Best Windows OS.

[Lemur]

Why 64-bit ? What else do you get other than the compatibility issues ?

Also, the vast majority of security fixes were applied to the 64-bit version, and not to the 32-bit version. So if you're using Win7 64-bit, you're much less vulnerable.

[pevergreen]

And it looks so darn pretty.

Everything....is....orange...

[LeftEyeNine]

To answer your question LEN, I guess you'd have to determine what you are using your system for. Running high end games and such probably requires a 64 bit system.

Like what kind of benefits, Tito-san ?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Like what kind of benefits, Tito-san ?

Here's some stuff.
More stuff.

[Husar]

Also, the vast majority of security fixes were applied to the 64-bit version, and not to the 32-bit version. So if you're using Win7 64-bit, you're much less vulnerable.

Or maybe it just comes with a lot more holes?

[Lemur]

I'm not sure I follow, Husar, but here's a little overview of the security upgrades applied to Windows 7 64-bit.

It's not going to be an enduring safety buffer, but it's nice for now.

[Husar]

I'm not sure I follow, Husar, but here's a little overview of the security upgrades applied to Windows 7 64-bit.

It's not going to be an enduring safety buffer, but it's nice for now.

What I'm trying to say is maybe 64bit had more security holes to begin with and maybe has more left than 32 bit as well?
Just a guess but I think more patches does not mean more secure, maybe it just means there were more things wrong with it.

[Lemur]

Husar, as I understand it, the newer security models (mandatory signed drivers, random memory positioning (which has a name which I forget)*, etc.) were incorporated into 64-bit Windows, and not into 32-bit. That's what I'm talking about. Also, 64-bit Windows has the same advantage as OS X; it's the minority. So lazy spyware/adware/malware writers in Bulgaria are less likely to target your platform. Something to think about.

-edit-

*Ah, here it is: Address space layout randomization. So obvious I would have never guessed it.

Address space layout randomization relies on the low chance of an attacker guessing where randomly-placed areas are located; security is increased by increasing the search space. Thus, address space randomization is more effective when more entropy is present in the random offsets. Entropy is increased by either raising the amount of virtual memory area space the randomization occurs over, or reducing the period the randomization occurs over; the period is typically implemented as small as possible, so most systems must increase VMA space randomization.

To defeat the randomization attackers must successfully guess the positions of all areas they wish to attack. For data areas such as stack and heap, where custom code or useful data can be loaded, more than one state can be attacked by using NOP slides for code or repeated copies of data; this allows an attack to succeed if the area is randomized to one of a handful of values. In contrast, code areas such as library base and main executable need to be discovered exactly. Often these areas are mixed, for example stack frames are injected onto the stack and a library is returned into.

[Husar]

Well, guess I misunderstood you then, didn't know that.
I use 64bit anyway, and about your last point, why are you recommending it to more and more people then?

[Lemur]

Well, it's not as though recommending it to friends and acquaintances on the Org is going to cause a huge spike in 64-bit adoption. Non-geeks don't even know the difference, and will take whatever comes loaded on the integrated-graphics boxen they get from Best Buy. I think it's safe to recommend to people who should know better.

[LeftEyeNine]

Tito-san, the links you provided agree only on the possibility of utilizing 4+ GB RAM for gaming purposes. The applications still are not optimized and are not looking to be in a middle-term period of time.

So I conclude 64-bit is a bugger, rather than an innovation, for now. Nothing ain't broken and I ain't fixin' it.