Windows 7 64bit is this any good.or

shall i uninstall and reinstall 32 bit version.currently my new computer is having issues with shutting down and restarting saying it had to shut down unexpectedly and restart,has done this a few times was wondering if 64 bit os had something to do with it!

geek_popped_out, Sep 10, 4:35 pm

You might have to give more information for anyone to be sure. Does the computer just suddenly reset without a bluescreen message or anything!

geek_bussani, Sep 10, 4:39 pm

My experience with 64bit OSes, windows or linux, is that they're really not worth the bother. No real advantage at all (even the memory limit can be worked around), and still quite a few incompatibilities with some software eg drivers, browser plugins.

geek_little_egypt, Sep 10, 4:42 pm

it has had a blue screen message previously about 4 times but seems to have stopped that. some a message comes up x86 cannot reference memory and sends an error report to microsoft i have updated it.

geek_popped_out, Sep 10, 4:43 pm

ok little egypt if i want to uninstall 64 bit an install 32 bit how would i do that! i havnt activated my windows for this reason could this also be causing me these issues!

geek_popped_out, Sep 10, 4:45 pm

I've yet to have any problems with 64 bit Windows 7, personally, but sometimes things differ from machine to machine, components to components, so it's possible that's the cause.

Let's see. You could try installing BlueScreenView so you can find out exactly what the bluescreen messages you got were and post them here, if you wanted to. Maybe someone can tell you what the problem is from that. Download link is near the bottom of this page.

geek_bussani, Sep 10, 4:50 pm

Run a ram diagnostic prog

geek_drcspy, Sep 10, 5:14 pm

Still running XP Pro 64bit on this system, Never had an issue, yours will be something else, whats the error on the BSOD

geek_swivel, Sep 10, 5:14 pm

There's nothing wrong with 64 bit versions of windows, especially Windows 7 which is very stable in 32 or 64 bit. It's probably going to be a driver issue or hardware problem that's causing this

geek_thetron, Sep 10, 6:32 pm

just had a crsah got a bluescreen saying something happened to harddrive but disapeared b4 i could read it all most likely could be this! hdd dont have a driver as such do they!

geek_popped_out, Sep 10, 8:31 pm

did you run a ram diagnostic !

geek_drcspy, Sep 10, 8:41 pm

I find they are worth it, I find very few issues in my personal experience with them as well others. IN fact microsoft was even considering making windows 7 64bit only and some server distortions are now 64bit only. Its going 64bit just like we were going from 16 bit to 32 back in the day.

geek_johnf_456, Sep 10, 8:43 pm

I have 64bit win7 and zero issues with anything really.had a couple of minor things wouldn't work but theres always a work around.

geek_drcspy, Sep 10, 8:44 pm

Indeed there is drcspy, most of the apps I find that don't work were old dinosaurs app that have never being updated. Virtual machines, dos box the list goes on.

geek_johnf_456, Sep 10, 9:04 pm

Install the program I linked to before. So long as you haven't used something like Ccleaner to remove the mini-dumps, it will let you read all of your past bluescreens. Then you can show everyone what they say and narrow down the problem.

If it said something about the hard drive, installing something that checks its SMART data might be a good idea. I'm not sure which I'd recommend for Windows 7, though.

geek_bussani, Sep 10, 9:39 pm


geek__sms_, Sep 10, 10:45 pm

microsoft virtual pc works on of the things I had to find was a 64bit version of qbasic as I play around with basic programs just for fun .

geek_drcspy, Sep 11, 6:57 am

What sort of post is this!
Sounds like you have a problem with your own computer skills,
Ever actually experimented with Ram in both 32 & 64,try it ,then your post will be invalid!
Like someone said Microsoft hadthought releasing windows 7 in 64bit only

geek_ragey, Sep 11, 7:53 am

Both my scanner and my cam corder wouldn't work with W7 64 and that is a real pain so I had to install and dual-boot to Vista 32 to get them to work.

geek_fishb8, Sep 11, 8:04 am

geek_hakatere1, Sep 11, 8:50 am

actually I prefer windiag (It seems to give results very fast if the ram is faulty)

geek_drcspy, Sep 11, 8:52 am

Win7 64-bit here, wouldn't go back now.#19 if your scanner doesn't work try VueScan (search for it), great bit of scanning software that directly controls many old scanners not usually supported under Vista/7.With other applications you can almost always get away with an XP window, the best solution yet to incompatible applications.Camcorder not working!Do you mean the software it came with!I can't understand how a camera wouldn't be recognised.

geek_tillsbury, Sep 11, 9:15 am

Personally I think 7 should never have been released in 32b. Its just added confusion for PEBKAC's. Aside from compatibilty with a few new low power CPUs Its pointless. 32b should have ended at vista or XP. 16b was never dragged on this far.
Right in the beginning when XP x64 was released I had some trouble with drivers and programs, much didn't yet exist and everything that was available was new and beta. It took a while before I could find decent AV and firewall software. But that was about 5 or 6 years ago. The only 64b issues now are at worst very minor.
The only reason to want 32b systems is for unavoidable legacy software or hardware support. In which case you probably better off running 98, XP or something older in a VM anyway.

In relation to your troubles;
I really doubt your issues are directly related to running 64. Its more likely just a hardware issue. Maybe your RAMs bad or your overheating. And yes harddrives do have drivers. All interfacing hardware does. Maybe they are corrupt or your drive is flacky. Or maybe your running some bad or incompatible software.

geek_oclaf, Sep 11, 10:00 am

What point is there to 64-bit!Unless you are running more RAM than 95% of users need (even then there are work arounds) or run specific software designed to leverage 64-bit instructions, there is no need or advantage.
Even Win32 code compiled to run on a 586 still competes with 64-bit on day to day tasks.Running in a virtual machine or including 32-bit copies of needed libraries isn't much of a solution unless there is a reason to use 64-bit in the first place.Any performance gain from larger memory space and management is lost to the need for it just to run 32-bit software.

geek_cybertao, Sep 11, 10:38 am

Oh well by that logic we should have just sat on 16b then.

geek_oclaf, Sep 11, 1:18 pm

64bit Windows Vista/7 also have a few added security features.

There isn't really any workable workaround to run more memory in a 32bit version of Windows for home users either, most of that stuff was aimed at servers before x64 versions became available.

geek_vtecintegra, Sep 11, 2:20 pm

No, because there are clear advantages to 32-bit over 16-bit.Although plenty of people have been caught out with M$ dropping 16-bit support only to discover many installers and other tools still use it.
If you think 64-bit is superfly, please indulge us by explaining why.

geek_cybertao, Sep 11, 3:48 pm

There is no excuse to still be using 16bit software these days.

If there is one thing Apple has got right its not supporting legacy software and devices for so long.

geek_vtecintegra, Sep 11, 3:50 pm

You'd be surprised how many people still use 16-bit legacy software, including government departments.Why!It still does the job.
Upgrading just for the sake of it isn't practical.Assuming that 64-bit is naturally better than 32-bit is just wrong.

geek_cybertao, Sep 11, 3:55 pm

I still run some legacy software too. But I don't expect it all to run natively on the computer I have now. Technology is advancing in leaps and bounds. It has been for decades. 64b opens up more performance possibilities. (beyond zomg more RAM). There's nothing wrong with assuming 64b is better. Because it is. Sure a majority of users may not notice the difference. But it allows software to utilize the full potential of modern computer hardware.
Your logic is flawed. What we had 10 years was good enough, It still does the job, development needs to stop now because our software is getting out of date! Really!
I agree upgrading for the sake of upgrading is pointless but there comes a point at which support for old hard and software must be dropped. That's just how it it is.

geek_oclaf, Sep 11, 4:44 pm

Go on, educate me.What other performance possibilities are you talking about!

geek_cybertao, Sep 11, 4:45 pm

I could dig up some links for you, but honestly i can't be arsed. Your arguing for the sake of arguing and I'm not interested. You can sit on a 32b system for the next 10 years. I couldn't care less.

geek_oclaf, Sep 11, 4:51 pm

I can provide a couple of links. "The benefits of using a 64-bit operating system are most apparent when you have a large amount of random access memory (RAM) installed on your computer, typically 4 GB of RAM or more." has a more detailed list of differences, almost all of them are to do with memory management.

I'm not pointlessly arguing for the sake of it, I'm demonstrating that you are wrong and have no reasoning behind your assertion.Since you know all about it I'm surprised you haven't already just listed a real world example that makes 64-bit so superior to you, or dug up some links.

geek_cybertao, Sep 11, 5:01 pm
Another fantastic link.This is an open-source book on compiling a linux distribution entirely from source code.The developers know their stuff.
"As you can see, the 64-bit build is only 4% faster and is 9% larger than the 32-bit build. The gain from going to a 64-bit system is relatively minimal. Of course, if you have more than 4GB of RAM or want to manipulate data that exceeds 4GB, the advantages of a 64-bit system are substantial."

geek_cybertao, Sep 11, 5:05 pm

and you've diverted completely from the op's line of questions and their issue and hijacked this thread to 'prove a point' ! (which no-one particularly cares about or agrees with).leave it alone eh

geek_drcspy, Sep 11, 5:08 pm

So it is 4% faster!

geek_jcmp21, Sep 11, 5:12 pm "A common misconception is that 64-bit architectures are no better than 32-bit architectures unless the computer has more than 4 GB of main memory.""a 64-bit system can be more responsive when running several programs at the same time and switching between them frequently. "
Your very selectively reading. 64b vs 32b for most users is still much of a muchness and like I said any gains will probably not be noticed. But like it or not, it is the way things are advancing. In few years 32b architecture will be lost to the past we'll probably be having the same 128b vs 64b arguments.

geek_oclaf, Sep 11, 5:19 pm

Cool, so the average punter can switch between their email and Trade Me noticeably faster if they run 64-bit.Finding drivers for their scanner or the difficulty installing that old copy of Myst pales in comparison and is a small sacrifice to make.

geek_cybertao, Sep 11, 5:25 pm

Time for a newer more up to date better technology scanner then

geek_drcspy, Sep 11, 5:28 pm

Yep, might as well get a USB3 one along with a new motherboard to support it and don't forget some SATA3 drives.
Or they could just stick to 32-bit and not miss out on anything that 64-bit supposedly has to offer.If they were to go buy a new scanner with a 64-bit driver, the irony is it will have a 32-bit one as well.

geek_cybertao, Sep 11, 5:34 pm

You know. Your right. Lets stop all technological development from this point on. Keeping up really is a bind. And your right I do get quite antsy when I can't install Myst on my new computers. I'll petition Intel, AMD and Microsoft right away. I'll let them know all development must cease immediately. The consumers no longer want better faster hardware. We demand things stay as they are. Or better still go backwards so all our old games and systems will work anew!

geek_oclaf, Sep 11, 5:36 pm

No I wouldn't be surprised, I have worked in govt IT for years and have seen plenty of that type of thinking.

Rather than upgrade progressively over the years the tendency is to ignore the problem until it becomes critical (in this case probably when 32bit builds on Windows become unsupported)

geek_vtecintegra, Sep 11, 5:41 pm

Now you're just being ridiculous and chucking your toys out of the cot.64-bit has it's purpose and place, but it isn't the de facto choice and isn't as awesome as you are clearly misled to believe.
If you go around inflicting 64-bit systems on anyone and everyone with the zeal of a mad linux user - chanting your mantra of it just being superior - I feel sorry for them.

geek_cybertao, Sep 11, 5:41 pm

This is how we get departments stuck on Office 97, or a specific obsolete version of IE, or an old JRE, or on Netware/Groupwise (all real examples)

geek_vtecintegra, Sep 11, 5:43 pm

& then act all surprised when their systems get hacked or infected with all sorts of malware and entire network(s) get added to some cracker's botnet. The DHB should be well aware of the risks of using obsolete software by now LOL.

geek_lostdude, Sep 11, 5:51 pm

No my statement was no more ridiculous than yours.
32b systems have their place still. I don't deny it. Nor have I ever said that the average user who browses trademe and writes poetry will notice a massive performance boost on x64. But seeing as there is very good native support for 32b applications within windows x64 I see little point in using 64b hardware on a 32b operating system unless you have specific need for legacy support. Which your average user does not. So why run old technology on new technology if you don't need to! It is the defacto choice for many manufactures. VAIO are all x64 out of the box these days. many others are too. Some give a choice. Running x86 on 64b hardware in the general populace just creates confusion. OP is a case in point.
I'm not chanting any mantra. It's you bagging 64 with no real basis. You said yourself its 4% faster with 9% extra bloat. I don't have any zeal. I just recommend to people what I think is best in my opinion. I'n this case I think it would be pointless for the OP to change to x86.

geek_oclaf, Sep 11, 6:04 pm

There wouldn't be any confusion if it wasn't for such a strong, unsubstantiated push to use 64-bit and upgrade all your hardware.

geek_cybertao, Sep 11, 6:09 pm

So you would recommend OP install x86! why! Enlighten me. Please.

geek_oclaf, Sep 11, 6:14 pm

it's pushed because it enables manufacturers to install USEABLE ram over 4Gb which is a selling point and the suckers (buying public who know bugger all) see bigger ram numbers and dont mind paying bigger dollars (even tho they're being charged more for the 'extra' ram than it's worth) .

geek_drcspy, Sep 11, 6:15 pm

Everything runs out of the box, running 32-bit software on a 64-bit system can be award and it seems pointless running 32-bit software on a 64-bit system.There is no reason for a vast majority of workstations and their users to use 64-bit and plenty of reasons not to bother.

geek_cybertao, Sep 11, 6:19 pm