21 replies to this topic 1 votes

[Astra.Xtreme]

Javik, on 18 February 2013 - 20:39, said:

I think you're overplaying it a bit. 64 bit applications do consume a little more memory than 32 bit apps but it's certainly not double.

I never said that. The memory for the instructions is double.
A 64-bit word is double that of 32-bit and whether or not you're using all the bits, that memory space is still allocated.

I tried x64 Win 7 on an early Core 2 Duo with 1GB of RAM, and the performance was pretty bad. x86 was better since more memory was freed.

[PGHammer]

Astra.Xtreme, on 18 February 2013 - 20:43, said:

I never said that. The memory for the instructions is double.
A 64-bit word is double that of 32-bit and whether or not you're using all the bits, that memory space is still allocated.

I tried x64 Win 7 on an early Core 2 Duo with 1GB of RAM, and the performance was pretty bad. x86 was better since more memory was freed.

However, the memory USAGE of the application itself is not double - and what was the hardware in question? (One thing that has to be taken into account is badly-written or piggy drivers - while not as large an issue as it used to be, it's still an issue, especially for lower-tier hardware and peripherals.) Given identical loadouts, what's the memory usage comparison between Firefox, PaleMoon x64, and Waterfox? One reason I prefer IntelliPoint Pro (and now the Microsoft Keyboard and Mouse Center driver for Windows 8) to SetPoint for my Logitech V220 is due to SetPoint's piggishness - a porky driver that is less usable compared to an alternative gets replaced by that alternative without a quibble. Love the V220 as a wireless mouse physically, but I loathe the porkiness of SetPoint.

[nhjay]

I've run Win 8 on older hardware, as long as the CPU supports it, needing NX bit as I recall, I see no reason to not install it. If you're running under 4GB RAM then I'd personally install the 32bit version but that has alwasy been a personal preference to ensure I'm able to take full advantage of all my system RAM. I've personallay seen a big performance improvement with Windows 8 on older hardware that was previously running XP.

[LUTZIFER]

I don't see why it would be a problem. Windows 7 64bit runs awesome on low powered systems, even with aero enabled,
and supposably Windows 8 requires the same specs or lower.
Should work even better than XP anyways, as long as the hardware is compatible.
I'm even thinking of picking up some old piece o junk pc just to try Win 8 on. Wouldn't want to install it on a good computer.

[The_Decryptor]

Astra.Xtreme, on 18 February 2013 - 20:43, said:

I never said that. The memory for the instructions is double.
A 64-bit word is double that of 32-bit and whether or not you're using all the bits, that memory space is still allocated.

I tried x64 Win 7 on an early Core 2 Duo with 1GB of RAM, and the performance was pretty bad. x86 was better since more memory was freed.

Pointers and such will be double the length, but that's basically it, the actual stuff stored in memory will be about the same.

Edit: And when using 64bit, SSE/2 support is guaranteed, unlike 32bit mode.

[scaramonga]

If you love your old PC, treat it with great care, and put an OS on it, instead

[Raa]

You're right, that does sound bad.
Was it working well with Windows 7 32bit? I'd leave that on it and enjoy.