Install Win 7 Ultimate x86 or x64 with 4GB RAM?

[Antman]

tyvm!

ymmv. ttytt, ymwv.

 

[AdrianR]

ymmv. ttytt, ymwv.

HAND.

 

[Rothchild]

2GB.

Are you saying that if you have only 2GB RAM you should go for x64? My system is basically a budget gaming rig with only 2GB RAM, so I didn't think x64 would be of any benefit.

 

[AdrianR]

Are you saying that if you have only 2GB RAM you should go for x64? My system is basically a budget gaming rig with only 2GB RAM, so I didn't think x64 would be of any benefit.

From what I've seen from Microsoft, 2GB is the absolute minimum you need to run x64, where 1GB is what you need for x32.

Personally, I wouldn't run any OS with the minimum specs, no matter if its Windows, Linux, or OS X. /shrug

EDIT: Heh, having said that, I have a FIC SlateVision tablet PC that I'm running Windows 7 x32, even though it only supports 640KB RAM. Its slow as hell, but it works. I'm going to add a PCMCIA card to it that supports SDRAM and see if the Boost feature will help me out with performance issues.

My advise would be to stay with x32. Actually, my advice would be to upgrade the RAM if possible! I was using 2GB forever, and I just updated my system to 4GB for $32. Probably the best bang for the buck in upgrading performance.

 

[Rothchild]

You got Win7 running a machine with only 640KB RAM??? In a few days I'm going to try Win7 on my 512MB RAM machine for fun.

I always figured I should stick to x32, but it sounded like Antman was recommending x64 if you have 2GB+. I'm planning on upgrading RAM then CPU (currently AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+), but we just upgraded our graphics cards to ATI Radeon 4850 1GB's. Since we mainly play games, that was a huge upgrade over the integrated Radeon 3200's.

 

[Antman]

WinDOS 7

 

[Antman]

@Rothchild: I am not recommending anything. 2GB was a terse response drawn from banging my head. Every machine is different in its application. Because you have a 1GB video card, 1GB of your RAM will be allocated (reserved, whatever, I'm tired) just for that driver.

IMO, more RAM is a better budget choice than a faster CPU.

In general, use x32 if you have only 2GB. There are many valid arguments to use x32 at 4GB. I use x64 at 4GB. Limiting this platform to 4GB is a budget decision based on gain per dollar invested - it is a relatively old mobo. I use x64 because it is superior technology, in general.

 

[AdrianR]

You got Win7 running a machine with only 640KB RAM??? In a few days I'm going to try Win7 on my 512MB RAM machine for fun.

I always figured I should stick to x32, but it sounded like Antman was recommending x64 if you have 2GB+. I'm planning on upgrading RAM then CPU (currently AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+), but we just upgraded our graphics cards to ATI Radeon 4850 1GB's. Since we mainly play games, that was a huge upgrade over the integrated Radeon 3200's.

Yes, I got it to run. Its SLOW, but it actually works reasonably well. Just off the top of my head, I'd say it runs about 5-15% slower than Win XP Tablet Edition did. I haven't gotten the PCMCIA SD card reader hardware in yet, so I'm hoping the Boost feature will help get that 5-15% back.

My take was also that Antman was suggesting going with x64 with >= 2GB RAM, though I would say you should have enough RAM to run the OS plus more (1GB minimum extra?) to run a few apps, if performance is important for you.

If I was you, and unless I hear something different that's concrete from others on the subject, I'd go with x32. Especially with just 2GB RAM. But like I mentioned before, I'm able to run Win 7x32 (slowly) with a 1GB RAM minimum on a PC with 640KB RAM, so, as Antman had just said recently, YMMV.

For myself, my laptop has 4GB RAM, and I plan on trying x64 first, and see if the performance is good enough for me (a.k.a. minimum hard drive swapping). But that's just me.

 

[Rothchild]

Thank you both for your help, and sorry for slightly derailing the thread (2GB instead of 4GB). You've confirmed opinions I've read previously, so thank you again.

There are now many things I want to talk about (RAM vs CPU vs Mobo age), but I won't go completely off-topic. I will say that I really like these forums, many users seem very knowledgeable, opinionated, and friendly. I think I'll start coming here for my tech talk instead of the couple overclocking forums I semi-frequent, even though the acronyms make me feel old and miss my Commodore 64.

 

[AdrianR]

Thank you both for your help, and sorry for slightly derailing the thread (2GB instead of 4GB). You've confirmed opinions I've read previously, so thank you again.

There are now many things I want to talk about (RAM vs CPU vs Mobo age), but I won't go completely off-topic. I will say that I really like these forums, many users seem very knowledgeable, opinionated, and friendly. I think I'll start coming here for my tech talk instead of the couple overclocking forums I semi-frequent, even though the acronyms make me feel old and miss my Commodore 64.

You're welcome. I'm new here too, and know next to nothing about x64 (except the general theories of things learned as a computer programmer), so take what I say with a grain of salt.

For me, it was an Atari 800 and Apple II Plus (vs. a Commodore 64), but damn, I still remember loading apps into the computer via a tape recorder to this day!

 

[Rothchild]

You're welcome. I'm new here too, and know next to nothing about x64 (except the general theories of things learned as a computer programmer), so take what I say with a grain of salt.

For me, it was an Atari 800 and Apple II Plus (vs. a Commodore 64), but damn, I still remember loading apps into the computer via a tape recorder to this day!

Wow, you got me beat. I was a hobby programmer, dabbled in a bit of this and that. If you want to go into theories, I'll whup ya in text-based multi-player games (MUD's). Only Atari I knew was the 2600, best gaming console ever. I started with the 5.25" floppy... And when the 3.5" floppy came out, I could never get my parents to stop calling it a hard disk, no matter how many times I explained it.

 

[AdrianR]

Wow, you got me beat. I was a hobby programmer, dabbled in a bit of this and that. If you want to go into theories, I'll whup ya in text-based multi-player games (MUD's). Only Atari I knew was the 2600, best gaming console ever. I started with the 5.25" floppy... And when the 3.5" floppy came out, I could never get my parents to stop calling it a hard disk, no matter how many times I explained it.

Its funny, I was really into AD&D (pen and paper version), but never did MUDs. Jumped straight into computer RPG games like Wizardry.

I owned an Atari 2600 too, and a Fairchild too at one point. Fun consoles for their time.

Yeah when I was first using a computer, floppy drives only existed in the big mainframe shops, and the disks were something like 8" big! I remember when I got my first floppy drive for my Apple II+ it was a big event. Right after that I upgraded my 300 baud modem to a 1200 baud one, and I thought that I was so uber!

Ain't progress grand?

EDIT: Actually, I end up calling my DSL comm device a 'modem' to this day, so I can relate to the parents calling the 3.5" floppy a hard drive.

 

[Adrian]

Thanks for the reply. Have you noticed if you are seeing page memory paging to the hard drive since using Win 7 x64 than your previous x86 OS?

Wish I could use 8GB RAM, be sweet. Don't know why the M1710 has the 4GB max RAM cap, since its not a very old PC, but meh. /shrug

X86 vs X64 is the advancement of the technology.
You must decide on your needs and what OS will handle those needs.
If U are satisfied with a 32 bit OS then why change?
Everyone is different and have different needs. X64 archirecture is faster, OS 7 64 bit addresses memory usage more efficiently and uses more of the installed memeory.
Again base your decision on what your current and future needs will be.

Let us know what you decide.

 

[Adrian]

I owned an Atari 2600 too, and a Fairchild too at one point. Fun consoles for their time.



Ain't progress grand?

EDIT: Actually, I end up calling my DSL comm device a 'modem' to this day, so I can relate to the parents calling the 3.5" floppy a hard drive.[/QUOTE]
Ah Yes! A fellow Atarian!
Those were the "Groundbreaking Days".
Bushnell had somthing there but could not c it! Now he is making pizza for Chukee Chz.
I still fondly remember my DSP Jag.

Sigh!

 

[AdrianR]

I really enjoyed my Atari 800. Atari never seemed to be able to figure out what to do with their 'computer' (vs. gaming) consoles. Never got a chance to own a Jaguar, heard it was a good machine.

I owned an Atari 2600 too, and a Fairchild too at one point. Fun consoles for their time.



Ain't progress grand?

EDIT: Actually, I end up calling my DSL comm device a 'modem' to this day, so I can relate to the parents calling the 3.5" floppy a hard drive.

Ah Yes! A fellow Atarian!
Those were the "Groundbreaking Days".
Bushnell had somthing there but could not c it! Now he is making pizza for Chukee Chz.
I still fondly remember my DSP Jag.

Sigh!

 

[Cheesegeezer]

Doesn't anyone know the overhead in RAM between x64 and x86?

I have both x86 and x64 installed on my machine. I have a 780g mobo with ATI 3200 HD onboard graphics which is set to use 512mb of the memory. I also have 4gb installed @ 800Mhz. On my 32bit version, windows shows 2.75gb of available memory. On the 64bit version, it shows 3.50gb of available memory.

I'm new to 64bit computing but haven't noticed any major gains, however my computer is purely a HTPC and I never use any demanding apps on it.

 

[mttomb]

Windows 7 x86

Isn't it also to ask does the x64 version of Windows 7 use the x86 drivers. That should be another question you should ask. Not just the 500MBs of ram that is not accounted for, but will you have to find x64 drivers for all of your older hardware. Now for me I can't go to x64 OS system because I don't have the money to go out and get new printers and other devices that manufactors only put out x86 drivers.

Thanks you for your time.

mttomb

MCP, MCDST

 

[sup3rsprt]

No worries mttomb. You would only be wasting money if re-buying hardware you already own just to add 64-bit support.

 

[mttomb]

But some of the hardware that I am using don't have x64 drivers therefor I can not use them in the x64 environment unless I have the x64 drivers. Are you saying that Windows 7 x64 can use the 32 bit drivers to reconize and run my older hardware, like a printer?

mttomb

 

[sup3rsprt]

I'm saying don't worry about it. Stick with 32-bit. There's nothing wrong with it.