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


Recommended Posts

What will be your decision jacob667 ? I note that MS recommend minimum 1Gig on 32Bit, does that mean that's what you're staying with?

Like I said already I'm currently running X64 on my computer. I've done the last few years. Didn't know that x64 requires more RAM.

I think i will try the x86 when I receive my Windows 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32bit.

As others have said, x64 is more heavy on memory usage - and with only 1GB, you're just not going to see any benefits at all.

I only use Windows x64 because I have 4GB of RAM and will possibly go to 8GB in the future. If I had 3GB or less I'd stick to 32bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd get a 1GB stick of RAM to add in, yes DDR1 is expensive, but a single 1GB stick isn't too bad unless you're buying multiple.

Also for the original question, for the current computer, 32-bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With 1 GB of RAM, I would recommend running 32-bit Windows; it is only when you exceed 2 GB of RAM that the overhead associated with running 64-bit becomes negligible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to 64-Bit pointers and larger address space or wider registers, more Ram is required

If coders were to write better software though, 64-Bit would work much faster with the same amount of Ram as 32-Bit, but sadly more Ram is required due to poorly written software

Generally if you're not using high Ram intensive applications such as virtualization then you are best using 32-Bit still

Vista 32-Bit is less Ram intensive and is faster than 64-Bit with 1 Gig of Ram

On the contrary though, 64-Bit is set to take over all applications and software (including games) If you decide to purchase 64-Bit with higher Ram (really minimum 4Gig, even though MS state 2Gig minimum) you will be up with the times for all future built applications

For general Internet browsing and some present gaming, I'd suggest to stay with 32-Bit (presently)

RAM is cheap, DEVELOPER TIME is NOT. The software (at least not most of it) are NOT written poorly, just optimization cost are much higher then RAM cost, so it isn't efficient to spend time on superb optimization :) so the question is how you want to take the hit, to pay a little more for additional RAM or to pay a lot more for the software (which must be more expensive if more developer time required). Nothing is free in this World. Nothing can beat mass production cost (RAM production cost), software development is hard work, optimization is an especially tricky, and one of most expensive part of it.

In theory one can write a perfect code, in practice that is nothing but a big bull****. When you hit working code quality, you must choose between making that code more optimized with less bugs or adding new features, when performance and reliability/stability is not paramount and you have no market to pay for it, new features are the answer. Of course some level of refactoring of the code is always needed, but you can't have all at least not outside of your dreams. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently went from RC1 64bit back to the 32bit (with a very brief interlude back to my old Vista install, couldn't stand it after running 7 for a few weeks). The main reason I switched back to 32bit was the highly annoying driver signing requirement of x64. I couldn't find a solution other than disabling it manually every time I booted my machine. I think the straw that broke the camel's back for me though, was I tried to rip a few DVDs to plop on my Netbook to watch while I was on a trip and I couldn't do it. I normally use DVD43 to decrypt and Handbrake or AutoGK (usually Handbrake) to rip, but I couldn't find a single program that would allow me to rip DVDs on Win7 64bit. So I went back to my old 32bit install of Vista, and upgraded it to Win7 32bit.

I think when I get my upgrade disks, I am going to stick with 32bit for a while. I only have 4gb of ram, and get 3.4gb of it in the OS. Right now, in my opinion, more than 4gb of ram (or 3gb if you are so inclined) is the only real reason to go from 32bit to 64bit. The performance difference is negligible in most apps from experience. Anyone got benchmarks to say different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

64 bit does give a slight boost in fps when playing games too. That's what tided me over. If my system is capable of getting a boost and the pros outweigh the cons, then why not get x64?

/my argument

Benchmark: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/64-bit...aming,2250.html

The bottom line is that you won?t see game-changing benefits from the apps you play today. But when you consider that a 32-bit Vista license already entitles you to the 64-bit version, that memory is cheaper than ever, that properly recognizing 4GB or more requires a 64-bit OS, and that even 32-bit games with the large address aware flag can benefit from extra system memory, the decision to go 64-bit should be an easy one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As previously said, 32bit is the way for you.

I also have a machine with 1Gb RAM (I don't won't to put more RAM in, the PC's not worth spending money on), and with Windows 7, it was quicker than Vista, but then I put in a 4Gb SD card, and use that for Readyboost, and it sped the machine up alot more.

If you have a spare memory card of some sort, it might be worth a try !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started running Vista 64-bit back when I had just a single gigabyte of RAM; then I crossgraded to 7 64-bit (still with but the same single gigabyte). I didn't upgrade to 3 GB until three weeks ago, and it was seriously cheap RAM prices that inspired that upgrade, not any performance penalties (though performance, especially multitasking performance, has increased with more RAM). So I would recommend (based on my own experience) to crossgrade to 64-bit first, THEN upgrade your RAM (so you can gain the stability advantages offered by improved drivers).

I don't know if you quoted the wrong person, or just misunderstood. I was saying that packing data structures in an attempt to use less memory can have performance consequences far greater than the benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently went from RC1 64bit back to the 32bit (with a very brief interlude back to my old Vista install, couldn't stand it after running 7 for a few weeks). The main reason I switched back to 32bit was the highly annoying driver signing requirement of x64. I couldn't find a solution other than disabling it manually every time I booted my machine. I think the straw that broke the camel's back for me though, was I tried to rip a few DVDs to plop on my Netbook to watch while I was on a trip and I couldn't do it. I normally use DVD43 to decrypt and Handbrake or AutoGK (usually Handbrake) to rip, but I couldn't find a single program that would allow me to rip DVDs on Win7 64bit. So I went back to my old 32bit install of Vista, and upgraded it to Win7 32bit.

I think when I get my upgrade disks, I am going to stick with 32bit for a while. I only have 4gb of ram, and get 3.4gb of it in the OS. Right now, in my opinion, more than 4gb of ram (or 3gb if you are so inclined) is the only real reason to go from 32bit to 64bit. The performance difference is negligible in most apps from experience. Anyone got benchmarks to say different?

Isn't AnyDVD Vista 64 compatible? http://www.slysoft.com/en/anydvd.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want 32-bit.

While Windows 7 reduces the overhead going from x86 to x64, there still is some and always will be so long as the WOW64 layer for running 32-bit applications is needed and in use.

On a 2GB machine the overhead is still there, but less likely to make an impact. At 3GB it's a fairly small percentage and often outweighed by the benefits. At 4GB you've more than made up for the overhead with the additional RAM that's accessible to the system.

But if you're going to be at 1GB for the foreseeable future, go with 32-bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like Brandon says use the 32Bit Version. With WOW64 Windows loads also the 32Bit DLLs when you run 32Bit software. And because of the fact that you still use more 32Bit apps this will increase the memory usage.

But why don't you upgrade to 2 GB? RAM is cheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently went from RC1 64bit back to the 32bit (with a very brief interlude back to my old Vista install, couldn't stand it after running 7 for a few weeks). The main reason I switched back to 32bit was the highly annoying driver signing requirement of x64. I couldn't find a solution other than disabling it manually every time I booted my machine. I think the straw that broke the camel's back for me though, was I tried to rip a few DVDs to plop on my Netbook to watch while I was on a trip and I couldn't do it. I normally use DVD43 to decrypt and Handbrake or AutoGK (usually Handbrake) to rip, but I couldn't find a single program that would allow me to rip DVDs on Win7 64bit. So I went back to my old 32bit install of Vista, and upgraded it to Win7 32bit.

I think when I get my upgrade disks, I am going to stick with 32bit for a while. I only have 4gb of ram, and get 3.4gb of it in the OS. Right now, in my opinion, more than 4gb of ram (or 3gb if you are so inclined) is the only real reason to go from 32bit to 64bit. The performance difference is negligible in most apps from experience. Anyone got benchmarks to say different?

I'm not sure why Handbrake wouldn't work in the Windows on Windows 64 (WOW64) emulation layer like all other 32-bit applications. Did you actually try it? I just installed it now to make sure it worked on my 7 x64 and it works great. I'm not sure you understand the way x64 editions of Windows treat 32-bit code execution.

Also, there are various workarounds to the driver signing requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WoW64

to learn how this works

Why does everyone think Wikipedia is the be all end all, if you really want to learn how WOW64 works, go to the source:

http://blogs.msdn.com/craigmcmurtry/archiv.../14/301155.aspx

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384249(VS.85).aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

While wikipedia may have some great articles. The ones pertaining to Windows Architecture seem to be lacking in breadth.

Thanks for editing me out of the quote when you quoted my post!

I am just getting fed up of everyone using Wikipedia as a source, yes there are certain things that it's good at, and others, not so good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if he doesn't understand it, it would be easier for him to read the wikipedia article instead of this technical MSDN articles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have no intentions of getting more than 4Gb of RAM, then stick with x86.

You can re-install windows if you buy new parts and have a Retail copy of Windows. I just re-activated mine this morning after installing new parts.

The whole "If you're not going to use over 4gb RAM then there are no advantages. Stick with x86." argument really annoys me.

While it may be at least partially true, it's also true that there are few to no disadvantages either!

The argument should be: "If you've got no specific compatibility requirements that make you stay on x86, then go with x64"

In this particular case though, if all you're ever going to have is 1gb of RAM, then I'd probably stick with x86 as the recommended minimum for a 64-bit version of Windows 7 is 2gb. While you may be able to get Windows installed and running, that may be all you are able to run.

Just keep in mind though that Microsoft keep threating to discontinue the x86/32-bit line of products. A few years ago it was even rumoured that Windows 7 would be x64/64-bit only. However that's not the case, obviously. They may just make good on their threat for Windows 8, then you'll have no choice at all. Their Exchange email server has already gone down that route and is available for x64 servers only.

Thanks for editing me out of the quote when you quoted my post!

I am just getting fed up of everyone using Wikipedia as a source, yes there are certain things that it's good at, and others, not so good.

It's true that Wikipedia usually doesn't offer the most indepth of information, and quite often it's inaccurate. But one thing it does well thoguh is be understandable to the majority of people as the content is generally written by "common folk". Unlike Technet and MSDN articles, which are usually full of complex jargon and technobabble.

So yes, if you want an overview of something written in plan English, then go to Wikipedia.

If you want indepth, detailed and accurate articles on a subject, go to MSDN and Technet.

Edited by TCLN Ryster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if he doesn't understand it, it would be easier for him to read the wikipedia article instead of this technical MSDN articles

I think you're right. For someone asking this question, he probably isn't technical enough to bother with the slight more technical documents from Microsoft. Wikipedia has a good tendency to put in plain english many concepts and overviews of technology. It's when you want to go slightly deeper down that you need to refer to more complete material.

Thanks for editing me out of the quote when you quoted my post!

I did not edit you out; I just made a quick reply and didn't bother putting your name in the quote tag as your post was right above mine. Its sort of ridiculous I have to spell this out.. for some reason editing doesn't work.

I'm not sure why you construed me overlooking a quote credit as something malicious on my part. I'm actually surprised you're this aggressive to someone supporting your point of view and had to publicly point this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everyone think Wikipedia is the be all end all, if you really want to learn how WOW64 works, go to the source:

Because it provides a nice, executive-summary overview for people who don't need the depth. And Wikipedia usually does a good job of linking to the source and to more in-depth articles (and it does just that in this case) so people who are inclined to know the details can dig deeper. Linking to the original source is inappropriate for a general audience when the source is targeting a particular niche group.

As a developer who had read all of the WOW64 MSDN docs, I know that it is definitely not suitable for non-developers, I would certainly not link to those docs when trying to explain WOW64 to a non-developer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why Handbrake wouldn't work in the Windows on Windows 64 (WOW64) emulation layer like all other 32-bit applications. Did you actually try it? I just installed it now to make sure it worked on my 7 x64 and it works great. I'm not sure you understand the way x64 editions of Windows treat 32-bit code execution.

Also, there are various workarounds to the driver signing requirement.

Handbrake works fine, of course. You may notice that Handbrake doesn't decrypt DVDs however. THAT needs to be done by another program, and the one I typically use is DVD43. I am pretty sure I mentioned this, though not in so much detail in my post. Maybe if you read it instead of skimming it you would have picked that up. I'm not sure how you read my post and came to the utterly mistaken understanding that I don't know how x64 works.

All of your various workarounds are unsat. The only real answer is for Microsoft to make the signing an optional feature. I am fine with it being on by default, as long as I can disable it without a dirty hack.

Someone also mentioned AnyDVD, and that is a bandaid on the problem. First, I am not willing to pay for that when there is a perfectly acceptable and workable solution for free. On top of that, this will not be the only time that driver signing will be a pain in my butt. So, I will just stick with 32bit and install whatever driver I feel like, without Microsoft's blessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran Windows 7 on my brothers 512MB PC for a week or two. It was pretty quick but RAM usage was always at the peak. I reinstalled XP on that machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran Windows 7 on my brothers 512MB PC for a week or two. It was pretty quick but RAM usage was always at the peak. I reinstalled XP on that machine.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more Ram is required

(presently)

orly? i ran it on my laptop with only 1GB ramx64..... and it ran it just fine.. well you are mostlikey roght im just in a arrogant and argueing mode this morning so please forgive me lol

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

=======================================================================[

is this a laptop or desktop? strangely i get better battery life out of 64 bit since.. it does process 64 bits of data per clock cycle as opposed to 32....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.