You can use software to emulate older OSes, so you might as well go with 64-bit.

Why the hell would you go through hoops just to install 64-bit? If everything works with 32-bits, it takes a little less RAM and you don't expect to upgrade, why go with 64-bit? What most people are saying on this thread is "there are some limitations to 64-bit, but they're solvable, so install 64-bit." How is that a good reason to install 64-bit?

I imagine that the same key is usable for both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, as has been the case for Vista and 7. In that case the difference between buying 32-bit and 64-bit is just what version you're getting on the media. If you buy 32-bit then later want 64-bit you will just need to find the 64-bit DVD, which shouldn't be too much of a problem.

I think that unless you have concrete plans to upgrade RAM then 32-bit is the better choice.

If it's like you said ... that's a bummer.
It should be like Pro versions where you can downgrade legally to a lesser version of windows (for example i buy w8 pro but i can use legally w7 pro).
This should be the case for downgrading from 64-bit to 32-bit.
If you ask me it seems logical that for 1 key you receive both 32-64bit and install whatever you choose/desire

You must have misread what he said. What you say is logical is what's most likely the case.

I would say that having a lot of RAM on hand is pretty useful. In the 32-bit version of Windows 7, the most RAM you can use is 4GB, opposed to the 192GB that a 64-bit version can have. Between having a 32-bit OS or a 64-bit, I will go for the latter because it gives me more flexibility.

Looking at Newegg right now, you can have 8gb of RAM for $40. Considering that the memory footprint of games will continue to grow, there is no point in staying with 32-bit OS. Better off to emulate older OSes, because that will allow you to have a powerful system and still be compatible with older programs.

But the OP has 2GB in his system. If he's not planning to upgrade RAM then there's no point in having a system that can address 192GB or even 8GB.

You point about "the memory footprint of games will continue to grow" is also moot because it's likely that his PC would require several other upgrades to be able to run such games.

Loving the 64-bit elitism here...

A quick reality check:

* Aside from Minecraft and Battlefield 3, there are very, very few games that can even profit from more than 3-4GB of RAM. This is not likely to change before the release of the next version of Windows after Win8.

* Using a 64-bit version of Windows excludes you from 16-bit compatibility. Notable games that are purely 16-bit are a rarity (The Journeyman Project Turbo comes to mine), games that use 16-bit installers are NOT. Many games from the 90s on disc use 16-bit installers.

* Unless you have 4GB RAM or more, a 64-bit OS provides you with no benefits whatsoever. There is practically no software that requires 64-bit, and I don't expect that to change until 4GB RAM starts to become the bare minimum. Most games with modern tech require 2GB minimum.

Personally, I bought 64-bit Windows 7, and despite having 8GB RAM now, I'm seeing very little benefit from it. Apart from when I'm playing my heavily modded copy of Minecraft, CPU usage rarely rises above 3GB.

Maybe when 4GB+ starts to become more standard and we have some kind of sensible subsystem for legacy 16-bit apps, 64-bit will become worthwhile. But for now, 32-bit is perfectly adequate on a 2GB system.

Maybe this status quo will not change either as long as many people opt for the 32-bit versions of new Windows OSes. I wish Microsoft would have simply not released 32bit version of Win8 (for desktop PCs) at all.

Installing 32bit OSes as the main OS on 64bit architectures just sounds a bit counter-productive. But at least with Win7 the 64bit versions seemed to become much more widespread, at last.

There's a built-in ad blocker and tracking blocker. -_-

The problem is that there are many people who still have 32-bit processors. Many non-gaming applications do not require high levels of CPU performance (POS terminals, basic office machines, home PCs used for surfing and word processing) and companies will often use hardware for as long as they can, simply upgrading the software. Moreover, there are many netbooks even today that have 32-bit processors in the interest of conserving power.

Besides that, if you can get Microsoft to continue supporting legacy OSs for an indeterminate amount of time, then sure, 32-bit can go. But at the end of the day, when people stick with older hardware because it meets their needs, that's what they will do, and if using that hardware means that they have to stick with Windows XP even after security patches stop being released for it, that turns them into a security problem.

Woot? Can you name one 32-bit processor currently in use? The Atom Zxxx is the only one I know of, and that is more than 2 years old. Or am I totally missing what is considered a 64-bit processor?

There are? My Eee 1001px is not exactly state-of-the-art, and its Atom 450 CPU is 64-bit.

Sure, there are a lot of machines that come with a 32-bit OS installed (like the above mentioned netbook, which originally ran Windows 7 Home Basic), but the hardware is almost always 64-bit since a good while ago.

People, not PCs. Many people have PCs that are still running 32-bit processors. Besides that, many low-budget netbooks have 32-bit Atom processors.

Again, what processor would that be? The only 32-bit processor of the last 7 years or so I can find is the Atom Zxxx series. The newer atoms are 64-bit, though the rest of the hardware should also support it. So, what 32-bit processor do you know that is still being used?