Would it be worth it going Windows 7 64bit (Home Premium)

[KeeperOfThePizza]

I'm wondering if it would be worth it making the step to 64bit Windows 7 with 3GB's of Memory? This would be for my Laptop,

Some of the Specs; Intel Pentium Dual Core T3400 @2.16, Intel Express Family Chipset 4/Intel x4500, 3GB of Memory

[Buendia]

I'm running x64 with 2GB of RAM, so why not? :p

[KeeperOfThePizza]

I'm running x64 with 2GB of RAM, so why not? :p

I'm not sure, I've heard people say that you should only go to 64bit with atleast 4Gigs of Memory.

[Zain Adeel]

id say dont spend the money..

not unless u have 4gb..

not worth it really..

[Omkar]

One word: Yes.

You may stop reading at this point.

Viewpoint #1:

As you approach closer to 3GB of dedicated address space (your RAM will always remain, and all of it will always be addressed), the more vulnurable you get to caps on other dynamic memory addressing. That includes virtual memory & integrated graphics, if any.

Think about it like this: you have 3GB of RAM. The system-managed pagefile is ~1GB. That's it, you're totalled. I can place stakes on the fact that 4 out of 5 people having >2GB RAM have >1GB pagefile.

Viewpoint #2:

Lets assume you installed x64 version of Windows? 7. Now you need 64-bit drivers for all your hardware. To actuallyharness> the x64 OS (which you may now boast of), you need 64-bit applications. This is a great place to start.

Is it worth the hassle to find 64-bit drivers? Does it sound too nerdy to actually use 64-bit applications for every little task you may do? Are you going to need 64 bits running around in a row?

The last one there actually rounds up to your original post and to be less mature this time, we don't have a crystal orb in which you canknow> you're going toneed> 64-bit apps. The punch line is, if you can have it, have it.

Omkar

[KeeperOfThePizza]

id say dont spend the money..

not unless u have 4gb..

not worth it really..

Well I wouldn't be spending any money... If you own 32bit you can use 64bit.

Also would battery life be affected when going to 64bit?

[hdood]

Viewpoint #1:

As you approach closer to 3GB of dedicated address space (your RAM will always remain, and all of it will always be addressed), the more vulnurable you get to caps on other dynamic memory addressing. That includes virtual memory & integrated graphics, if any.

It does not include virtual memory. It only includes physical resources.

The only real issue is that a process only has 2GB of virtual address space, and has to manually manage memory to allocate more than that (which it can, and then there's no limit.)

[Omkar]

It does not include virtual memory. It only includes physical resources.

The only real issue is that a process only has 2GB of virtual address space, and has to manually manage memory to allocate more than that (which it can, and then there's no limit.)

Sorry, my bad. Got confused between virtual memory & pagefile terminology.

Had a good amount of reading on the subject. The rest of my post stands corrected:

Many devices like your video or sound card use memory mapping to allow software to communicate with those devices. What this means is that they use certain addresses don't actually refer to a byte in memory; instead writing to that address sends information to that device. To do this they reserve a portion of the physical address space.

Source here.

Omkar

[t_r_nelson]

What is the video in it? I'd be concerned if your desire is to run the pretty Aero interface.

Other than that, pick up a backup program like DriveXML, run a backup of the entire drive, then upgrade. If you don't like it, go back.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

why NOT go to 64-bit? why is this still such a concern for people?

if youre using legacy hardware, yeah, 64-bit wont work. deal with it and upgrade. i loaded 7 64-bit on my gf's laptop a few months back. guess what: her legacy webcam doesnt work now. dont blame MS for that... the manuf doesnt have 64-bit drivers for their old webcams.

bottom line: ditch the legacy hardware and dont look back. i see no reason for 32-bit in 2009

[Dashel]

Its really a toss up at 3GB imo. If you have 2GB or less I'd stick with 32bit. On a 1GB machine, the 64bit is noticeably slower than 32bit under Win7.

Are there really any 64bit apps you want/need? Do you expect any component driver issues? I haven't seen anything that's led me to believe that there is much I/O or other OS centric performance gains to be had. I don't quite understand why that would be the case but thats been my experience on several configurations.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Dashel

[x9248]

why NOT go to 64-bit? why is this still such a concern for people?

+1

I run it on 2GB of RAM, so what. Get it :p

[PurePhoenix]

2-3gb of RAM for the 64bit version is fine.

My desktop is smooth as.

I'd be more worried about your processor, a T3400 is woefully underpowering W7.

My e7300 (2.66Ghtz, usually overclocked at 3.33) registers a 5.5 on the experience rating.

And slugishness you'll experience will be from lack of processing power - not ram.

[still1]

Its worth it.... Let me tell you why..

1. It will run your application a bit faster... You wont see a big difference in normal activities and in 32 bit applications

but it is faster for rendering graphics, resource intense process.

2. It has got Kernel patch protection(Protect the kernal from tampering). So, its a bit more safer that 32 bit OS.

3. Hardware-backed Data Execution Protection (DEP)

4. the requirement to use signed native-64bit drivers, which has better stability.

Microsoft has said that 64 bit version is less vulnerable to walmare that the 32 bit counterpart... Its a topic in neowin as well...

Edited November 20, 2009 by still1

[hdood]

1. It will run your application a bit faster... You wont see a big difference for normal activities and in 32 bit applications

32-bit applications actually end up running slower, but the difference is so tiny that it isn't really noticeable outside of synthetic benchmarks.

2. It has got Kernel patch protection(Protect the kernal from tampering). So, its a bit more safer that 32 bit OS.

It doesn't protect the kernel as such, it just polls for changes to certain monitored structures and if it detects one, it bluescreens the machine (after the change has been made, which means there is a time period there where something permanent could have been carried out). The message it's trying to send is that it is not okay to modify kernel structures (which has historically been done mostly by legitimate antivirus/security software). Actual malware that for some reason wants to make such changes can simply disable PatchGuard, although this is obviously more complicated than on 32-bit where their code would just run, so in that sense it is a tiny deterrent.

This may have been what you meant, but a lot of people seem to have gotten the impression that PG actually does something other than BSOD the machine.

3. Hardware-backed Data Execution Protection (DEP)

Also available in 32-bit.

4. the requirement to use signed native-64bit drivers, which has better stability.

Signed drivers are not more stable, they simply help identify the creator (although anyone can buy a certificate and sign something, even malware writers).

With all that said, there's no reason not to run the 64-bit version with 3GB of RAM provided your software and hardware is compatible. I'd certainly do it.

[Lee G. Veteran]

Yes, running Windows 7 x64 on that machine would be fine. I think it would be worth installing.

[etempest]

When XP had it's "64bit" version, hardware and 3rd party software support was bad.

I noticed a lot of issues.

When Vista came out, there was a big push for 64bit.

Now that Windows 7 is out, and Vista 64bit really did opened the door, there is now wide spread proper support for 64bit Windows now, especially with the fact that Windows 7 has the same driver model as Vista. So exiting well developed 64bit drivers are already in place for Windows 7.

[still1]

32-bit applications actually end up running slower, but the difference is so tiny that it isn't really noticeable outside of synthetic benchmarks.

read my post.. I said you wont see a big difference in 32 bit application but is better in 64 bit application

It doesn't protect the kernel as such, it just polls for changes to certain monitored structures and if it detects one, it bluescreens the machine. The message it's trying to send is that it is not okay to modify kernel structures (which has historically been done mostly by legitimate antivirus/security software). Actual malware that for some reason wants to make such changes can simply disable PatchGuard, although this is obviously more complicated than on 32-bit where their code would just run, so in that sense it is a tiny deterrent

This may have been what you meant, but a lot of people seem to have gotten the impression that PG actually does something other than BSOD the machine.

I agree about disabling pathguard but at the same time its difficult. there are many malware which dont try to disable the patch guard and this protection can defeat those malware... I am not saying it is the best but better than the one with no patchgaurd protection.

Also available in 32-bit.

Again, read my post.. It says Hardware backed DEP. DEP in 32 bit is just software based. EDIT: My bad, 32 bit support Hardware DEP.

Signed drivers are not more stable, they simply help identify the creator (although anyone can buy a certificate and sign something, even malware writers).

With all that said, there's no reason not to run the 64-bit version with 3GB of RAM provided your software and hardware is compatible. I'd certainly do it.

It also means you wont end up installing crap drivers on the 64 bit OS. Most of the crash that happens are due to crap drivers installed.

so obviously your system become more stable.....

With all that said, there's are a lot of reason to install 64 bit version.

Edited November 20, 2009 by still1

[hdood]

read my post.. I said you wont see a big difference in 32 bit application but is better in 64 bit application

It's not just "not big," it's actually negative. It's uninportant though, like I said.

I agree about disabling pathguard but at the same time its difficult. there are many malware which dont try to disable the patch guard and this protection can defeat those malware... I am not saying it is the best but better than the one with no protection in it....

Have you ever seen a PatchGuard BSOD? Know of anyone else who has? Only 64-bit malware can modify the kernel, and 64-bit malware would have to be designed with PG in mind since it has always been present. Disabling PG isn't that difficult if you know what you're doing (by patching the kernel on disk), and only one person has to do it and everyone else will just copy them.

Again, read my post.. It says Hardware backed DEP. DEP in 32 bit is just software based and very easy to tamper.

No. What you call "software based" is actually something completely different related to exception handling in programs written specifically to support it. Hardware DEP (also known as the no-execute bit) is available on all hardware that supports it, provided PAE is enabled (which it is by default on hardware that supports it). If the hardware supports it, it is used regardless of whether the OS is 32-bit and 64-bit.

It also means you wont end up installing crap drivers on the 64 bit OS. Most of the crash that happens are due to crap drivers installed.

so obviously your system become more stable.....

Except that doesn't follow. There are many signed drivers that are crap. Driver signing just means you bought a certificate and signed the driver with it. In fact, there are plenty of WHQL (an automated process where you run a piece of software that verifies that your driver implements what it should and follows some basic rules) drivers that are crap as well.