Windows Vista x64 and 2GB of RAM

[waruikoohii]

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 >.>;

[McDave]

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?

[deactivated_]

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.

[waruikoohii]

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.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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.

[JustGeorge]

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 :)

[kernatch]

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.

[Eric Veteran]

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.

[soldier1st]

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.

[kernatch]

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

[JustGeorge]

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.

[HawkMan]

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.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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.

[zshadow]

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.

[soldier1st]

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 September 10, 2008 by soldier1st

[PGHammer]

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.

[aussiefloyd_fan]

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

[sn00pie]

If you want to use 2GB why not go 32-bit? I'd personally go with a minimum of 4GB if your running 64-bit. Make the most of 64-bit dude! :D

[LiqHead]

Anyone know how to get x64 with an OEM install/disc?

[PGHammer]

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.