Recommend 32-bit or 64-bit Windows 7?

Topic

New Reply

:huh:
I am doing a MoBo and cpu upgrade from an older Vista 32 bit system. The new board will run either 32 bit or 64 bit apparently. I am just wondering about whether to go with 32 bit or 64 bit Windows 7.
Will my older applications such as Offcie 2007 etc run under 64 bit, or will I be faced with puchasing all new versions of everything?

Thanks,
rstew

Reply | Quote

Replies

Changing from Vista 32-bit to the 64-bit version of Win7 or Win8 as an Upgrade will not work, will have to be a clean install. 32-bit to 32-bit Upgrade should have no problem as long as you can get the proper drivers for the motherboard and devices. You’ll also need 64-bit drivers for most devices if using the 64-bit version of Windows, usually provided with the motherboard. If it’s an OEM/Brand computer you can get drivers from the Brand.

Before you wonder "Am I doing things right," ask "Am I doing the right things?"

Reply | Quote

The Win 7 upgrade advisor should let you know about any program compatibility problems but I’m not sure if it will only compare them to Win 7 32 bit as you are upgrading from a 32 bit system.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/download/details.aspx?id=20

Reply | Quote

I recommend going to 64-bit. It is much smoother, allows you to have more resources for your programs and just simply works better. The driver problem is not as extensive as you may hear. Regardless of which version you use, there’s always going to be a driver issue with something. However, I have found that 99.9% of the time, I did not have a driver problem. You can buy a third-party driver program such as driver genius, but Microsoft does a fairly decent job of providing drivers for the most common hardware. Your 32-bit programs, such as your Microsoft products will run under 64-bit. I also ran office 2007 and all of its accouterments under Windows 64. There is a office 64-bit version, which I would probably not use because many of the add-ins don’t work very well with it. However, Windows 7 64-bit is the way to go.

Having said all that, you have to have more than 4 GB of RAM to make it all worthwhile. Windows 32 will only address 4 GB of RAM but Windows 64 will dress the maximum RAM the chip set your motherboard will support. For example, an X58 chipset will support up to 24 GB of RAM and some of the newer processors will support more than that. When I say “support” I mean that you are actually have that much RAM available for your programs. If you install 16 GB of RAM with Windows 7 64, you actually have 16 GB RAM available. This in and of itself makes it all worthwhile.

I will give you a caveat and say that if you have some hardware device that is not exactly “mainstream”, you might have a driver problem. This includes older models of printers and scanners and things like that. I’ll also agreed that the installation CD that comes which a motherboard should have the motherboard drivers but you are probably going to get more up-to-date drivers from the manufacturer’s website. I installed an Asus Z87 motherboard and many of the drivers that came on the installation CD were out of date and would not work. This was not a problem of Windows 7, it was a problem that the motherboard manufacturing date was not “today” and therefore the drivers had already been updated. This problem is going to vary depending on the motherboard manufacturer. Just simply be prepared for some of that geewhiz stuff to not work the way that the advertisement says it should. But if you are able to build a unit at the motherboard level, you should not have a problem with this.

Having more than 4 GB of RAM is an absolute must because Windows 64 is going to want to use 4 GB RAM up front, so you will want to have more than 4 GB of RAM. Anything between 8 GB and 16 GB is probably going to be enough unless you are doing some very heavy stuff or building a starship.

Reply | Quote

Thanks to all for the additional input.
I am rethinking the 3.3 gb ram limit of 32 bit systems; thus causing me to now lean toward W7 64 bit.
I am encouraged by several peoples observation that most everything will run under 64 bit OS. I was worried about that side of it. I don’t run any old 16 bit stuff, so no issue.
I have since picked up a 2 x 4gb G.Slick DDR3 1333 ram package, so going 64 bit now seems like the only practical solution.
I am not trying to build a monster gaming system or anything fancy. This was supposed to be a low cost interim upgrade for the obsolete old Gateway original stuff.

Unfortunately I have just endured a major issue with the new ASRock G41C-GS MoBo I got.
I installed it along with the 8 gb new ram (above), retaining all the other original hardware including the Q6600 quad cpu.
When I powered it all up, the fans etc start up fine, the heat sinks get mildly warm, but there is no wake up signal to the monitor.
I then tried a spare monitor just to rule that out.
I contacted ASRock, and they provided a checklist of things, which I did, and all seemed to be fine.

This board just acts like there is no output to the VGA socket, thus no monitor, and without that you cannot tell what else is going on at all.
Eventually after nearly 2 days of total frustration, I swapped the old board back in, and I am back up and running again.
ASRock have been pretty good about it; they have agreed to send me an RMA. Once they recieve the board back, they will test it and replace it if defective, or ship the original back to me if it proves out OK. I guess that is as good as it gets. Its just been a major waste of time.

I should mention here that I understand all about static electricity, I always use an ESD mat and a wrist strap. I am familiar with various upgrades including memory, cpu’s, power supplies, hard drives, and complete MoBo’s. The Q6600 is working fine back in the original board, and yes, it is listed by ASRock as compatible with their board.
I have sent an email to G.Slick just to check if the ram is compatible with the board, just to rule that out. It is 8 chips per side, double sided, non-ECC and unbuffered, so I figured it would be OK.

Once all this gets sorted out I will get back to the W7 business.

Thanks to all,
rstew

Reply | Quote

Just now I looked up your G41C-GS motherboard on the Asrock website. It seems that if your motherboard is Revision 1 it will only work with Core2 (dual-core) LGA775 CPUs.

However, if your G41C-GS is Rev. 2.0 it should support Q6600 LGA775 Quad-core.

If your motherboard is Rev. 1.0 it simply not work with the Q6600.

The motherboard’s revision number should be found usually somewhere near the lower-left corner or might be on a sticker often on top of one of the keyboard/mouse, USB, or Network risers.

Reply | Quote

Just now I looked up your G41C-GS motherboard on the Asrock website. It seems that if your motherboard is Revision 1 it will only work with Core2 (dual-core) LGA775 CPUs.

However, if your G41C-GS is Rev. 2.0 it should support Q6600 LGA775 Quad-core.

If your motherboard is Rev. 1.0 it simply not work with the Q6600.

The motherboard’s revision number should be found usually somewhere near the lower-left corner or might be on a sticker often on top of one of the keyboard/mouse, USB, or Network risers.

I guess I need to check this out with ASRock.
I have shipped the MoBo back to them, so I have no way of checking the rev no on the board.
But the manual that came with it (dated Dec 2013) lists support as follows:
– LGA 775 for Intel® CoreTM 2 Extreme / CoreTM 2 Quad / CoreTM
2 Duo / Pentium® Dual Core / Celeron® Dual Core / Celeron®,
supporting Penryn Quad Core Yorkfield and Dual Core
Wolfdale processors
– Supports FSB1333/1066/800/533 MHz
– Supports Hyper-Threading Technology (see CAUTION 1)
– Supports Untied Overclocking Technology (see CAUTION 2)
– Supports EM64T CPU

So I kind of figured it should support a Q6600 no problem.
Also in my emails back and forth whillst trying to troubleshoot the problem I indicated it was a Q6600 processor, which they did not indicate was incompatible.???

rstew

Reply | Quote

Ok, a little update.
I went to the ASRock site, and under compatible cpus for the G41C-GS motherboard, it lists a whole swath of Core 2 Quad cpus, including the Q6600.
Cpu’s for the G41C-GS Rev 2.0 board are listed separately.
So I don’t know whether I misunderstood Coochin’s comments, or if I am misinterpretting the info on the ASRock site, but it looks to me like the Q6600 should be compatible with the G41C-GS board.
Can anyone verify or clarify this mess please?

Thanks,
rstew

Reply | Quote

What are your plans for the future in terms of RAM usage, basically? If you plan to use 4GB or more, you should go 64 bit.

I upgraded from XP 32 bit to 7 64 bit 5 years ago and had hardly any software compatibility issues. Office 2007 will work fine with 7 64 bit.

Reply | Quote

Office 2007 will work fine with 7 64 bit.

True, have even had success with Office 2003. The big change comes with Office 2010, can be had as either 32-bit or 64-bit but the 64-bit doesn’t like applications from Office 2003 such as Front Page.

Before you wonder "Am I doing things right," ask "Am I doing the right things?"

Reply | Quote

FrontPage 2003 runs with no problems under 64-bit Win7. Been doing it for years. Have also never had any problems running 32-bit software under this configuration.

Reply | Quote

I went straight to 64 bit Windows 7 from XP too and have never looked back.
Make certain you get at least 6GB memory at 13000MHz, and a 64 bit compatible processor. (most new ones will easily support 64 bit)
Depending upon how old your current programs are, and what they are, you may need a few updated 64 bit capable ones.
I don’t recall having tooo many issues with programs.
Drivers for peripherals should be no problem provided your peripherals are not too old.

Reply | Quote

Drivers[/B] for peripherals should be no problem provided your peripherals are not too old.

Or HP. :rolleyes:

Jerry

Reply | Quote

Crucial’s Scanner will show what the board will support for your RAM.

Reply | Quote

Or HP.

Beat me to it.

Zig

Reply | Quote

Opinion:

If your first priority is compatibility with older software, particularly software that ran on Windows XP, install 32-bit.

If you want to be compatible with future software, install 64-bit.

Reply | Quote

Reasons to stick with 32-bit:
* Old peripherals which don’t have 64-bit drivers available.
* Old software which won’t run in a 64-bit environment.
* Motherboard won’t allow for 4 GB or more of RAM.
* System won’t support 64-bit OS.

I would recommend going with 64-bit if there is no compelling reason to stay with 32-bit.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

OK after all the comments both ways presented here I think I’ll stick with 32 bit for now.
I
f down the road there is a pressing need for 64 bit software, then upgrading to 64 bit Windows “whatever” will work.

Reply | Quote

I had Win7 x32 on an older laptop, which I have now replaced with one running Win7 x64.

Everything that ran on the x32 now runs on x64, with the exception of an extremely old 16-bit game (so, no great loss), as x64 will not run x16 software.

Programs open lightning-fast… an example: Word 2010 opened after about 15 sec. on the x32 machine, but on the x64 machine opens in 1.5 seconds.

x64 is impervious to a many of the virus programs which affect x32 (imho, that is).

Reply | Quote

If running a 64-bit Windows 7, and you find a 32-bit program that does not work properly, will it likely run in a virtual 32-bit windows such as Oracle Virtual Box, or XP mode in Win 7 ?

Reply | Quote

…x64 is impervious to a many of the virus programs which affect x32 (imho, that is).

Don’t know you’re right about that mate.

Reply | Quote

Did you run the Win 7 upgrade advisor which will tell you what won’t be compatible ?

I think if you opt for the 64 bit version and you find you have problems, MS will allow you to change to the 32 bit version – but you could check that with MS before you commit to 32 bit.

Reply | Quote

I really feel 64-bit is the way to go going forward, unless you have a HP scanner or a raft of 16 bit programs (most likely old games) to play under Win XP (could still play them in a virtual machine, I believe). You’ll have to reinstall everything if you change your mind later. I faced the same problem 4 years ago, bit the bullet, replaced an old scanner with a newer, better, cheaper one – and never looked back.

Zig

Reply | Quote

32bit will only support up to 4G of RAM, no more. I have been running Win7, 64bit for a few years. I have had zero issue’s with program compatibility. I suppose some very old programs that haven’t been updated may not work, but most programs have been updated and will run on a 64bit system. Beside’s, more RAM…..more better

Reply | Quote

When Windows 7 was still in its infancy, could have been a late beta version, I installed Windows 7 64 bit and my first three applications refused to install. (Old, but favored, applications) I formatted and installed 32 bit Windows and remain partial to 32 bit Windows. HOWEVER, I recently, just a few weeks ago, purchased a used Windows 7 64 bit laptop and it has not failed to install any application that I attempted to install on it. (Some of the old applications that would not install on the earlier version of Windows 7 64 bit.) The only problem has been that the 64 bit laptop has been and remains to be sickeningly slow. This may, or may not, be related to the recently purchased laptop being a Home Premium level OS and all my other Windows 7 computers being either Professional or Ultimate. Just some of my personal observation to guide your decision.

Reply | Quote

When Windows 7 was still in its infancy, could have been a late beta version, I installed Windows 7 64 bit and my first three applications refused to install. (Old, but favored, applications) I formatted and installed 32 bit Windows and remain partial to 32 bit Windows. HOWEVER, I recently, just a few weeks ago, purchased a used Windows 7 64 bit laptop and it has not failed to install any application that I attempted to install on it. (Some of the old applications that would not install on the earlier version of Windows 7 64 bit.) The only problem has been that the 64 bit laptop has been and remains to be sickeningly slow. This may, or may not, be related to the recently purchased laptop being a Home Premium level OS and all my other Windows 7 computers being either Professional or Ultimate. Just some of my personal observation to guide your decision.

While this is off topic for the OP, this could be due to the amount of RAM and/or processor speed compared to what you had been using.

Backing up any personal files and factory resetting it and removing the bloatware could also help if it wasn’t already factory reset and cleaned up when you got it.

Reply | Quote

32bit will only support up to 4G of RAM

Actually, 32-bit Windows will not access 4GB of memory. Depending on your hardware, it will access from 2.5GB to 3.5GB of memory. If you have a Video card for instance, it will probably be closer to 2.5GB.

Reply | Quote

64-bit with at least 8 gb ram is the only way to go. It’s time to bite the bullet and join the 21st century.

Reply | Quote

With x32 you’re stuck with a 3GB RAM limit, and that includes any RAM that is used for video. 3GB is beginning to look pretty skimpy. If you’re getting a new mobo, and CPU (get 4 cores at least), it would be madness to stick with x32. I just cobbled together a system with Win 7, a 240GB SSD, 1TB Secondary HD, 16GB of RAM & 4GB VRAM, and it was not hugely expensive. The cold boot time is 25 seconds, Adobe Photoshop CS6 loads in about 5 seconds. It would be hard to go back to the 3GB x32 system I replaced.

David

Reply | Quote

Check whether your processor supports either Intel EM64T extensions (minimum Intel Pentium 4 5×1, 6xx models or Celeron D 3×6 models) or AMD64 extensions (minimum AMD Athlon 64 or K8 CPUs). Don’t bother installing 64-bit Windows 7 if using Intel Pentium 3 / AMD K7 or older CPUs because those processors can only handle 32-bit OSes & a 32bit Windows 7 OS will have to be used on those older CPUs.

Reply | Quote

First question I will ask: Why are you using a Socket 775 motherboard and CPU today, we are talking hardware that are years old? Now that being said:

Yes, your Q6600 will work on all BIOSes on the board, I would highly recommend you verify that it is running the 1.40 BIOS version due to it’s many “fixes” that include all previous updates. On power up, are you getting any “beeps” from the speaker (if you have one), and if so, is there any “code” being sounded? No video could be a bad board, bad cpu, or bad/incompatible memory (did you check the compatibility list?). If speaker hooked up and no beep code, generally it’s the CPU (you didn’t bend any pins on installation, did you?). Sometimes just removing the CMOS battery and using the CMOS Clear jumper for 60 seconds will be enough to kick the BIOS POST so you can get into the BIOS and at least try saving the recommended configuration. You should first try POSTing the board outside of the case with no other hardware connected so as to rule out any electrical shorts or other device failures on installation.

As far as Windows 7 x64, it and the CPU will run 32bit code natively, so there should be no issues installing and running MOST 32bit software. When installing, you can right click the install program, and choose to install it in compatibility mode for Windows XP with administrative privileges if it won’t install using normal methods. I always recommend 64bit OSes when available, and a minimum of 4GBs of RAM, 8GBs preferred. Sixty-four bit CPUs and OSes also have better execution code halts if some nefarious malware that uses certain types of “buffer over runs” to attack your computer.

Reply | Quote

First question I will ask: Why are you using a Socket 775 motherboard and CPU today, we are talking hardware that are years old? Now that being said:

Yes, your Q6600 will work on all BIOSes on the board, I would highly recommend you verify that it is running the 1.40 BIOS version due to it’s many “fixes” that include all previous updates. On power up, are you getting any “beeps” from the speaker (if you have one), and if so, is there any “code” being sounded? No video could be a bad board, bad cpu, or bad/incompatible memory (did you check the compatibility list?). If speaker hooked up and no beep code, generally it’s the CPU (you didn’t bend any pins on installation, did you?). Sometimes just removing the CMOS battery and using the CMOS Clear jumper for 60 seconds will be enough to kick the BIOS POST so you can get into the BIOS and at least try saving the recommended configuration. You should first try POSTing the board outside of the case with no other hardware connected so as to rule out any electrical shorts or other device failures on installation.

As far as Windows 7 x64, it and the CPU will run 32bit code natively, so there should be no issues installing and running MOST 32bit software. When installing, you can right click the install program, and choose to install it in compatibility mode for Windows XP with administrative privileges if it won’t install using normal methods. I always recommend 64bit OSes when available, and a minimum of 4GBs of RAM, 8GBs preferred. Sixty-four bit CPUs and OSes also have better execution code halts if some nefarious malware that uses certain types of “buffer over runs” to attack your computer.

ProHandyman;
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Yes I know 775 socket stuff is kind of passe these days, but I just figured I would try messing around with a fun upgrade to the old system, just to see what I could make out of it.
The ASRock board is brand new and has bios 1.40D on the sticker on the bios chip.
No speaker in the system so no beeps on bootup.
The Q6600 cpu works fine with the old Intel DG965-OT board, both before and after trying the ASRock board.No bent pins I could see.
The memory compatibility list shows only combinations of 2 GB DDR3 sticks, but I want to run 8 gb for future upgrade to W7 x 64 bit reasons, so I bought new G. Slick DDr3 ram 1333 MHz speed, 2 x 4 gb sticks. The G. Skill item no. is F3-10600CL9D-8GBNT.
The ASRock board specs say it will support up to 8 gb dual channel DDR3 unbufferred, non-ECC.

The board is back at the supplier now and they will test it and replace it if defective, or send it back if it check out OK.
Regardless I will try POSTing it bare bones as you suggest when I get it back.
If no go, I will try some DDR2 memory sticks to see if the G. Slick DDR3 memory is the problem.
I appreciate your comments on 64 bit OS’s.

Regards,
rstew

Reply | Quote

rstew:

I dug into your mother boards manual to see if I could ascertain a possible problem, and I DID in fact find an issue that could prevent POST. There could very well be a memory incompatibility issue due to your CPU running at a 1066 bus speed and your chosen memory DDR3 1333. Normally the memory would run at the lower speed, but that depends on the SPD programming on the memory board itself. You may be better off with this GSkill memory module set (the ONLY 2x4GB DDR3 1066 set listed) GSkill 2 x 4GB DDR3 1066 RAM.

Reply | Quote

rstew:

I dug into your mother boards manual to see if I could ascertain a possible problem, and I DID in fact find an issue that could prevent POST. There could very well be a memory incompatibility issue due to your CPU running at a 1066 bus speed and your chosen memory DDR3 1333. Normally the memory would run at the lower speed, but that depends on the SPD programming on the memory board itself. You may be better off with this GSkill memory module set (the ONLY 2x4GB DDR3 1066 set listed) GSkill 2 x 4GB DDR3 1066 RAM.

Good catch pro handyman!
I had no idea this memory might not run at the lower speed.
I wanted 1333 MHz memory so that I can run 1333 fsb speed for future CPU experimentation.
I have now picked up a Xeon X5450 CPU (1333 MHz) which I guess I will try when the mobo gets back.
So if I understand this right, if the installed CPU and ram have miss-matched speeds, the bios may just lock up during Post, and the party is over?

rstew

Reply | Quote

It depends on what all softwares do you use. Specifically office 2007is compatible with windows. Moreover all the 32 bits softwares will run on 64bits platform but vice versa is not possible. And if you are changing the hardware then I would suggest go for windows 7 64 bits version. There are more features which make the operating system much more fast and user friendly. Even if few software’s are not compatible with windows 7 you can still run those software in compatibility mode.

Reply | Quote

rstew, I double checked the cpu listing on Asrock’s website, and even though your xeon may be socket compatible, there is no guarantee that the required microcode contained in the BIOS will recognize the cpu. If it does NOT, then obviously you are going to have a “no POST” issue again.

As far as the memory, most memory will “down clock”. but again, it can be a crap shoot… I’ve seen stranger things happen! I would highly suggest your look around and scavage, or buy a case/mobo speaker so that it can help aid you in diagnosing what is going on with your setup.

I have been an enthusiast since the 486 days where you would be soldering different components onto the motherboard for overclocking, to my current I7 -3960X Extreme Edition work station (let’s just say I went crazy and have more then $4k into it). I am semi-pro “modder”, A+ & N+ certified, and also a MS OEM Partner and build custom PCs for clients. Keep us posted and I will try to help trouble shoot the best I can, but it would help tremendously if you can get one of those little speakers.

Reply | Quote

Pretty sure that XEON is Socket 771, requiring a pin mod/adapter to enable it’s use in a S775 ‘board.

If I had to upgrade any Gateway, a good PSU would be my first acquisition.

Reply | Quote

Satrow
The Xeon is a socket 771 CPU. I have the conversion sticker, and doing the conversion does not worry me at all.
The reason I got interested in the ASRock mobo is because it supports significant over clocking, as well as either ddr2 or ddr3 memory, and it has 4 expansion slots including a pci x 16 slot for a separate video card. It’s a pretty versatile board and the price is right. It is sort of appealing if you are any kind of at tweaker at all!
Prohandyman
I really appreciate your many suggestions.
I will try to scare up a speaker to help with debugging.
Once I get the mobo back I will be back at it and I will post my progress, or lack thereof!

Many thanks,
rstew

Reply | Quote

Pretty sure that XEON is Socket 771, requiring a pin mod/adapter to enable it’s use in a S775 ‘board.

If I had to upgrade any Gateway, a good PSU would be my first acquisition.

Satrow,
I assume PSU refers to power supply?
The original is only a meager 300 watt unit, so it might be a little light.
I have a couple of bigger power supplies sitting around so I will swap.
Appreciate the suggestion.

rstew

Reply | Quote

Yes, PSU = Power Supply Unit. ‘Good’ referring to quality (and age, or lack of), rather than price or any other factor.

300W would be enough for a non-overclocked CPU and a low range (up to ~100W TDP) GPU but you’ve already mentioned the likelihood of overclocking and possibly adding a GPU so 450W would give you the headroom for an o/c plus a 150-175W TDP GPU – providing you don’t pack every drive channel, RAM slot, PCI slot as well

Don’t forget to check measurements, PSU’s vary in size (it is ATX, not SFX/TFX in a smaller SFF case?) and required connections.

Seasonic/XFX would be the obvious choice if you needed to buy, other makers have much more variation across their ranges, even within specific model revisions, meaning a lot of homework to pick out the good from the not so good/downright poor models.

Reply | Quote

If you want a good tutorial on Switching Power Supplies, take a look at this:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Everything-You-Need-to-Know-About-Power-Supplies/181

Reply | Quote

If you want a good tutorial on Switching Power Supplies, take a look at this:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Everything-You-Need-to-Know-About-Power-Supplies/181

Prescott; thanks for the link. Very good information there.

Cheers,
rstew

Reply | Quote

UPDATE:
Well I am finally making some progress here.
Got the warranty replacement new MoBo back late July, then we were away nearly a month.
Tested the new board out yesterday, outside the case with only the bare essentials hooked up, including a speaker as suggested.
First I tested a Core 2 Duo cpu and a 2 GB stick of DDR2 800 with the FSB set at 1066, and it posted just fine. The monitor screen wakes up, and it is looking for a boot device.
So then I installed the Xeon X5450 (with the sticker mod) and the G.Slick 8 GB DDR3 (2 x 4GB) 1333 memory, and no go.
So then I switched the G.Slick sticks out for the 2 GB stick of DDR2 800; and it again posted fine. (It looks like the X5450 is happy in the board.)
So the problem is the G.Slick memory F3-10600CL9D-8GBNT appears to be incompatible with the board, as ProHandyman thouught it might be.

It looks like what I need is 2 x 4GB sticks of Kingston KVR1066D3N7/4G memory to make this thing work.
But in searching around for this I find it is not readily available.
Certainly none of the local computer parts suppliers indicate having it in stock. Guess maybe it is too old to be mainstream stock anymore.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to where I might source any of this memory?

Thanks for any ideas,
rstew

Reply | Quote

For memory, I have always used Crucial. Memory is reliable, cost competitive and backed by a decent warranty (which I had to use once and my money was promptly refunded.

Reply | Quote

Looked around and found the Kingston memory at Tigerdirect, got it ordered.
Hopefully that will work.
Thanks to all for the help and suggestions!

rstew

Reply | Quote