PGHammer Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I think you should just go ahead and install the 64-bit version. That way you can see for yourself what it's like and how it runs on your system. You're going to be reinstalling in a few months anyway, so there's nothing to lose. It's true that the 64-bit version uses more RAM, but it's not a lot, and the marginal (for most things) performance improvement might make up for it. You'll have to be the judge of that. Go 64-bit *now*, despite having but 2 GB of RAM. I've run not only 7 (and Vista) Ultimate on *half* that, I've actually run Vista Ultimate x64 on (don't faint) a *quarter* of that. On a single-core Celeron. (That is a mere 512 MB of RAM.) Performance (in terms of increased speed) wasn't the point. Increased stability, however, was. Datapoint: Given equal driver support, in no case have I found Vista 64-bit lacking (or, most importantly, lagging) compared to Vista 32-bit under identical application loads. With particularly troublesome 32-bit applications (especially games), the WOW64 thunk layer (included with every 64-bit version of Windows) provides a welcome additional layer of insulation. The *only* problem I have had (both in terms of home users I've helped migrate, and my own migration) is entirely due to the lack of plug-ins for 64-bit Web browsers. For most home users, more often than not, your applications AND your games will thank you for the additional infrastructure of a 64-bit operating system underneath. I run Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit on a *daily* basis with but a single gigabyte of RAM; yet it is more stable (not less) than the P4 Northwood-C (with twice the RAM and Vista Ultimate 32-bit) that I upgraded from; and I had no real complaints with Vista Ultimate in 32-bit form. I actually am *harder*, not easier, on Vista 64-bit, despite the RAM deficit. I run hungrier applications, and more of them at once. The very fact that I've increased the application load, despite decreasing the system memory, should speak quite plainly about just how solid Vista 64-bit is. If your applications will work (and, except in very limited circumstances, there is absolutely little reason why any home user other than a telecommuter should have many, if any, issues) if you have a supported 64-bit-ready CPU and as little as 512 MB of RAM, and the driver support is there, I would go 64-bit right now (either XP64 or Vista 64), and don't wait for Windows 7 64-bit. And that is even true if your processor has but a single-core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGHammer Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 What's the point of having a 64bit os when all applications are still 32bit? Stability, in my case. Consider that one of the largest areas of griping other than Windows as an operating system in general (or hardware support for it) is buggy code in games. Given that, wouldn't you want to reduce the amount of crash possibilities due to crappy game coding and development? Enter WOW (Windows on Windows), the thunk layer for all 32-bit applications (including games) on 64-bit Windows. Any 32-bit application running on WOW is not just isolated from the operating system, they are also isolated from other applications, whether they are on the thunk layer or not. Yes; there is minor additionall overhead incurred; however, in most cases, it's not noticeable to either the user or the application (or even the game); unless the application or game crashes. The application or game will crash; however, the rest of the session (and every other application in the session) will keep right on running, unaffected. I don't know about the rest of you; for me, that's the sort of stability that is worth serious money. While speed is okay, stability (to me) is far more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabureiru Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 totally, I have the Win7x64 on my lap that has 2GB RAM and it works flawlessly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denyboy Posted April 2, 2009 Author Share Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) I just noticed one problem. I cant run Performance test. I keep clickin on re-run the assessment. It starts and finishes testing but when its done i have no rating. Edited April 2, 2009 by denyboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 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. Weak. Microsoft should set an example and release as much software as possible in 64-bit. With something as new as Silverlight, there's just no excuse. Consider that one of the largest areas of griping other than Windows as an operating system in general (or hardware support for it) is buggy code in games. Given that, wouldn't you want to reduce the amount of crash possibilities due to crappy game coding and development?Enter WOW (Windows on Windows), the thunk layer for all 32-bit applications (including games) on 64-bit Windows. A WOW process has the same access to the graphics card as a 64-bit process, and is perfectly free to run code on the GPU that crashes it. Any 32-bit application running on WOW is not just isolated from the operating system, they are also isolated from other applications, whether they are on the thunk layer or not. 32-bit processes are free to do anything they want to each other (and to a certain extent also 64-bit applications). WOW is designed for maximum compatibility, not to be a sandbox environment. Yes; there is minor additionall overhead incurred; however, in most cases, it's not noticeable to either the user or the application (or even the game); unless the application or game crashes. The application or game will crash; however, the rest of the session (and every other application in the session) will keep right on running, unaffected. I don't know about the rest of you; for me, that's the sort of stability that is worth serious money. Much like they would in the 32-bit version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denyboy Posted April 5, 2009 Author Share Posted April 5, 2009 i just upgraded my PC and added another 2 Gigs of RAM so now i have 4GB and 64 bit works great. Just out of curiosity would Windows 7 32 bit use all my 4GB of RAM or only 3GB of RAM. Someone wrote that 32bit can use up to 3GB or maybe that was for XP only. Im not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olemus Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 its for any 32bit system so no it wouldnt use the whole 4gb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ba'al Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Weak. Microsoft should set an example and release as much software as possible in 64-bit. With something as new as Silverlight, there's just no excuse. Exactly. They claim it's all that great, but with it being 32-bit only, it's just as backwards as Flash :x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts