Win 7 32 or 64 bit for running these particular games?

[Ronin13]

I know Win7 32 bit won't allow the use of more than about 3.5 GB RAM, but my uses aren't extremely RAM dependent (I don't think). The newest games I'll be interested in running will be something like the Mass Effect series, Dragon Age and *maybe* Fallout 3/4.

I'm more concerned with being able to run my old library of games, some of which come with 16 bit installers making them (at least initially) unable to run on a 64 bit system.

Would it be safe to say, that for the following games, I'd be better off with the 32 bit version of Win 7, over the 64 bit one?

Diablo 1&2
HoMM 2&3
WarCraft 2
StarCraft 1&2
Fallout 1&2
Age of Empires 1&2
Splinter Cell 1&2
KotOR 1&2
Jade Empire
Neverwinter Nights 1&2
Disciples 1&2
Baldur's Gate 1&2
Icewind Dale 1&2
Torment

or are there pretty much fixes for all of these to run on a 64 bit OS?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

64 bit all the way. if you do run into an issue, you can run in compatibility mode or look for a patch.

 

[Clinkster]

Install 64 bit OS. It can run 32-bit applications flawlessly anyway.

 

[Ronin13]

Install 64 bit OS. It can run 32-bit applications flawlessly anyway.

Not if - like mentioned above - the 32 bit game comes with a 16 bit installer like with some of the mentioned games.

I'm aware that the blanket recommendation will be for the 64 bit OS. I'm looking for input from anybody who actually have some experience with getting some of the mentioned games to run in 64 vs 32 bit.

I also expect to do *some* hoop jumping to get these to work in Win 7 (some of them already require work arounds in XP) - what I'm trying to gauge is how much harder it'll be with 64 vs 32 bit.

 

[Mem]

I've half of those games already installed and running fine with no issues on Win8.1 Pro x64,oldest game I've running is XCOM-Apocalypse which is a 1997 game so pre Win98.

You have options like DOSBOX and D-FEND ,http://dfendreloaded.sourceforge.net/index.html

I would not go back to 32 bit OS,you normally can get older games working.

 

[TheELF]

Not if - like mentioned above - the 32 bit game comes with a 16 bit installer like with some of the mentioned games.

You can use a virtual machine to do the installation onto your real hard drive,done this a couple of times ,if you already have them installed on a different machine just copy the folders over to the new os,most if not all will run.
I also played a lot of the games that are on your list on a 64bit os
Age of empires needs a 256 color desktop to run without graphic glitches lol
There is a HD remake of it and of homm 3 so look into this too.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[Cerb]

Diablo 1
Starcraft 1

Diablo 2 and Starcraft 2 work fine. Diablo or Starcraft may or may not. But, Diablo is light enough on graphics that you can run it in a VM at full speed, if the Explorer-killing trick doesn't do it for you (I'm sure the same is true of Starcraft). You will really want a monitor that is 1200p or higher, to use either at their intended resolutions (may require a custom resolution set up).

You may run into issues with Diablo 2, but they have existed since the game was released. Either use Glide, or DirectDraw, depending on if one is problematic. It was made for Glide, then had DDraw and D3D tacked on, and that caused problems from the very start, some of which were never resolved. If you have a 1200P or 1440P display, Glide, with a custom 1600x1200 1:1 scaled resolution, will probably be the best overall experience, and not cause problems for Bnet.

Fallout 1&2

Get them from GoG or Steam, and then get mods for modern display. They work fine, and can run at full res, or good scaling "zoomed" resolutions, as long as you get the 3rd-party tools.

Jade Empire
Neverwinter Nights 1&2
Disciples 1&2
Baldur's Gate 1&2
Icewind Dale 1&2
Torment

They work fine, at least from GoG or Steam. The 2D ones have 3rd party mods for LCD display use, like the Fallouts, if you want to try that.

Any of those old games available on GoG or Steam, with claimed 64-bit compatibility, are worth buying there, just so you don't have to risk 16-bit addressing in installers or patchers, IMO.

I know Win7 32 bit won't allow the use of more than about 3.5 GB RAM, but my uses aren't extremely RAM dependent (I don't think). The newest games I'll be interested in running will be something like the Mass Effect series, Dragon Age and *maybe* Fallout 3/4.

Oh, and you're going to want 64-bit, and 8GB+ RAM, for Fallout 3, much less 4, if you take the time to make 3 play really well on PC. No doubt Fallout 4 will be good at using up RAM at release, at least enough to want to have 8GB+.

 

[Ronin13]

Thanks guys.

You will really want a monitor that is 1200p or higher, to use either at their intended resolutions (may require a custom resolution set up).

I'm not sure I get why that is...

But I'm actually planning to get the Eizo FlexScan S2133, which is 1600x1200 (I don't like wide screens).

(I've been running Fallout 3 just fine on 32 bit XP, 2 gigs of RAM, a Core2 Duo E6600 and a GTX 550 Ti.)

 

[Cerb]

I'm not sure I get why that is...

800x600*2=1600x1200. A 1080P monitor has to use fractional scaling, or use up a very small part of the screen. Integer scaling for bitmaps always looks best, whether you have nearest neighbor (ideal) or various blurring scalers.

If playing off Battle.net only, you can use tools that give you 1:1 on modern displays, but then everything is much smaller than it was intended. But, MultiRes can get you banned from Battle.net.

 

[Cerb]

(I've been running Fallout 3 just fine on 32 bit XP, 2 gigs of RAM, a Core2 Duo E6600 and a GTX 550 Ti.)

2GB? How did you survive?! You'll have a new definition of, "just fine," once you upgrade to a new PC . I've been used to FO3 itself using more RAM than your CPU has access to.

 

[Ronin13]

Playing on a 1280x1024 res might have helped?

 

[tidy]

.

 

[Cerb]

No one should be using stupid outdated explorer.exe kill trick. DirextDrawFix makes that 100% redundant. Diablo runs fine on modern systems like I said, you don't need VMs. I'm playing it right now on Windows 7 x64.

OK. How new is it? Whatever the EXE hack was of ~3 years ago just made it unusable, when I tried, then compatibility and explorer stuff didn't work, so I just used my included VM.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[werepossum]

Thanks guys.



I'm not sure I get why that is...

But I'm actually planning to get the Eizo FlexScan S2133, which is 1600x1200 (I don't like wide screens).

(I've been running Fallout 3 just fine on 32 bit XP, 2 gigs of RAM, a Core2 Duo E6600 and a GTX 550 Ti.)

If you ever play Fallout 3 with a stout rig and the best graphical mods, you will not consider your previous experience to be "just fine". It's the equivalent of saying who needs to sleep with Angela Bassett, Mo'Nique is just fine. Fallout 3 and New Vegas can be made to look amazing.

 

[norseamd]

They work fine, at least from GoG or Steam. The 2D ones have 3rd party mods for LCD display use, like the Fallouts, if you want to try that.

They all work.

 

[DaveSimmons]

These run perfectly for me on Windows 7 64-bit, 8 GM RAM, 2 x SSD, nvidia GTX 680:

The GoG.com version of Icewind Dale 2
The Steam versions of KOTOR 1-2

One tip is not to install to C: > Program files (x86), since then you might run into access rights / UAC issues. Setting the shortcut to Run As Administrator might resolve that. I have my Steam folder on a separate SSD.

 

[Cerb]

They all work.

Yeah, but being able to set a resolution where they aren't poorly scaled, or in a tiny window, makes them enjoyable, as opposed to 640x480 scaled to 1440x1080, or some such, and most have ways of getting that done, but which are not included with the games themselves.

Many of those old games are also kind of hard to install from original disks, in 64-bit, to the point that buying them on sale from GoG or Steam is worth it, even you own old physical copies.

 

[mikeymikec]

Starcraft 1 works fine on Win764, though IIRC you need to kill explorer.exe before starting StarCraft.

 

[norseamd]

Yeah, but being able to set a resolution where they aren't poorly scaled, or in a tiny window, makes them enjoyable, as opposed to 640x480 scaled to 1440x1080, or some such, and most have ways of getting that done, but which are not included with the games themselves.

NWN from GOG still has scaling problems with 16:9 resolutions.

But versions from disk or GOG usually still work.

 

[Cerb]

NWN from GOG still has scaling problems with 16:9 resolutions.

The 2D ones have 3rd party mods for LCD display use, like the Fallouts, if you want to try that.

Perfect description of NWN, right? Or, not. More like Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate, etc..

 

[xantub]

you will have far more problems with games that don't run well on 32 bit systems than games that don't run well on 64 bit systems.

 

[Mem]

These run perfectly for me on Windows 7 64-bit, 8 GM RAM, 2 x SSD, nvidia GTX 680:

The GoG.com version of Icewind Dale 2
The Steam versions of KOTOR 1-2

One tip is not to install to C: > Program files (x86), since then you might run into access rights / UAC issues. Setting the shortcut to Run As Administrator might resolve that. I have my Steam folder on a separate SSD.

I've the original retail version of KOTOR/KOTOR2, Icewind Dale/IWD 2 and BG series ,all run fine on my Win8.1 x64 Pro.

BG and Icewind Dale are also modded/tweaked as well from here http://www.gibberlings3.net/

 

[Mem]

you will have far more problems with games that don't run well on 32 bit systems than games that don't run well on 64 bit systems.

Don't forget about new/latest games that are 64 bit only(ie Dragon Age Inquisition,Witcher 3 for example),so going with 32 bit OS is pretty stupid IMHO nowadays.