Windows Vista x64 and 2GB of RAM


Recommended Posts

Ok... So now I know that the route is clean. I'll just keep XP SP3 for a now (I'm not in a mood of a complete format now) and well you know my PC is great for XP but just good enough for Vista and I'll lose a bit of the responsiveness I'm used to ;)

Honestly...I've run Vista on computers less able than yours, and it has always been more responsive than XP >.>;

I remember a long time ago when XP64 came out, someone once said 32bit applications run on the 64bit o/s as wow (windows on windows) so there is a small proformance decrece. Fr@nky I doubt you will see any diffrance between the two. Don't know if that is still true with vista64?

You could always trial vista64 for 30 days and see what you think of it?

Happily running Vista SP1 x64, but with 8gb ram, so that's nice. The only thing that doesn't work with x64 is my Palm, but I certainly don't hold that against Microsoft. Palm is dead as a company and their refusal to release x64 drivers for the Palm has been the bain of many people's existence for years now.

If you go x64 now, even with only 2gb ram, you are set for the day when you do drop in 4 or 8gb.

I remember a long time ago when XP64 came out, someone once said 32bit applications run on the 64bit o/s as wow (windows on windows) so there is a small proformance decrece. Fr@nky I doubt you will see any diffrance between the two. Don't know if that is still true with vista64?

You could always trial vista64 for 30 days and see what you think of it?

Even though Vista x64 runs 32 bit apps with WOW64, the performance penalty is so small that it's unlikely that you'll notice. Even if you're running benchmarks there may not be a difference, and when there is, it's pretty small.

This is because the 32 bit code executes directly on the processor. Vista isn't emulating a 32 bit processor, it's actually running the code natively.

I'm a big 64-bit fan, but on a 2GB system with no real plan to upgrade it, I would recommend you stick with Vista 32-bit.

Using Server 2008 is a stupid idea. It costs a ton more and is exactly the same code. If you reconfigure Vista SP1 to only use the same default services and settings as Server, you'll have exactly the same system.

As the above poster said, there is no penalty for executing 32-bit code on an x64 version of Windows. However, there is a small bit of overhead for starting the first WOW64 app, and it does mean using a bit more memory if you run 32-bit apps (for instance, you end up loading the 64-bit and 32-bit versions of shell32.dll). That's why Microsoft is encouraging OEMs to ensure that no 32-bit applications run in the start-up path.

There's also additional memory overhead because of larger pointers and certain data structures. On a 4GB system, this is offset by the availability of more RAM and address space. But on a 2GB system you're probably best sticking with 32-bit as the memory overhead will be smaller.

If you go x64 now, even with only 2gb ram, you are set for the day when you do drop in 4 or 8gb.

His motherboard almost certainly will not support 4GB of RAM. So that really isn't a factor.

I'm running Vista x64 SP1 on 2GB of ram with no problems and haven't run into any issues with 32-bit compatibility, either. Super Antispyware causes errors in the event logs cause they haven't upgraded their app for full 64-bit compatibility, but it still works :)

His motherboard almost certainly will not support 4GB of RAM. So that really isn't a factor.

I wouldn't be so sure. we have very similar set ups; my motherboard supports 4GB and was pretty standard at the time.

edit: However, he has 4x512mb so he'd almost certainly have to remove some before adding more.

I have similar (slightly less) as you: AMD 64 3500+, 4x512mb DDR400, ATI x800XL 256mb, same hard drive. I run Vista 64bit and have no complaints, although I should add that I haven't been doing much that's CPU or memory intensive. I'm interested to learn 64bit has higher requirements than 32bit?

@Raa - DDR isn't so cheap!

i have similar specs but i got a 3000+(upgrading it to a 3800+) but i got 4x1024 DDR400 and nvidia Geforce 8600GT 256MB but i can't run vista 64 as my clients i support use 32bit Oses. games are a bit slow but that is because my 17inch lcd 12MS is slow and it has only a VGA connector and the video card has DVI so it is using an adapter to convert the VGA to DVI(getting new lcd DVI soon) and my current cpu is not that good.

@Raa: you can buy cheap ddr on ebay, far cheaper than the local store.

you can buy cheap ddr on ebay, far cheaper than the local store.

Well, second hand will always be cheaper. I keep hearing from people that RAM is really cheap and it IS, if you're buying DDR2. Looking on ebuyer.com,

Value DDR-400 1GB = ?20

Value DDR2-800 1GB = ?12

One app compatibility caveat I forgot about is GameTap. If you have it you will only be able to play old console games and arcade games. The Windows ones will not run due to the encryption driver.

Gametap is about to go belly up, so that may not be a problem.

i have similar specs but i got a 3000+(upgrading it to a 3800+) but i got 4x1024 DDR400 and nvidia Geforce 8600GT 256MB but i can't run vista 64 as my clients i support use 32bit Oses. games are a bit slow but that is because my 17inch lcd 12MS is slow and it has only a VGA connector and the video card has DVI so it is using an adapter to convert the VGA to DVI(getting new lcd DVI soon) and my current cpu is not that good.

@Raa: you can buy cheap ddr on ebay, far cheaper than the local store.

Comma's learn to use them. people migh tdie from lack of oxygen you know.

and your 12ms screen isn't making games slow. That would be your graphics card.

I wouldn't be so sure. we have very similar set ups; my motherboard supports 4GB and was pretty standard at the time.

edit: However, he has 4x512mb so he'd almost certainly have to remove some before adding more.

Generally a CPU like his would mean a motherboard that can only address 4GB of memory. A 4GB address space means you can't actually map 4GB of physical RAM. So the difference between a 32-bit and 64-bit OS is basically moot.

Vista x64 is of course usable on 2GB RAM but I found it was hitting the page file often with more than a few programs open - Firefox, Photoshop, Thunderbird, Pidgin, mIRC, foobar, and Steam.

With 4GB it never hits the page file and as a result the system is much faster, especially when going through directories with a lot of files / thumbnails.

So, IMO, install 32-bit Vista if you only have 2GB. Performance will be decreased by going to x64.

Comma's learn to use them. people migh tdie from lack of oxygen you know.

and your 12ms screen isn't making games slow. That would be your graphics card.

can you explain why my gpu is slowing games down and not my cpu or monitor??it's got good specs it's an EVGA 8600 GT 256MB Superclocked.

Edited by soldier1st
Well lt's get straight to the point... I have the following system:

- Processor: AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice (2.4 GHz SINGLE CORE) @ 2.64 GHz

- Memory: Twinmos 4x512MB DDR-400MHz CAS 2.5 @ 440MHz

- Graphics Card: XFX Geforce 6600GT 256MB DDR3

- Hard Drive: Seagate 200GB SATA 7200RPM 8MB Cache

- Soundcard: Realtek ALC850 Onboard

- PSU: Eurotech 460W Silent

As you can see I have 2GB of RAM. I'm wondering is there any disavantage of installing Vista x64 with 2GB of RAM. I mean... the amount of extra memory required by the x64 version would mean that I would have less performance on x64 version than on x86?

I have been switching back and foward between XP and Vista on this machine (but I currently run Vista Home Premium x86 on my laptop for about a year) and settled with XP once SP3 came out. Now I thinking of going back to Vista and I want to know if there's any reason not to choose the 64-bit version with the system above? What should I do?

P.S.: I have all the drivers and all the software I need is either 64-bit compatible or is 64-bit native...

The *disadvantages* of Vista x64 have nothing to do with low amounts of RAM. (Here's a welcome surprise - on supported hardware, the x64 versions truly require no more RAM than the x86 versions. In fact, the x64 versions of Vista actually run better with low amounts of RAM on single-core-yet-x64 processors, such as current-generation Celerons, than the x86 versions.) The sticking point comes with applications and drivers with x64 operating systems, not low amounts of RAM; I've run Vista Ultimate x64 on a single-core Celeron with only 512 MB of RAM, and had better performance than I would with Ultimate x86 on the same hardware.

Since you've solved the driver and application issues, I would recommend x64 over x86. Strange, but true.

the other dude on Quillz's thread said x64 uses 2GB of RAM as a pagefile alone and that 4GB is minimum.

for your current machine install Vista32 w/ SP1 and you should enjoy your machine quite reasonably.

If you're "dying" to go 64bit start with a fresh new build w/ 4GB of RAM; my suggestion.

i disagree with you and the person after you.. i have 2 gigs of ram on a laptop and used x64 ultimate and it ran fine with less that 1 gig for a page file

Vista x64 is of course usable on 2GB RAM but I found it was hitting the page file often with more than a few programs open - Firefox, Photoshop, Thunderbird, Pidgin, mIRC, foobar, and Steam.

With 4GB it never hits the page file and as a result the system is much faster, especially when going through directories with a lot of files / thumbnails.

So, IMO, install 32-bit Vista if you only have 2GB. Performance will be decreased by going to x64.

Surprisingly, I have to disagree. The sticking point with x64 has more to do with driver performance if you run x64 applications. The effects you are stating have to do more with running x86 apps on an x64 OS (the WOW64 subsystem); this is, naturally, eliminated if you instead run 64-bit applications. (The problem there is though x64 versions of browsers, such as Firefox, IE, etc., exist, x64 versions of common browser helper applications and plug-ins largely don't exist; the same is also true with other common applications you mentioned, such as Steam. True x64 versions of these applications would cause what you are experiencing to go away.)

The issue has to do with the application mix, not the amount of RAM.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!