64 Bit or 32 Bit Win 7 Install?

I want to reinstall Win 7 on my Air, which I currently set the partition to only 30 GB. I currently have 32 Bit installed, but was wondering if it would be better to take advantage of the full 4 GB on the Bootcamp partition using 64 Bit or would it be best to leave 32 Bit installed to conserve space? I only use the Windows partition for Steam gaming and I am not sure how much more space the 64 Bit version takes over the 32 Bit version. Also, is there any other benefit (beside use of ram) going with 64? Would 50-55 GB be enough for Windows 7 and about 4-5 games on Steam? BTW, I have the 128 GB 2010 11" Air.

 

64-Bit. Better use of system resources.

 

The 64-bit install of Windows 7 doesn't really take up more space than the 32-bit version so you might as well go with a version of the OS that will properly use all of your RAM. I don't know if 50-55GB would be enough for storing Windows 7 and 4-5 games. It all depends on the game as some can take up as little as 1GB while others can pass the 6GB point quite easily. That is something you will have to determine yourself by looking at the games you want to run and the amount of space they require.

I can tell you that my Windows bootcamp partition is 30GB in size and it is more than enough for the 64-bit version of Windows 7 Pro along with Office, FireFox, MATLAB, and I still have about 9GB of free space.

 

Well overall performance is better on Windows 32 bit, at least it always been.
But I would choose 64 bit too.

 

When you are speaking about overall performance, are you talking about boot up time, applications running faster, etc...?

 

Well there are some programs which already use all advantages of 64 bit systeml like WinRar64 etc. But many programs do not have such advantages or do not need Win64 at all and have compatibility problems. Therefore comparing amount of specialized programs and usual 32 bit programs which are "compatible to 64 bit" I can say that in summary (talking about applications) Windows 32 bit is faster and more stable.

 

That is simply not true. Windows 32 is not faster, nor more stable. Not with 32 bit apps, and DEFINITELY not with 64 bit apps.

 

The point is that not Windows x86 is so good but Windows x64 is not digesting very well all 32 bit applications.
You can't be so categorical because you are simply not correct enough to be such.
However I already new that someone will put his 2 pennies to say that I am wrong while other one will try to prove that you are wrong. There is no straight answer what Windows is better.

BTW I saw people (and at least one guy with similar rep as yourth) who work on x86 using different programs for using all RAM available and they are not some gamers.

 

I don't believe that's accurate. I'm not sure though.

Windows 7 x64 runs flawless on my MBP 13" 2011 including 32-bit apps. I would always prefer the 64-bit over the 32-bit version. The 64 bit seems to work smoother and handles multi tasking better.

 

As I wrote above I would choose 64 bit version.
Also I use 64 bit version and it works flawlessly too.
But I just couldn't say that either 64 or 32 is better than other because I've read enough on this forum. Each one has its minors. And advantages of each one are compared. All I said is that 32 bit versions of software is everywhere while 64 bit aren't and so some of programs are working in some kind of "compatibility mode" which does not mean stability.

 

considering that all macs have had 64-bit cpu's since 2007...

 

I do have one USB TV tuner that won't work under 64-bit. I've never seen any application that works under 32-bit and won't work under 64-bit. If they do exist I think compatibility mode would fix it.

 

Compatibility mode would fix that. There is no reason why anyone would need to run a 32-bit version of Windows unless they only had a 32-bit processor and/or 3GB (or less) RAM. 64-bit is needed to properly take advantage of 4GB+ RAM. I have yet to come across a single 32-bit program for a more modern version of Windows (i.e. Vista or above) that didn't work. I have had issues with older programs not working on my MBP running Windows 7 x64 but they also didn't work on my netbook which was also running Windows 7 but the 32-bit version (so it was an incompatibility problem with Windows 7).

Granted, I have tested every single program out there but I don't think anyone can come to the conclusion that "Well overall performance is better on Windows 32 bit, at least it always been." In fact, the 32-bit version of Windows 7 would not be able to perform as well on my MBP as it has 8GB of RAM, Windows would only be able to access 3GB of that RAM while the rest would go unused. So multi-tasking would take a rather large hit if I was running the 32-bit release of Windows 7.

 

If you quote me don't change my thought. Amount of memory was not considered in my answer. Maximum you can argue about is 4GB because this is in our case.

Note: Just for fun
Don't you think that having 3.3 GB of RAM and using other 0.7GB of RAM for eBoostr or some RamDrive or other software which can use that unavailable system memory will give you same multitasking or even better in some cases?

Now about serious again.
I DID read about at least one serious application which did not work on Win x64 and therefore that guy used Win x86 + some tweak soft for making available ALL RAM he had (about 8GB if not mistaken). This proves that sometimes Win x64 is not even an option.
Anyone who think that I am a lier?

 

Well, I don't think you are a "lier" but I didn't change your "thought" either. I quoted exactly what you said in the context in which it was stated. I did not put words in your mouth or misquote you so don't get on the defensive here. You stated that overall performance is better under a 32-bit Windows environment and it has always been that way. That is just incorrect as has been cleared up by many others. One case of Windows 7 64-bit not working does not automatically make the 32-bit release better. I know of some programs that the 32-bit release of Windows 7 doesn't work with yet they run fin under Windows XP. So, by that logic, the 32-bit build of Windows XP would be much better than Windows 7 and will always be better.

I also fail to see how 4GB of RAM (actually 3.3GB with 0.7GB devoted to other) would outperform a system with 8GB of RAM especially with the way Windows 7 handles RAM.

 

Oh I see. You misunderstood me then. I repeat that I did not compare to 8Gb and the max amount we can discuss about is 4GB for both systems. Not because it is right view or wrong but because I am protecting my words which were for exact laptop this thread is about.

At first My first word "well" means not "good" but means the same as your first word of post above. Check video where RWJ says phrases "Weeell" and "I'm just saying"
Second. I said "at least it always been". Maybe I forgot to add "earlier" but I thought it is understandable. It means that perhaps now more programs are well-made for 64 bit AS LIKE it was with single-threaded applications for multicore processors.
Third. I said that I would choose 64 bit BUT I ADDED ANOTHER SENTENCE BECAUSE I HAVE BACKGROUND TO WARN SOMEONE ABOUT POSSIBLE ISSUES EVEN IF THEIR CHANCE OF HAPPENING IS LOWERING IN COURSE OF TIME OR RARE.

I agree that it would be very cognitive for both of us to start talking about effective using RAM by software or tweaks instead of native Windows but I think it will be hardly to do with people who doesn't pay attention to all words in sentence and reacts as a bull on red color. For example I still don't get why did you choose to compare different OS with different amount of memory which makes it in waisting of time.

Well, whatever. I think I gave enough info so I hope other people will understand my true idea of what I wrote. In any case I wash my hands an unsubscribe myself.