64-bit on 1GB?

[sd-mascot]

I have a laptop with XP that I want to upgrade to 7. I see that it's 64-bit capable and the website has 64-bit drivers for everything, but it only has 1GB RAM. Would the 64-bit version run okay on 1GB or should I just stick with 32-bit? This machine is mainly used for web browsing.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Well go with 64bit if you plan on adding more than 4 gigs of ram in the future, other wise stick with 32bit. Though the 64bit version does have patchguard which is an nice security feature, but over all if all you are going to have is 1 gig of ram then go with 32bit.

[ilovetech]

i think at 1GB you should stick with 32bit, although only downside of using 64bit would be a slight higher memory footprint. at 1GB you may fall short of memory for snappier performance.

[splur]

Ya, stick with 32-bit unless you're going to upgrade your RAM in the near future.

[WizardCM]

I'd say go to your nearest Tech store, and ask for 2x2GB RAM sticks for a notebook. Then install x64. If not, just go with x32. ;)

[Aergan]

To be honest, in doesn't run too indifferent on 1GB regardless of version (1.98Ghz C2D / X1700 Laptop / 1GB DDR2 PC5300). Expect a slow loadup after logging in and some chugging when loading or switching too large applications. I didn't notice either version struggling more than the other but I settled for 32bit on my laptop just because some of the drivers are missing functionality at time of writing. Went with x64 for all my PC's though.

[hdood]

7 isn't going to do anything to make a machine that is just used for surfing any better (well, there's IE PM, for what that's worth), but it will eat up more resources and RAM (more than twice of XP). Can I ask what the rest of the specifications are for the machine? If it doesn't have an Aero-capable card, that will make it even more unpleasant.

[Skulltrail]

I'd say go to your nearest Tech store, and ask for 2x2GB RAM sticks for a notebook. Then install x64. If not, just go with x32. ;)

x32 or x86? I believe the 32-bit CPU architecture is dubbed "x86". :)

For the 100th time, "go with 32-bit". 64-bit is only good if you are willing to take full advantage of your computer's potential. The best feature 64-bit has over 32-bit is the increased security and extended RAM footprint and capability. It supports a lot more ram than x86's 3.12GB but also makes sure your computer makes the most of all the RAM installed.

1GB is just not enough. You can try using it, but you won't really see much of a difference in performance and will end up struggling with drivers and looking for 64-bit alternatives to your 32-bit programs.

[hdood]

The best feature 64-bit has over 32-bit is the increased security and extended RAM footprint and capability.

64-bit doesn't really offer anything in the sense of increased security.

[dancedar]

My machine has a max of 2gb ram - I've only 1 installed - and I switched back to 32-bit from trying 64 before the dvds shipped.

The minimum specs for the 64-bit edition are listed as 2gb on the box. I have just 1gb, so I take it 32-bit is slightly easier on that. I can't take advantage of 64-bit's ram and to be honest the apps I use (Firefox, iTunes, word) all ran in 32-bit mode on my 64-bit installation.

I've you've more than 3gb ram use 64, otherwise I see no benefit at all performance wise.

[Skulltrail]

64-bit doesn't really offer anything in the sense of increased security.

Depends on what you consider "increased security". IMHO, PatchGuard is a form of increased security. x86 doesn't have it, and it prevents certain tragedies from occurring in X64; VS patching gone wrong.

[hdood]

Depends on what you consider "increased security". IMHO, PatchGuard is a form of increased security. x86 doesn't have it, and it prevents certain tragedies from occurring in X64; VS patching gone wrong.

It doesn't really depend on your opinion. PatchGuard is not a security feature, it is a reliability one. PatchGuard is designed to bluescreen the machine if it detects that a driver is doing something it shouldn't be doing and that could affect stability. This is all it does. If you've never gotten such a BSOD, you've never encountered PG.

[+Warwagon MVC]

It doesn't really depend on your opinion. PatchGuard is not a security feature, it is a reliability one. PatchGuard is designed to bluescreen the machine if it detects that a driver is doing something it shouldn't be doing and that could affect stability. This is all it does. If you've never gotten such a BSOD, you've never encountered PG.

Well by doing something it shouldn't also means if something is trying to install itself into the kernel, like malware or a rootkit. So in that case its a good thing.,

[hdood]

Well by doing something it shouldn't also means if something is trying to install itself into the kernel, like malware or a rootkit. So in that case its a good thing.,

Well, yes and no. If you run some malware that happens to modify a structure that PG watches, then PG will wait a bit and then bluescreen the machine. This is what PG does. It crashes the system. It does nothing apart from this.

What malware would then do this when they know the result will be that the system shuts down? They won't. They'll work around PG, or even just disable it completely. If the malware has admin access, it can do that and anything else it wants. What PG does is send a message to legitimate developers that it's not okay to patch the kernel ("security" software used to do this a lot), because doing so can lead to reliability problems. If lots of software patches the kernel, then Microsoft also runs into the issue of not being able to change it because so much third-party software depends on an internal implementation detail. That's not good, and is actually the reason why PatchGuard isn't available on 32-bit. There's no technical reason for this, it's just that legitimate programs would stop working and make the machine BSOD.

It's similar to what UAC did with permissions.

[WizardCM]

x32 or x86? I believe the 32-bit CPU architecture is dubbed "x86". :)

For the 100th time, "go with 32-bit". 64-bit is only good if you are willing to take full advantage of your computer's potential. The best feature 64-bit has over 32-bit is the increased security and extended RAM footprint and capability. It supports a lot more ram than x86's 3.12GB but also makes sure your computer makes the most of all the RAM installed.

1GB is just not enough. You can try using it, but you won't really see much of a difference in performance and will end up struggling with drivers and looking for 64-bit alternatives to your 32-bit programs.

Looks like I wasn't concentrating. Yeah, I meant x86. xD

[lars77]

For what it's worth, Microsoft specifies 2 GB RAM as the minimum requirement for the 64-bit version.

[Huleboeren]

I think you should get 64bit regardless of how many ram you have

WE ALL NEED TO MOVE THE **** ON :D