Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

64 or 32 bit for upgrade of xp to 7


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

Poll: which system (18 member(s) have cast votes)

Get 64 bit or 32 bit windows 7

  1. 64 bit (12 votes [66.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 66.67%

  2. 32 bit (6 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 thrillhouse

thrillhouse

  • Members
  • 1,040 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Va
  • Local time:08:06 PM

Posted 15 September 2009 - 11:57 PM

I'm thinking of upgrading from xp to windows 7 and I have a 64 bit computer and will I gain anything by using 64 bit windows 7? My specs are in my signature, so which do you guys think I should get?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 n2fc

n2fc

  • Members
  • 102 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:US
  • Local time:08:06 PM

Posted 16 September 2009 - 04:16 PM

As you only have 1GB RAM and a small HD, there is no point in going 64 bit...

The main advantage of 64 bit is the ability to exceed 4GB RAM...

The downside is the INABILITY to run any legacy 16 bit code and possible driver issues for legacy hardware.

#3 thrillhouse

thrillhouse
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,040 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Va
  • Local time:08:06 PM

Posted 16 September 2009 - 09:00 PM

ok, well its a good thing I went ahead and chose 32 bit. It's running great! I just thought since I have the 64bit chip I should try it but I don't have 4gb of ram and never will on this machine I'll stay 32. Thanks.

#4 etavares

etavares

    Bleepin' Remover


  • Malware Response Team
  • 15,514 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:06 PM

Posted 19 September 2009 - 08:26 AM

most malware is targeted at 32 bit, so 64 bit can be a bit safer as well.


If I don't respond within 2 days, please feel free to PM me.
Please don't ask for help via PM. The forums are there for a reason. Please post in the forums so others may benefit as well.

Posted Image
Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators
 


#5 Fred_H

Fred_H

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:06 AM

Posted 19 September 2009 - 11:10 AM

most malware is targeted at 32 bit, so 64 bit can be a bit safer as well.

Malware does not differ between cpu's. Malware are programs like the rest of what's making the computer run.

#6 Fred_H

Fred_H

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:06 AM

Posted 19 September 2009 - 11:16 AM

I'm thinking of upgrading from xp to windows 7 and I have a 64 bit computer and will I gain anything by using 64 bit windows 7? My specs are in my signature, so which do you guys think I should get?


Normally, software is behind hardware. I would advice an upgrade of your programs to 64 bits. If the HW is not up to it, no problem. The SW will be running at 32 bits. After a while the programs will follow.

#7 audioAl

audioAl

  • Members
  • 426 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seadrift,Tx.
  • Local time:06:06 PM

Posted 20 September 2009 - 05:25 AM

I await the drivers and programs to catch up and I enjoy my 32 bit Linux openSUSE! I bought Vista Ultimate just before Windows 7 was announced,Darn! I'll go 64 bit when I buy a newer Mainboard later this year. When will these software Co.'s go 64?
Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit/Intel e5300 cpu/ASRock G41M-LE mainboard/G max4500 onboard graphics/4gigs OCZ 800Mhz ram/ VIA onboard HD Vinyl audio/Yamaha RX-V465 HT receiver/ Cambridge SoundWorks and Infinity RS1001 speakers

#8 exile360

exile360

  • Members
  • 100 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:06 PM

Posted 20 September 2009 - 06:01 AM

most malware is targeted at 32 bit, so 64 bit can be a bit safer as well.

Malware does not differ between cpu's. Malware are programs like the rest of what's making the computer run.

True, but I know of exactly 0 rootkits that are capable of actually infecting a 64 bit Windows OS due to the driver signing requirement ;) .

Also, if actually doing an upgrade, and not purchasing the full version, the only path you could do would be 32 bit to 32 bit anyway.

#9 etavares

etavares

    Bleepin' Remover


  • Malware Response Team
  • 15,514 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:06 PM

Posted 21 September 2009 - 08:51 PM

exactly, exile360. one of the benefits of x64...I'm sure that will change over time as x64 becomes more popular and malware authors start to try and crack it.


If I don't respond within 2 days, please feel free to PM me.
Please don't ask for help via PM. The forums are there for a reason. Please post in the forums so others may benefit as well.

Posted Image
Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators
 


#10 groovicus

groovicus

  • Security Colleague
  • 9,963 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Centerville, SD
  • Local time:06:06 PM

Posted 22 September 2009 - 12:18 AM

As was already stated, an application generally has no clue whether a system uses 32 bit memory management or 64 bit. The driver signing requirement by Microsoft has nothing to do with the 64 bit architecture and everything to do with restrictions placed on driver developers. The same restrictions could exist on 32 bit systems, although it would be admittedly difficult to do.

True, but I know of exactly 0 rootkits that are capable of actually infecting a 64 bit Windows OS due to the driver signing requirement

Largely meaningless given that you have no possible way of knowing what is in the wild. It surely does not mean it is not possible.

#11 etavares

etavares

    Bleepin' Remover


  • Malware Response Team
  • 15,514 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:06 PM

Posted 22 September 2009 - 05:00 PM

I'm sure we'll see one shortly. As OS/platforms/etc. get more common, there's incentive to develop malware for it.

As we've seen from all other malware...when there's a will, there's a way.


If I don't respond within 2 days, please feel free to PM me.
Please don't ask for help via PM. The forums are there for a reason. Please post in the forums so others may benefit as well.

Posted Image
Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators
 


#12 thrillhouse

thrillhouse
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,040 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Va
  • Local time:08:06 PM

Posted 23 September 2009 - 04:46 AM

I have heard the same argument about macs, being that they are somehow more immune to virus attacks, but I always attributed it to their low market share. (why spend your time making a virus for 7-8% of computer users that buy macs when its easier to infect the majority?)

#13 Swordie

Swordie

  • Members
  • 792 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Miami, Florida
  • Local time:07:06 PM

Posted 23 September 2009 - 07:47 PM

^

Thats also why we never hear anything about Linux dying either. It's all about hitting the most people with the least amount of work. Thats a hackers job =D
Who said I couldn't have everything?

#14 exile360

exile360

  • Members
  • 100 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:06 PM

Posted 26 September 2009 - 02:17 AM

I know infections are possible (and in fact do exist for Macs). I also know that there are ways to infect x64 variants of Windows, but it puts up a few extra hurdles that aren't so easy to work around. Eventually they'll get to it, but for now there's certainly the risk of normal malware, that doesn't use rootkits and drivers, which there is still plenty of, and it's just as compatible with x64 as it is with x86 versions of Windows. Of course, it's also typically much easier to remove.

#15 pasquanel

pasquanel

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S. Maine
  • Local time:07:06 PM

Posted 12 October 2009 - 08:30 PM

64 bit is here to stay , why invest in technology that will soon be outdated? I have been running Vista Home premium 64 bit for most of a year now with little or no problems. Yes there is some software that is not compatible but not all that much. Your going to end up there anyway so why not now? "Resistance is Futile"!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users