Windows 8 x64 on old PC

[Benz0r]

Without thinking, I installed Windows 8 64-bit on my old PC from 7 years ago that initially ran Windows XP, and I upgraded it to Windows 7 32-bit when it came out. Now I've upgraded it to 64-bit since I upgraded my other computer.

Is this bad? Should I install 32-bit instead?

[singularity87]

I don't see why it should be a problem if the hardware supports it. The 64-bit version requires more RAM (I think 2GB whereas 32-bit only needs 1GB). Are you having any issues? If not then I don't see a problem.

[Max Norris]

Don't see why it would be bad as long as you've got drivers for everything and Windows is behaving. Personally I'd only really consider x86 for systems that obviously couldn't run x64 (old Athlon XP's, etc or have old hardware that doesn't have 64 bit drivers), or systems that only have like 2GB memory where 64 bit would probably do more harm than good due to the overhead.

[Lee G. Veteran]

What are the specs? If it runs Windows 7 64-bit fine then I see no reason not to upgrade to Windows 8 64-bit.

[Benz0r]

This PC has never run x64. The specs are pretty low, 1.5GB RAM, 3GHz single-core processor. I was just worried that it might not last long until it crashes or something.

[Detection]

This PC has never run x64. The specs are pretty low, 1.5GB RAM, 3GHz single-core processor. I was just worried that it might not last long until it crashes or something.

Don't worry, x86 or x64 will not cause your hardware to fail on its own

x64 has its advantages over x86 if your machine can run it, if you only have a couple gigs of RAM, then x86 is probably better, but neither is going to waste your hardware any faster

EDIT - How did you install Win 8 on 1.5GB of RAM ?

[lars77]

This PC has never run x64. The specs are pretty low, 1.5GB RAM, 3GHz single-core processor. I was just worried that it might not last long until it crashes or something.

That's surprising, the Win 8 installer let you do the install? The minimum RAM for Win 8 64-bit is 2 GB, it doesn't sound like the machine meets the minimum requirements.

[NEVER85]

I'd run 32-bit if you only have 1.5 GB RAM. There's no benefit in running a 64-bit OS with that amount of RAM.

[Praetor]

Without thinking, I installed Windows 8 64-bit on my old PC from 7 years ago that initially ran Windows XP, and I upgraded it to Windows 7 32-bit when it came out. Now I've upgraded it to 64-bit since I upgraded my other computer.

Is this bad? Should I install 32-bit instead?

why??? old hardware, new windows = never a good deal. drivers missing, slow / poor performance... the list goes on.

But hey, if you are happy with it.. i once installed Windows XP on my old trustee Pentium 200 MMX that came with Windows 95; sure it worked (upgraded everything on that puter except the board, PSU and CPU) but i could eat lunch or take a nap while the puter was booting :laugh: :woot: still did lots of Photoshop work in that, though. :rofl:

[PGHammer]

I don't see why it should be a problem if the hardware supports it. The 64-bit version requires more RAM (I think 2GB whereas 32-bit only needs 1GB). Are you having any issues? If not then I don't see a problem.

Unless you run XP, there is absolutely ZERO reason to run anything other than an x64 OS on hardware that will support it. (And even if you DO run XP, the support for x64 by XP-era hardware is a lot greater than you would think - the issue iwth XP64 and support is applications - not hardware.)

Look in the Hardware Hangout archives - I've made several posts covering migration from x32 to x64 over XP, Vista, and 7 - including my own migration (during the Vista era). The issue has by and large been applications-related, and especially since the release of Windows Vista - between that and just plain FUD, crossover was scarce during the Vista era.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Unless you run XP, there is absolutely ZERO reason to run anything other than an x64 OS on hardware that will support it. (And even if you DO run XP, the support for x64 by XP-era hardware is a lot greater than you would think - the issue iwth XP64 and support is applications - not hardware.)

There are plenty of reasons not to run 64-bit on old hardware. The biggest one being that 64-bit uses more resources and creates more processes. The OP having 1.5GB of RAM is going to be hurting himself in performance by running x64. And finding drivers will be a nightmare. Honestly, the only upside I can think of for him to run x64 would maybe be security. And even that's a stretch.

Plus, I think we first need to know the specific CPU he's running. There are very few single-core CPUs out there that support x64, so he might be mistaken in thinking a Pentium 4 or something supports it, when in reality it doesn't.

[lars77]

Unless you run XP, there is absolutely ZERO reason to run anything other than an x64 OS on hardware that will support it.

Maybe for home PCs, definitely not for office/corporate PCs. There's a huge amount of software, middleware, plugins, drivers, etc. that are specifically 32-bit. Getting this type of stuff to work in a 64-bit environment is often difficult or impossible, good luck trying justifying all the extra expenses to your boss/client. And frankly, most office PCs won't have more than 4 GB RAM.

But yeah, if all the software/hardware you're using is 64-bit compatible & you have 4+ GB RAM then it makes sense to go 64-bit.

[PGHammer]

Maybe for home PCs, definitely not for office/corporate PCs. There's a huge amount of software, middleware, plugins, drivers, etc. that are specifically 32-bit. Getting this type of stuff to work in a 64-bit environment is often difficult or impossible, good luck trying justifying all the extra expenses to your boss/client. And frankly, most office PCs won't have more than 4 GB RAM.

But yeah, if all the software/hardware you're using is 64-bit compatible & you have 4+ GB RAM then it makes sense to go 64-bit.

Again, you are referring to application issues - not hardware issues. (I specifically mentioned applications as being the bugbear with Windows in general, and XP in particular, in terms of migrating to x64 - I covered it in my posts covering migrating folks I support to x64 - starting with, in fact, XP64.) Further, NONE of my migratees had 4 GB of system RAM at the time of migration. None at all. (Over half had less than 2 GB of RAM - two had a mere 512MB of RAM. However, all of these were home users - not corporate or enterprise users. However, most were also using refurbished corporate or enterprise PCs - which shipped with either Windows XP Professional or even Windows 2000 Professional. Nearly the WORST of possible cases for an x64 migration; however, due to the lack of application issues with home users, I had far easier a time than would have been suspected.

The 4 GB issue - go back to Hardware Hangout and read my posts again. I started the migration trend because of - not in spite of - what I uncovered in my investigation of this particular rubric. My uncovering is, in fact, easily duplicated by anyone with access to virtualization software - simply configure identical virtual machines with each OS in the consideration pool. (Naturally, the host must support at least VT-X for both x32 and x64 to face off in this manner.) The virtualization software itself won't matter. Once the application and driver issues are addressed, the 4 GB floor is, in reality, half that. (It can be , in fact, lowered all the way down to a single gigabyte of RAM - or less - for computers used exclusively for Internet-based tasks - such as Web browsing and e-mail usage - that is exactly why smartphones, tablets, etc - which typically have memory loadouts of that size, or less - are eating PCs for lunch. It's also why I am FAR from surprised over slower sales of larger desktops.)

[Astra.Xtreme]

[snip]

Just out of curiosity, what is your justification for installing XP 64-bit on a PC, especially if it had 2GB or less of RAM?

A 64-bit word takes up twice as much memory as a 32-bit word, so with a small amount of RAM, it's a very very bad idea to go x64.

64-bit simply raises memory limitations, and the benefits on old hardware basically stop there.

[Noir Angel]

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.

[Astra.Xtreme]

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]

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.

[heyitsheather]

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 Veteran]

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. (Y)