Windows 7 64bit on 2GB RAM. Is it worth it?

[UncleSpellbinder]

It's still very much firefox. Just 64 bit compiled... (although pretty useless because there is no 64 bit flash ect...)

Are those builds linked above Mozilla, or a private build? I'm just saying that unless it's an official Mozilla build, I don't count it as true Firefox. And a 64 bit Flash would be nice.

[notuptome2004]

I'm hesitant to move to 64bit for compatability reasons with some software and older games.

well we have had 64bit in windows since 2003 late 2003 and it is now 2009 and Vista matured 64bity so i doubt you will find any compatabilty issue since it will run 32bit apps using WOW 32 and run then just fine a friend of mine has alot of older games running on his system running vista 64bit he has yet to find an application that wont run . and also if you wish to keep upgrading and adding more ram then ya need 64bit otherwise your limiting yourself

[terroradagio]

64bit right now is only better if you really need to access 4gb+ of system memory for whatever reason. Developers still haven't focused enough on their applications to make them significantly faster in 64bit. In many cases, even if they code for 64bit, 32bit still has the edge in some cases. I think the hardware has matured a lot. But the software really hasn't yet.

[Monotremata]

I'm hesitant to move to 64bit for compatability reasons with some software and older games.

Well what compatibility reasons?? I havent run into a damn thing going wrong under x64 and Ive been running it on a 2GB machine since Vista was released to the public. XP x64 now that was a different story.

I still play GTA and GTA2, MAME works fine, D-Fend Reloaded, Quake 1-3, Hexen, Heretic, American McGees Alice..

Hell even installed The Ultima Collection a week or so ago.

Everything works fine. Gonna try out Neverwinter Nights under 7068 tonight if Ive still got the space on my laptop at home.

Havent run into a single issue with any 32 bit app running on Vista or Win 7 x64 either here at work or at home.

The only issues I can think of Ive run into personally were my audio recording apps.

I decided to install the 64bit version of Reaper but unfortunately all of the plugins I own are 32bit and dont show up.

Gotta stick with a 32 bit recording app for now but even that runs fine under x64 while tracking and playing back..

[Udedenkz]

The only things that won't work are 32-bit applications that use drivers to get things done as those drivers are incompatible with 64-bit. I have seen one of those applications in like 9 months. Otherwise 99% of 32-bit applications that run in the 32-bit edition of Windows (XP/Vista/7) will run on 64-bit edition of Windows (XP/Vista/7)

I haven't ran any games on W7x64 but I played WinQuake (10+ years old and still working! :D ) on XP64.

[»X«]

Although I have only 2 gigs of ram, even if I did make the jump to 64 bit one of the things that put me off in the past is that there just wasn't enough 64 bit programmes.

It's been YEARS and still no 64 bit FF (officially).

[Subject Delta]

I know that 64 supports 4 RAM and more and 32 bit doesnt. RAM is irelevant for my performance couse i have 2GB.

I have 2 GB of RAM. Im using now W7 7000 32bit version. I want to download 7068 version and im willing to try 64 bit version.

My question is will i have any benefit or performance gain by running 64bit version with 2GB of RAM.

I know that by running 32bit game on 64bit system will have no gain in prefrormance comparing to 32bit system.

But. For example if i run games like Crysis64 witch support 64 bit will it run better.

Also I heard that there is advantage in multitasking. Will i have any advantage while just working in Windows 7??

The main gain will obviously be in 64 bit applications, but you won't see any specific performance deficits so as long as you have driver support for all your hardware. X64 games on the whole tend to run a little more smoothly than X86 engines.

You probably won't have any performance gains. Keep in mind that 64 bit OS's and software do consume a bit more memory, too.

For you, install it if you want to try it, but it won't help you, really.

However, if you think you might upgrade to 4GB RAM later, then install the 64 bit version. You cannot upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit, so you should install it from the get-go if you think you might get the RAM later.

The amount of difference is neglegable really, it doesn't consume a massive amount more.

OK. just two more questions left unanswerd to make my decition.

1.Is there a big difference between 7000 and 7068 version. Did they fixed some important stuff or its small change?

2.How many MB of Physical memory Windows 7 64bit use after boot on idle. For example Windows 7 32bit use about 530MB of 2GB (26%).

7068 has some bug fixes, some minor UI changes, new wallpapers and its generally a little bit faster.

64bit right now is only better if you really need to access 4gb+ of system memory for whatever reason. Developers still haven't focused enough on their applications to make them significantly faster in 64bit. In many cases, even if they code for 64bit, 32bit still has the edge in some cases. I think the hardware has matured a lot. But the software really hasn't yet.

Incorrect, Running 32 bit software on a 64 bit OS is just as fast as running it natively on a 32 bit OS.

[terroradagio]

Incorrect, Running 32 bit software on a 64 bit OS is just as fast as running it natively on a 32 bit OS.

Really?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1354&page=2

Vista 32-bit RTM

Boot up time: 27 sec

Vista 32-bit SP1

Boot up time: 31 sec

Vista 64-bit RTM

Boot up time: 44 sec

Vista 64-bit SP1

Boot up time: 42 sec

Advantage Vista 32-bit

And here:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2280808,00.asp

[Xerxes]

It's still worth it. I run Win7 Beta x64 (and Vista x64) on a machine with only 1.5Gb RAM and it's fine, while you'll get no performance increase at all (not that I've noticed - I have noticed a very slight performance hit though but this is an old machine mind you, Athlon 64) it does give you room to upgrade (if you decided to upgrade to 4Gb or more you don't need to upgrade your OS) and there is also improved security as well, that you can take advantage of now.

Also maybe it's my imagination but the x64 versions of Windows (starting with Vista) have better compatibility with older software (i.e. games) then the x86 variants. A handful of my games that either didn't run at all or ran with problems, work perfectly in 64bit. I don't know why, but it's something to consider too I think.

Although I have only 2 gigs of ram, even if I did make the jump to 64 bit one of the things that put me off in the past is that there just wasn't enough 64 bit programmes.

It's been YEARS and still no 64 bit FF (officially).

I never got that, why is there even a need to have a 64-bit browser? the fact Mozilla haven't even bothered tells me it can't be that important. Not to mention the headaches it would cause, with the plugins needing to be ported to 64-bit and have Adobe even bothered with a 64-bit version of Flash yet? even Sun have only really recently(?) released 64-bit Java. The 64-bit OS might of been with us for a while now, but the rest of the world is still very much 32-bit at the moment. I think it'll still be some time before everyone else catches up.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Xerxes

[NEVER85]

Really?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1354&page=2

Vista 32-bit RTM

Boot up time: 27 sec

Vista 32-bit SP1

Boot up time: 31 sec

Vista 64-bit RTM

Boot up time: 44 sec

Vista 64-bit SP1

Boot up time: 42 sec

Advantage Vista 32-bit

And here:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2280808,00.asp

:rolleyes: The mere fact that it says Vista SP1 x86 takes longer to boot up than Vista RTM x86 is a big load. This argument has no merit.

[hdood]

Although I have only 2 gigs of ram, even if I did make the jump to 64 bit one of the things that put me off in the past is that there just wasn't enough 64 bit programmes.

It's been YEARS and still no 64 bit FF (officially).

It's going to be another ten years before the 32-bit emulator can go away. Mozilla is taking forever, as are Adobe and Microsoft (who both supply popular plugins for Firefox). If not even the major players can do it, what hope is there that everyone else will.

[Neoauld]

It's going to be another ten years before the 32-bit emulator can go away. Mozilla is taking forever, as are Adobe and Microsoft (who both supply popular plugins for Firefox). If not even the major players can do it, what hope is there that everyone else will.

i think its mostly adobe

flash is the one that EVERYONE has to have

microsoft goes with the trends i think..

[atleeit]

seriously who cares about boottime, boottime depends on your components and hardware it detects, it's the performance once your OS loads that matters.

[0sit0]

seriously who cares about boottime, boottime depends on your components and hardware it detects, it's the performance once your OS loads that matters.

That's what I was thinking

[non.sequitur2]

64 bit turns water into wine. So yes, it's worth it. You do like wine, don't you?

[anarkhy]

What's the point of having a 64bit os when all applications are still 32bit?

[Penryn]

What's the point of having a 64bit os when all applications are still 32bit?

Not all but most are.

[daftperception]

What's the point of having a 64bit os when all applications are still 32bit?

cough Firefox, Office 14, 7zip, The fricken OS itself is probably sped up. Plus why not I haven't had any problems with 32 bit applications. And if your one of those people that want more then 4 GBs of ram.

[atleeit]

quick answer if you have 2GB you will get no substantial performance going to 64bit, 64bit will use more of your memory too. 32Bit will be your best bet, and you get better software and driver support under 32Bit.

[denyboy]

I just installed Windows 7 7068 64bit and its working great. Everything works well. And it seems faster than fresh install of 32bit.

[Subject Delta]

Really?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1354&page=2

Vista 32-bit RTM

Boot up time: 27 sec

Vista 32-bit SP1

Boot up time: 31 sec

Vista 64-bit RTM

Boot up time: 44 sec

Vista 64-bit SP1

Boot up time: 42 sec

Advantage Vista 32-bit

And here:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2280808,00.asp

So you are basing your entire argument on nothing more than boot up times? I would explain what is fundamentally wrong with your assessment but that would be like talking to a baby about quantum physics.

[Argi]

And the windows 7 boottime benchmarks are...? Vista boot times aren't even comparable.

[hdood]

i think its mostly adobe

flash is the one that EVERYONE has to have

microsoft goes with the trends i think..

Well, there's no 64-bit Silverlight either, which is pretty weak for a product that is supposed to be a Flash killer.

You're right though, Flash is the main issue.

[terroradagio]

So you are basing your entire argument on nothing more than boot up times? I would explain what is fundamentally wrong with your assessment but that would be like talking to a baby about quantum physics.

You guy's aren't even reading the extremetech article, just looking at the first article.

[Subject Delta]

Well, there's no 64-bit Silverlight either, which is pretty weak for a product that is supposed to be a Flash killer.

You're right though, Flash is the main issue.

That probably won't come until there are more native X64 web browsers. At the moment all we have is the 64 bit version of IE which doesn't really get used too often, and some really bad X64 firefox compiles.

You guy's aren't even reading the extremetech article, just looking at the first article.

Well that article certainly disagrees with my X64 experience, it has all been pretty positive for me. And in all honesty you can't realistically look at one set of benchmarks, made on one very specific hardware configuration and say "that will be the same for everyone using an X64 OS"