64 or 32-bit?
- Thread starter realbaz
- Start date
Leeky
Posts: 3,357 +116
You'd see all of your RAM for a start. 32bit software can't utilise more than 3.25 to 4GB of RAM.
On slower systems you'd actually see a decrease in system performance (its marginal, but still a decrease) because 64 bit OS's use slightly more resources. Software coded to work as true 64 bit software would see performance gains, but since most software is 32 bit, I doubt you'd notice a thing (except for the RAM of course).
That aside, I think anyone going 4+GB of RAM and not using 64bit is just throwing money away in all honesty.
As for software support; Its pretty good these days. I use 64bit Windows 7 (all my PCs are) and I haven't had a single issue with any single item of software or drivers yet. I'd go as far as to say generally speaking its as well supported as 32 bit now.
On slower systems you'd actually see a decrease in system performance (its marginal, but still a decrease) because 64 bit OS's use slightly more resources. Software coded to work as true 64 bit software would see performance gains, but since most software is 32 bit, I doubt you'd notice a thing (except for the RAM of course).
That aside, I think anyone going 4+GB of RAM and not using 64bit is just throwing money away in all honesty.
As for software support; Its pretty good these days. I use 64bit Windows 7 (all my PCs are) and I haven't had a single issue with any single item of software or drivers yet. I'd go as far as to say generally speaking its as well supported as 32 bit now.
Can you explain a bit more about your RAM; did you have 2 X 512MB modules and then added 2 X 2GB? Are they same brand/ speed?
As Leeky states, 32bit Windows cannot address more than 3GB of RAM, in fact, Windows 32bit or 64bit does not know how to "use" more than 2GB of RAM properly, it is all taking corners and making things work with the OS, Chipset and the Memory Controller. The number reported by Windows is rather more cosmetic and it is motherboard and BIOS dependant.
I installed 7 Ultimate 64bit on a desktop with i790 Chipset, 2 X 2GB modules and used the same DVD to try 7 64bit on a Dell Inspiron 9400 with 2 X 2GB, the desktop with a 1GB Video card reports 4GB but the 9400 reports 3.something!
Since XP SP2 anything above 2GB, windows takes it upon itself to reserve 1GB for devices, then the Video memory and buffer reduce the "available RAM" count.
3GB is the sweet spot for me but depending on the configuration, hardware and settings, more than 4GB with 64bit is doable and fruitful.
Considering you have 4GB +, I would say 64bit.
Leeky
Posts: 3,357 +116
@Steeve
Definitely 32 bit, you'd have absolutely nothing to gain from 64bit unless you had specialist 64bit applications you needed to use.
Its likely you can put more RAM in, but it depends on how you current RAM is installed. Its possible you have 2x 512mb sticks, in which case you'll need RAM to replace those. So you'd need 2x 1gb sticks. Best place to look if your unsure is to head to www.crucial.com or www.kingston.co.uk and enter your laptop details in the RAM finder, and it'll give you a good idea of what you can add, how many slots you have, and what sort of RAM you can use.
Definitely 32 bit, you'd have absolutely nothing to gain from 64bit unless you had specialist 64bit applications you needed to use.
Its likely you can put more RAM in, but it depends on how you current RAM is installed. Its possible you have 2x 512mb sticks, in which case you'll need RAM to replace those. So you'd need 2x 1gb sticks. Best place to look if your unsure is to head to www.crucial.com or www.kingston.co.uk and enter your laptop details in the RAM finder, and it'll give you a good idea of what you can add, how many slots you have, and what sort of RAM you can use.
Leeky
Posts: 3,357 +116
When you start hitting over 3GB of RAM really. As has been stated above, 32bit operating systems can't see above 3gb or thereabouts. 64bit can support considerably more (Win 7 Ultimate 64bit for example can recognise, and use 192GB) RAM.
Other than that, you only really benefit with 64bit using intensive software designed to run in true 64bit.
Another point worth noting is you can use 32bit software on 64bit operating systems (in most cases) but you can't use 64bit software on 32 bit operating systems.
Older, (and/or) less powerful systems can suffer running 64bit operating systems, as it does use more resources, so a computer already being tested by the latest Windows 32 bit is going to suffer more with 64bit in my opinion.
A perfect example of this was my friends Dell Inspiron laptop; he purchased it on contract (with mobile broadband) and the provider had clearly got a special offer to purchase thousands - It shipped with Vista Home Premium 64bit, running a 2.0ghz celeron, Intel on-board graphics and with only 1GB ram (which is too little for Vista anyway!). It was awful until I installed a spare copy of Vista home premium 32bit, then it perked up a bit. It made a noticable difference. There was absolutely no need for 64 bit, and it reduced performance to the point of being unusable.
Other than that, you only really benefit with 64bit using intensive software designed to run in true 64bit.
Another point worth noting is you can use 32bit software on 64bit operating systems (in most cases) but you can't use 64bit software on 32 bit operating systems.
Older, (and/or) less powerful systems can suffer running 64bit operating systems, as it does use more resources, so a computer already being tested by the latest Windows 32 bit is going to suffer more with 64bit in my opinion.
A perfect example of this was my friends Dell Inspiron laptop; he purchased it on contract (with mobile broadband) and the provider had clearly got a special offer to purchase thousands - It shipped with Vista Home Premium 64bit, running a 2.0ghz celeron, Intel on-board graphics and with only 1GB ram (which is too little for Vista anyway!). It was awful until I installed a spare copy of Vista home premium 32bit, then it perked up a bit. It made a noticable difference. There was absolutely no need for 64 bit, and it reduced performance to the point of being unusable.
If all the hardware and software or systems for that matter were identical I could give you an easy answer.
On one of my systems, Thinkpad T42, with 1GB of PC2700 CL 2.5, Centrino 1.7GHz and a 60GB 7200RPM PATA 2.5" drive, dedicated Mobile Radeon 9600 with 64MB of RAM, Windows 7 runs like a charm with Aero automatically enabled and running.
Another identical T42 with 2GB, not much difference other than being able to open more windows or larger files. The biggest difference I have noticed is the move from 2GB to 3GB.
On one of my systems, Thinkpad T42, with 1GB of PC2700 CL 2.5, Centrino 1.7GHz and a 60GB 7200RPM PATA 2.5" drive, dedicated Mobile Radeon 9600 with 64MB of RAM, Windows 7 runs like a charm with Aero automatically enabled and running.
Another identical T42 with 2GB, not much difference other than being able to open more windows or larger files. The biggest difference I have noticed is the move from 2GB to 3GB.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,690 +8,832
The published minimum requirement for Windows 7 is 1GB for 32 bit and 2GB for 64 bit. So, I suppose it performs its "minimum best".
Even with laptops you'll find 3GB RAM in a mid priced unit.
Win 7 seems to outperform Vista with weak hardware. The "Starter Edition"(*) is installed in low end desktops and also in netbooks. That said, XP still runs the best in older PCs. Even netbooks that lack the CPU "oomph", generally have 2GB RAM with 7.
Face it, if you turn off "Aero", you pretty much have XP with different wallpaper anyway.
(*) You can't buy "Starter", so you would have to buy "Home Premium" and cripple it yourself. I know, I know....
Doesn't cost anything to keep up-to-date unless you want to include owning a system capable of browsing the internet and the cost of having an Internet connection. Libraries and book stores can't keep up with the pace these days unless one goes there to read magazines.
I meant to say, for people involved in the business, it is easier to look at a system and decide on the spot, they need to keep up-to-date; end users are divided in few groups one of which is enthusiasts that are not in the business but might know more than people who are.
steeve
Posts: 103 +2
that is good to know. i still run xp on my main machine - it's a pretty damn good os...and now we have aquasnap bringing all the aero features to xp...who needs 7?
but, i agree 1GB of ram is just silly these days. i will fix that.
then again, there is always the ready boost option
good point!
Leeky
Posts: 3,357 +116
I'm pretty sure it is. Its ideal if you want to give your system a boost, but real RAM will most likely read faster.
In perspective, if it was quicker, everyone would be going out and buying 16/32/64GB memory sticks and using them on readboost instead. lol. The costs of them these days would make it much cheaper than RAM.
I used an 8GB one with readyboost on Vista when I first got my current Dell and it made sod all difference.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Renewable energy sources are now used for a third of the world's electricity needs- scavengerspc replied
-
Understanding teen gaming: The positive, negative, and complex realities- Linoleum77 replied
