32 or 64 bit win 7 for gamers

[zabyer]

I am thinking of upgrading my RAM to 4gb from the 2gb that I am using now, and want to upgrade to 64-bit OS to optimize system performance.  I am having second thoughts because most of my games and apps will not run as speculated. How would I know and make sure if my games and apps will run in 64-bit environment?  any patch or software that I could run to make sure that all my software that are currently running in 32-bit will run in 64-bit.

[BC_Programmer]

What software/games are you running now?

[zabyer]

Games: Crysis, Mass Effect, Assasin's Creed 1, GTR, Tiberium Wars, Arkham Asylum, Call of Duty 2, World of Goo, Guitar Hero, Hawx, Larry's Apartment, 7 Sins, and Far Cry. These are the games that would really matter. Paid a fortune for these games and could not bare to think that I couldn't play them anymore with Win 7 64-bit. They say that running at 64-bit is faster than 32. Is that true? That's what I am really opting and upgrading my Ram, as well.
Applications: Adobe CS3, Nero 9, MS Office 7 and Maya. These are the apps that I just wanna make sure it would run in 64.
I really appreciate the assistance. 

[zabyer]

Oh, add Adobe After Effects. tnx

[BC_Programmer]

Only one I could concieve to be a problem would be Office 7, but I assume you don't actually mean Office 7 (that is, before office 95) but actually Office 2007.

None of those should have issues running on 64-bit; the only thing that stops working period on 64-bit is the 16-bit emulation for older windows 3.1 and early win95 programs; 32-bit is now done using the same Windows On Windows (WOW64) architecture that was being used for 16-bit programs, it doesn't boost the performance of 32-bit applications, but you still get the benefit of 64-bit for other apps and the 32-bit programs don't run slower then they do a 32-bit OS.

You might need to reinstall a few of those games; for example, Crysis has a 64-bit executable that vastly improves speed; I'm sure some of those other games do as well. They might install it even on a 32-bit system; you might want to check their install folders.

[killerb255]

Office 2007 works fine on x64.  It's a 32-bit app, so it will be running in WOW64, but for the end-user, it works.

Office 2010 will actually have a native 64-bit version as well as a 32-bit version.  Both betas work in x64 (the 32-bit in WOW64, of course).

To the TC: The main benefit for 64-bit is being able to use 4 GB of RAM or more without running into the native 32-bit 4 GB ceiling.

[BC_Programmer]

Office 2007 works fine on x64.  It's a 32-bit app, so it will be running in WOW64, but for the end-user, it works.

Office 2010 will actually have a native 64-bit version as well as a 32-bit version.  Both betas work in x64 (the 32-bit in WOW64, of course).

To the TC: The main benefit for 64-bit is being able to use 4 GB of RAM or more without running into the native 32-bit 4 GB ceiling.

the 4GB ceiling is artificial, and is literally a part of windows license details.

Broni was talking about it, and had a link to an article of some sort describing the feature and how it is implemented.

[zabyer]

One last thing. How about driver??? Do I need to look for 64-bit drivers??? Are all components have 64 ver now?
I really appreciate the help.

[zabyer]

what do mean artificial???

[BC_Programmer]

One last thing. How about driver??? Do I need to look for 64-bit drivers??? Are all components have 64 ver now?
I really appreciate the help.

the drivers can be found at the same location as you found the 32-bit versions. Nvidia drivers for example seem to have both in one package. And most of the stuff you have will likely have 64-bit drivers upgraded right when you install.

what do mean artificial???

I mean people seem to have this strange notion that 32-bit PCs can only address 4GB of RAM. they can address 2^32 bytes, or 4GB of RAM. what these people forget is that that means that 16-bit PCs should only have been able to address 64KB of RAM, and yet the 286, a 16-bit processor, was able to address up to 16 MB; and this means that the original IBM PC could have never had 640K of RAM, since 2^8 is 256 bytes. The limitation is artificial, because it's enforced by windows itself; it simply refuses to recognize more then 4GB of RAM, even though the hardware can recognize it just fine.

http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2009/08/19/make-windows-7-and-vista-32-bit-x86-support-more-than-4gb-memory/

[killerb255]

I'm aware that x86 can support 2^36 bytes (about 64 GB) of RAM with uncrippled PAE.  I'm also aware of the licensing issues of doing so.

It's crippled in XP/Vista/7 x86.  It's uncrippled in 2000/Server 2003/Server 2008 x86.

Even then, it's not totally artificial once old motherboards come into play, as many of them don't support remapping hardware above the 4 GB addressable space.

Some older Socket 939 AMD builds run into this problem, regardless of whether a 64-bit OS is used or if PAE is enabled and uncrippled in 32-bit...

Either way, this does not resolve is the 2 GB limit on an application thread (or 3 GB if /3GB is used and the app is aware of it).

Also, doesn't the use of uncrippled PAE open up the machine to potential driver problems when the driver tries to address the memory space >4 GB?

[zabyer]

k got it. thanks. its Microsoft's fault. nothing wrong with hardware. more of the Windows or OS limitation. Hope I got that right.

[killerb255]

It is Microsoft's fault for the most part.

I actually posted a reply in that link BC_Programmer posted explaining part of it.

Part of the problem is licensing, like BC said. 

The other part is most likely drivers.  If they're not written to take advantage of PAE, then they'll cause consumers all kinds of grief with their 12 GB RAM 32-bit (well...36-bit) beasts...

I guess Microsoft decided to say "forget it" when it comes to dealing with that issue in the consumer sector.  Since 64-bit is here, there's no reason to repeat the 640k workarounds again...

...and since Windows Server 2008 R2 and Small Business Server 2008 are 64-bit only, I'm pretty sure Microsoft is serious about the 64-bit route...

[BC_Programmer]

I figure they just don't want to have to worry about bugs cropping up if they support more then 4GB of RAM with their 32-bit consumer OS's, especially with applications that don't expect that much RAM. people seem to think it's a conspiracy to get people to move to 64-bit, as if 64-bit is a bad thing. Besides, if you have more then 4GB of RAM, chances are you also have a 64-bit processor anyway, and why waste effectively half of it running a 32-bit OS?

Really it's no different then the 16-bit to 32-bit switch, in fact it's less painful for the most part.

Either way, this does not resolve is the 2 GB limit on an application thread (or 3 GB if /3GB is used and the app is aware of it).

the 2GB limit is per process , not thread. Also, I don't think /3GB is used after NT4/Windows 2000; I think they changed it to /MAXMEM or something. personally I'd never tinker with the allocated address space per process anyway, especially since applications need to be flagged using a compiler option to use the extra 1GB anyway.

[killerb255]

the 2GB limit is per process , not thread.

Right train of thought, wrong terminology on my part.

Also, I don't think /3GB is used after NT4/Windows 2000; I think they changed it to /MAXMEM or something. personally I'd never tinker with the allocated address space per process anyway, especially since applications need to be flagged using a compiler option to use the extra 1GB anyway.

/3GB is still used in XP and Server 2003.  I have a client that uses AutoCAD and have had "out of memory" issues on their 32-bit XP machines when /3GB is not in boot.ini. 

The NT6 OSes are a different animal altogether with BCD, in which uses the /MAXMEM switch...