Running Win 7 with only 1 GB RAM -> 32 or 64 bit?

[Brandon Live Veteran]

From what I've seen, the only thing keeping 32-bit around as a recommendation is keeping Windows on a starvation diet memory-wise.

That is a bad idea, and has ALWAYS been a bad idea. It was a bad idea with 9x/NT 4, it continued to be a bad idea with Windows 2000, and it has remained a bad idea with XP, Vista, and now 7.

If your computer takes DDR2, there is even less reason to continue starving Windows of RAM, as DDR2 is the cheapest system memory available right now.

Still, even if your computer takes plain ordinary DDR (the most expensive desktop memory today in terms of price per gigabyte), adding more RAM makes sense, even if you don't plan on adding any more applications or games, or upgrading your operating system.

And if you are going to add RAM (which you should do) why not move to an operating system that will well and truly let you take advantage of it (in terms of increased stability)?

In short, if the processor/driver/application support permits, upgrade/crossgrade to 64-bit now; but even if you don't, add more RAM anyway.

Some machines (especially netbooks) can't handle more than 2GB of RAM.

[ToneKnee]

Here is a quick benchmark of my system. Exactly the same install of Windows 7, just running a 32-bit instance and a 64-bit instance of the same benchmark (left and right respectively).

[JunkMail]

Here is a quick benchmark of my system. Exactly the same install of Windows 7, just running a 32-bit instance and a 64-bit instance of the same benchmark (left and right respectively).

rrrright.... :)

...and remember, that is not just x64 being benchmarked, you can run x86 apps and get same results too!

I totally agree, x64 is cool :p

Edited August 1, 2009 by JunkMail

[Carlos Sanchez]

The x86 edition has an minimum requirement of 1 GB RAM.

Minimum, that is. So logically, the performance would not be far overwhelming, right?

My fiance has an old 2GHz Centrino laptop (Fujitsu-Siemens), with 1 GB memory.

Would Windoze 7 run at an acceptable performance on this?

Anyone? Ty in adv~

--EDIT--

Oops, just reckoned that this thread is in beta forum. Since W7 is now final perhaps all threads on this board would be considered obsolete? However, if I'd have to chose between bumping this one, or creating a new single thread with my dull question, I would probably still be bumping this one. Cheers! :D

[c3ntury]

Go 64bit, saves you money on upgrading to it in the future.

[Scorbing]

32 bit. If you are going to have more than 3GB than go for 64 bit.

[PGHammer]

Some machines (especially netbooks) can't handle more than 2GB of RAM.

And generally the only reason netbooks can't run x64 are processor limitations (most Atom processors used in netbooks are x32), not RAM limitations.

The *power netbooks* (these are the replacements for budget laptops - 15-inch displays, mobile AMD and Intel CPUs, such as mobile Athlon II and i3, and Intel/AMD/nV mobile GPUs) are x64-capable (and most come with 7 Home Premium x64 already - example is the HP Pavilion dm1z).

While *Vista* x64 may have been memory-piggish by comparison, 7 x64 is not. I have found 7 x64 far more RAM-friendly at the low or even middle end than Vista or XP (both x32 and x64 versions of either).

[hdood]

While *Vista* x64 may have been memory-piggish by comparison, 7 x64 is not. I have found 7 x64 far more RAM-friendly at the low or even middle end than Vista or XP (both x32 and x64 versions of either).

Lol. Sure it is. It only uses -2x less RAM than XP.

[eilegz]

stay with 32 bits its a old machine so upgrading ram on it will cost a lot, rather save money and spent in a new pc

[xtruder]

Install x64 just in case you ever want to upgrade your RAM later on...

[PGHammer]

Lol. Sure it is. It only uses -2x less RAM than XP.

Where 7 whips XP as far as RAM utilization goes is in running multiple processes in a given memory heap.

While 7 does have more processes than XP, it is also more efficient at managing those processes than XP.