-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
DJNgoma
Expert Member
As far as I know it would be a waste as you would need a minimum of 4GB to enjoy, I'm Windows 7 64Bit on a 1GB stick but will get another 3GB, Probably 4GB, later.
iDenTiTy
Expert Member
Um no. Incorrect.
64Bit has the benefit of a greater addressable area of memory.
Therefore there may be additional benefits arising from this.
I'm running 64bit Vista AFTER having run 32bit - a slight improvement actually AND I only have 2GB ram.
32bit apps using more memory?
That has nothing to do with your CPU and OS being 64bit vs. 32bit..
iDenTiTy
Expert Member
Go 64bit.
You have a 64bit cpu, why not use it?
The fact that you can also run 32bit apps in a Windows 7 environment should be enough incentive.
x86 has lived long enough.
Your 2GB is good enough. Windows 7 in beta already shows far better memory utilization/management.
You'll be fine.
killadoob
Honorary Master
Just because you do not have 4gb of ram does not mean for one second you should not run 64 bit.
32bit has a max addressable memory of 2gb. How would using a 64 bit OS to increase it help if you only had 2GB?
32bit apps using more memory?
That has nothing to do with your CPU and OS being 64bit vs. 32bit..
64bit apps can consume 50-70% more RAM compared to 32bit apps (or 32 bit apps running WOW64). See a white paper below. It is for a TS environment, but the principle is the same. So if you have two gigs of RAM, and run at around 70% utilization, then installing 64bit could result in more memory trimming and paging, thus slowing your system down.
So, if you intend to buy more RAM, or you intend to use applications that require more RAM then go 64bit. Will you see any improvement with 2GB? No.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...18-D693-4BBB-9AF8-B91BBC0D2D55&displaylang=en
killadoob
Honorary Master
There is alot wrong with your post, number 1 32bit can see around 3.25gb of ram and not 2gb, there are very few 64 bit programs so maybe it does consume more ram but i doubt it would.
You will see an improvement when running 64 bit windows. Maybe you have not tried 64 bit windows but it runs much smoother and seems alot more stable than 32 bit windows.
There is nothing wrong with my post
You are correct that windows can see around 3.25GB RAM, but 32bit Windows OS has a maximum virtual addressing space of 2GB; i.e. the biggest block that can be assigned to any application is 2GB. There is also a limit of 2GB for Kernel memory. You can use the /3GB switch to assign more RAM to applications.It does consume more RAM, look at the white paper
And lastly, I have used a 64bit OS, and done extensive testing for customers trying to benefit from 64bit technology - from the first Itanium to present. 64bit architecture has its place - unfortunately the benefits for the average user have yet to be fully realised....
charlie_82
Expert Member
+1
I've also found 64-bit to be a lot more stable.
I'd say go with a 64-bit OS, I don't think it'll decrease your performance and it's a better long term investment
Kilgore_Trout_Redux
Executive Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 7,498
- Reaction score
- 347
My advice is not to wprry about 64bit Windows 7 yet.
Windows XP 32bit is fine for now. Wait for the first service pack for any Microsoft OS before pulling the trigger.
Windows XP 32bit is fine for now. Wait for the first service pack for any Microsoft OS before pulling the trigger.
Chevron
Serial breaker of phones
Definitely go 64bit.
Later you won't be thinking " I should've gone 64bit from the start".
Win 7 is Vista Service pack 3. Haven't you heard?
Later you won't be thinking " I should've gone 64bit from the start".
Win 7 is Vista Service pack 3. Haven't you heard?
iDenTiTy
Expert Member
The benefits are not only in memory usage...
Secondly you refer to a TS environment, which I'm afraid to say the user is unlikely to be involved in.
Thirdly you refer to sever 2003 x64, which in all accounts is not the same as Windows 7 x64. Windows 7 uses a brand new kernel, where as Server 2003 used a kernel which was really implemented 10 years ago..
If you going to compare various operating systems, then rather go for Vista x86 and x64. Since they are aimed at the same market and only differ in the architectures they aiming at..
EDIT: I seem to remember that Microsoft stated that Windows 7 will be their last x86 capable operating system.
Last edited:
It's neither here nor there. Let the availability of drivers for your hardware for the platform of your choice (32 or 64) guide you in the descision when the time comes. Early XP benchmarks indicated that 32bit performed better than 64bit, especially in gaming. In the world of statistics though, numbers can be 'interpreted' to suit anybody's point of view.
32bit architecture can address 4GB of memory space. Address space has nothing to do with how much memory an application or OS can use, and the 3G switch does not allocate memory, it just makes a lerger address space available, but has side effects. I'd suggest reading up on what 3G actualy does before blindly implementing it.
Here's a starting point:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/294418
http://bink.nu/news/3gb-switch-myths.aspx
32bit architecture can address 4GB of memory space. Address space has nothing to do with how much memory an application or OS can use, and the 3G switch does not allocate memory, it just makes a lerger address space available, but has side effects. I'd suggest reading up on what 3G actualy does before blindly implementing it.
Here's a starting point:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/294418
http://bink.nu/news/3gb-switch-myths.aspx
iDenTiTy
Expert Member
1) I think it's more like 3.5GB...
2) +1.
3) Yes, it's neither here nor there..
Fact is only if he stil has the need for 16bit drivers, DOS, and POSIX (not forgetting the older networking protocols that aren't used anymore - then yes use x86.
Otherwise, x64 is fine.
Besides, does the OP use hardware so old that there won't be x64 drivers available?
Seriously, I've used x64 OSes for 4 years now, and never had issues (Linux and Windows).
I can still play the latest games nicely, and run SQL Server 2008 x64 + VS 2008 x64 quite well..
killadoob
Honorary Master
Identity i am sure you have major driver issues with win xp 64, 90% of printers had no drivers for the 2-3 years of it being released. none the less still an awesome OS just crippled by bad driver support for scanners and printers.
iDenTiTy
Expert Member
charlie_82
Expert Member
XP 64-bit was always crap. Vista 64-bit is awesome. Not sure about Windows 7 tho, have to experience with that one
killadoob
Honorary Master
xp 64 was much better than 32 bit just had driver issues .
.