runs both 32-bit and 64-bit applications if you have a 64-bit CPU. Any Universal app will run in both 32- and 64-bit mode, on both PPC and Intel processors, meaning you don't have to worry about what kind of CPU you have and getting the right OS to go with it, or which apps will run and which ones won't.



If Microsoft could do something similar, there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately they've decided the best route is to release separate versions of their OS for 32-bit and 64-bit CPUs, and apparently will be doing the same thing with Windows 7.



As for the RAM issue, there are plenty of ways of getting around the limit. OS X currently supports up to 32 GB in 32-bit and most versions of Linux support at least a full 4 GB. With Windows 32-bit, part of that 4 GB is used for physical address space, which means you'll up with somewhere between 2 and 3.5 GB of usable RAM, depending on your hardware setup. Their solution for what to do if you want to use more RAM is to just buy a 64-bit OS, which of course brings up the aforementioned compatibility issues with apps and drivers.



Also, most new motherboards out there will support at least 8 GB of RAM (the good ones anyway), and many of them can use up to 16 GB. The average user won't need anywhere near this amount, but hardcore gamers and people who do a lot of multimedia work generally want at least 4 - 8 GB.



Basically, if you just want a computer for web browsing, editing documents, basic stuff like that, a 32-bit OS and 2 GB of RAM is more than enough. It's not so much of a problem for casual users as it is for people who need all the power they can get, and for them, their 32-bit OS is just holding them back.

Answer 2

Hi,

First off let me give you a brief description on what this 64 bit architecture is. basically the calculations and mathematics that are processed by the processor is faster.



e.g. Playing a game on a 64 bit machine will reduce the "in-game" lag.

If you do a small search and see there is no MS Office for 64 bit support. this is because the calculations used in 32 bit is more than enough to support.



Normally the 64 bit versions of XP and Vista are mainly to support 3d animators. In the latest 3ds package it shows it supports 64 and 32 bit.



When you are using a 3d application (3ds, maya) to perform the rendering and texture for the final out come it needs a lot of processing power. This is where 64bit is really needed.



So you should get a 64 bit OS if you are planning to get the maximum of these 3d applications.

Answer 3

Well the thing is 64bit processing allows you to run greater and better programs which can give you better graphics and more security the thing is there are so many other programs out there that aren't 64bit compatible and since Microsoft still releases both 64 and 32 bits OSs the majority of consumers aren't gonna buy an OS that won't play thier favorite programs and PC manufactures aren't gonna put something that might give them a bad name or give them more of a headache to find a proper fix for on thier systems. I believe not too long from now that the PC enthusiasts will start demanding a 64bit OS so that they can take advantage of the up to 16GB of extra memory and better performance. And I believe if Microsoft made a 64bit only OS that will force developers to make 64bit drivers and software.



Anyways that my opinion.

Answer 4

64-bit is the future because it is faster and able to run larger programs and files for efficiently. A 64-bit processor (in theory) runs twice the data at one time of a 32-bit processor. The main thing is the fact there is no cap on RAM, so editing video files (i.e. the massive size of HD video files) and the such is sooooo much quicker, as it gameing and graphics design as the computer can rely less on the page file and use physical memory.

As for the motherboards, most all new motherboards will hold at least 8 gigs of RAM some even to 16, do some research www.tigerdirect.com www.newegg.com.

Yes, AMD has been makeing 64-bit processors for a while now, but the operating systems are just getting around to 64-bit, as is technology

Answer 5

I use 64bit Vista and don't regret it in the slightest.

Whilst it may require less common 64 bit drivers, the Microsoft driver database is large and will cater to a large range of hardware.

64 bit apps are fast but Vista 64 runs 32 bit apps flawlessly. And as the entire OS is 64 bit it runs very fast.

From using a slow Vista 32 bit, 64bit Vista actually makes the OS good.



64 bit is the future of computing and its definitely a good option to take and I fully recommend it.



If in doubt, setting up a dual boot system with a 32 bit OS is a useful fall-back option if certain drivers aren't available.

Answer 6

"Does the average user really need a 64bit OS?"



Honestly, no. The average user only ever needed Windows XP Home to surf the web, Email and read / write a few MS-Office docs.



The lack of 64 bit applications and device drivers is the primary reason XP x64 and Vista x64 is justifiably unpopular. Fortunately, the 32 bit version of either OS runs just great on 64 bit machines, and only Gamers and a few other disciplines, like Graphics Designers, Video editors and CAD users, need more than 3.5 GB of RAM.



Why bother?



Oh, and Microsoft, wake up!!!

Answer 7

The average user most likely does not need 64bit version of vista. Ummm...for those programs just go to their sites and download the programs. It will install them automatically. The main reason people get 64bit over 32bit is it allows you to install and use more RAM. You probably won't notice any difference running those programs.

Answer 8

If your research didn't answer your question, then maybe you need a 64bit IQ to understand.



Some programs with a significant speed and power advantage are designed purely as 64bit. If you don't have or use those programs you will not see any difference in performance.



A bit like owning a four cylinder Toyota or a V12 Ferrari. If you swap your Toyota for a V12 Ferrari but only use it to drive your grandmother around town at speeds that don't make her nervous, you will never appreciate the difference.



Programs that are 64 bit are guaranteed grandmother-free.

Answer 9

Only if you have 4GB of RAM or more. Otherwise you might get a small speed boost, but nothing drastic.



(edit:) It's actually around 3.5 GB or more. 4GB would definitely require 64-bit.



(another edit:) I just want to apologize to Wes M who's excellent post I accidently clicked thumbs down on when I meant to click thumbs up. Not the first time I've done that unfortunately. I'll make it up to you on another post.