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

[jacob667]

I'm currently running the Windows 7 RC on a 3200+ AMD Athlon computer with 1 GB of RAM. I chose to run with the 64 bit edition as I have done 64 bit computing the last couple of years.

Windows 7 requires 2 GB for the 64 bit edition and only 1 GB for the 32 bit edition. I think my computer runs just fine with only 1 GB RAM. I have not tried to run Win 7 RC in 32 bit. Why does 64 bit computing require so much more memory?

Are there some with only 1 GB RAM who has tried to run both the 32 bit and the 64 bit editions. I'm wondering what I should choose when buying Windows 7. I mainly use my computer for web browsing but also a little bit of gaming.

[Geranium_Z__NL]

well its tottaly up to you.. if u want to upgrade someday to 4 gb ram. then stick with x64. if u want to stay on 1gb ram. go x86

[JunkMail]

Oh! upgrade more RAM they cost like peanuts these days and run X64 Win7. PERIOD :p

[Ytterbium]

I would run x64, I don't see any dissadvantages.

[kimsland]

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)

[ToneKnee]

I'm a big supporter of 64-bit, but like kimsland just said, the system uses more RAM just being 64-bit, so 32-bit is the option for you.

[jacob667]

I am not going to upgrade this computer. Like I said it runs just fine. It needs some old DDR 1 modules which are too expensive to be worthwhile to buy. Then I would rather invest the money in a new computer which I am seriously thinking about to get in 2010. I am already investigating what to buy :)

But I am unsure if I should go the 32 bit or the 64 bit way with my 4 year old computer.

[nautiqueskier]

32-bit

The odds of you upgrading it over 3GB are slim, which is really the only time x64 shines

[kimsland]

Actually seeming MS states minimum 2 Gig on 64-Bit, does it even install?

Anyway, as stated, stay with 32-Bit ;)

[qdave]

I'm currently running the Windows 7 RC on a 3200+ AMD Athlon computer with 1 GB of RAM. I chose to run with the 64 bit edition as I have done 64 bit computing the last couple of years.

Thats the same specs as mine, and i am happy with 32bit. You wont gain any advantages going 64bit.

[code.kliu.org]

Actually seeming MS states minimum 2 Gig on 64-Bit, does it even install?

Anyway, as stated, stay with 32-Bit ;)

I've ran W7 x64 on a 1GB machine with Aero enabled and all that fun stuff. No problems.

[jacob667]

It installs just fine with 1 GB RAM. Like I said I'm running the 64 bit release candidate right now.

I think I will try the 32 bit when I get it. ( I just preordered it today )

Like I said before I am thinking about getting a new computer in 2010. Can I build a new computer with windows 7 when I have activated it on my current computer? I am not going to buy two copies of Win 7...

[Ytterbium]

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.

[ilovetech]

i am using W7 x64 with 2GB ram & its actually fine.. but i would recommend you to go 32bit with 1GB of ram because of the sheer fact that 64bit apps will need more ram than their 32bit counterparts because of wider registers, pointers, large address space. you can test it yourself by designing a simple app in VS & compiling it in both 32bit & 64bit. you will find that for the same piece of code 64bit app takes more memory. so the programmers are at least not at fault for not optimizing memory usage of the apps(for some extent). 64bit is architectured this way only (to utilize more memory). with 1GB ram there will not be any benefit you will get other than some more stability & security of 64bit kernel.

if you have very light usage than you can go for 64bit.

[kimsland]

Just on that idea of creating programs and comparing Ram usage between 32-Bit and 64-Bit

If the Code for the 64-Bit was written using one bit of the 64-Bit architecture then that 1 Bit would use less Ram than if it were used similarly on 32-Bit

Now that sounds confusing, but the answer is proper programming for 64-Bit will effectively reduce overall Ram usage (generally today most are written for 32-Bit)

[Inctye]

This thread is the reason why x64 will become the only option for Windows 8. By now, all the 32bit emulation problems have been solved so there are only very minimal and unnoticeable differences in performance. With most of the major softwares making an 64bit version, you will certainly get some performance boost from the 64bit architecture regardless of how much ram your computer has. So, in short, there are no disadvantages or restrictions to using x64.

[ilovetech]

Just on that idea of creating programs and comparing Ram usage between 32-Bit and 64-Bit

If the Code for the 64-Bit was written using one bit of the 64-Bit architecture then that 1 Bit would use less Ram than if it were used similarly on 32-Bit

Now that sounds confusing, but the answer is proper programming for 64-Bit will effectively reduce overall Ram usage (generally today most are written for 32-Bit)

then i think it is not the programmers fault but of 64bit compilers & lack of language infrastructure utilizing it. apps can be written with the available capability of the language & compiler. what you are suggesting is correct but would require programming in assembly utilizing each bits. today programmers need to pay attention that their apps are compatible with both 32bit as well 64bit platform & the version differs just by recompiling it to other architecture. they cant afford to loose 32bit customers for the sake of 64bit just yet because market is so divided.

[PGHammer]

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)

Kerfuffle.

I crossgraded (with Vista no less) from 32-bit to 64-bit when I moved to to my current setup (Celeron DC) when I had just 1 GB of RAM (a fifty percent *drop* from my 32-bit days due to a RAM-type change when I changed motherboards). By and large, I did not lose any performance compared to the situation running 32-bit with the same amount of RAM. (Due to tougher driver requirements and increased isolation of 32-bit applications, I did notice a stability *increase*, however.)

Gaming? Except for really old games, most games could, in fact, care less. (If anything, the more recent tthe game in question, the more likely performance would improve by moving to 64-bit.)

[red77stars]

I'm currently running the Windows 7 RC on a 3200+ AMD Athlon computer with 1 GB of RAM. I chose to run with the 64 bit edition as I have done 64 bit computing the last couple of years.

Windows 7 requires 2 GB for the 64 bit edition and only 1 GB for the 32 bit edition. I think my computer runs just fine with only 1 GB RAM. I have not tried to run Win 7 RC in 32 bit. Why does 64 bit computing require so much more memory?

Are there some with only 1 GB RAM who has tried to run both the 32 bit and the 64 bit editions. I'm wondering what I should choose when buying Windows 7. I mainly use my computer for web browsing but also a little bit of gaming.

Buy damn memory

[Lee G. Veteran]

I would run x64, I don't see any dissadvantages.

+1 (Y)

You should buy some more RAM, imho.

[kimsland]

I think my computer runs just fine with only 1 GB RAM.

I am not going to upgrade this computer.

He doesn't need to buy more Ram

But if he wants to be fully compatible with 99% of programs out there, may as well stay with 32bit

Anyway I've gone over this already.

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?

[lee31]

Th OP should have created a poll for this.

For your system spec I would stick with 32bit.

64bit takes up more memory so you'll be at a disadvantage.

[hdood]

Just on that idea of creating programs and comparing Ram usage between 32-Bit and 64-Bit

If the Code for the 64-Bit was written using one bit of the 64-Bit architecture then that 1 Bit would use less Ram than if it were used similarly on 32-Bit

Now that sounds confusing, but the answer is proper programming for 64-Bit will effectively reduce overall Ram usage (generally today most are written for 32-Bit)

While you may be able to use marginally less memory by packing data this way, this performance penalty for doing so can be extreme. That is why it's not normally done.

[kimsland]

For the record. I'm not a programmer (although I have tried)

And if I were to purchase Win7 I'd go 64-Bit with minimum 6 Gig of Ram

I'll get their one day :)

[PGHammer]

While you may be able to use marginally less memory by packing data this way, this performance penalty for doing so can be extreme. That is why it's not normally done.

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).

Except for games with 16-bit installers (and there's darn few of those; none of which are newer than Windows XP), your games won't notice the difference. (Same applies with most applications; in fact, expect *more* 64-bit applications now that the planet's productivity suite of choice, Microsoft Office, has taken the 64-bit highway. And yes, even Word and Outlook, the two least likely applications to expect improvement out of, improved, and significantly so, in the jump.)