Is there any reason to install 64 bit if you don't have to?

[desura]

I'm refurbing an old thinkpad t61p.

2gb ram.

Long story short, I'm going to wipe Win 7 and install Vista. Apparently there isn't a proper activation key on this win 7 install.

have a 32bit vista disk, but I'd have to jump through some hoops to locate 64 bit vista.

Does it matter at all?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Probably not, unless you need to run apps that only have 64-bit versions (not sure that even happens).

(Of course, I wouldn't install Vista over Win7 unless I had a gun to my head...)

 

[Chiefcrowe]

IMO it is more secure but since it is vista, 32bit is probably ok.

 

[crabbyman]

Upgrade the memory on the Thinkpad. Look around and you will find it is possible to put 4GB in the T61.


I have yet to do it (R61 here) because I am too cheap.

 

[dawks]

64bit is somewhat more secure, but will have slightly higher over-head. And on a system with only 2gigs, the only benefit is slightly more security. (kernel is hardened against various attacks)

As said, with Vista especially, you'll want to upgrade the RAM if possible. If you though Win7 was slow on 2gigs, you're gonna have a bad time with Vista. It truly is a HOG.

 

[Bubbaleone]

32-bit architecture has a memory access limit of 4GB (2^32 bytes) which permits you to use about 2.75-3.5GB of RAM after IO reservations are factored in. A 64-bit OS includes enhanced security with hardware-backed DEP, kernel patch protection and mandatory driver signing. With 2 GB of memory; Vista x86 will run (it really is a memory hog), so it's a shame you don't have that Windows 7 key.

 

[ViRGE]

As nice as 64bit Windows is, on a 2GB laptop I'll ditto the suggestions to stick with the 32bit version if it's going to be Vista.

 

[desura]

32-bit architecture has a memory access limit of 4GB (2^32 bytes) which permits you to use about 2.75-3.5GB of RAM after IO reservations are factored in. A 64-bit OS includes enhanced security with hardware-backed DEP, kernel patch protection and mandatory driver signing. With 2 GB of memory; Vista x86 will run (it really is a memory hog), so it's a shame you don't have that Windows 7 key.

Eh, I'm actually running Vista on a Core i5 desktop right now. 8 gigs of RAM and so forth. Did it b/c I didn't feel like buying a copy of Win7, and all research I did showed that they were essentially the same thing. Win7 was just a rebranding and slight UI reskinning.

 

[Bubbaleone]

Eh, I'm actually running Vista on a Core i5 desktop right now. 8 gigs of RAM and so forth. Did it b/c I didn't feel like buying a copy of Win7, and all research I did showed that they were essentially the same thing. Win7 was just a rebranding and slight UI reskinning.

My reference was specifically about you running Vista x86 on "an old thinkpad t61p" with only 2 GB of memory, which has nothing to do with you running Vista x64 on modern hardware with 8 GB of memory. Compared to Windows 7 it's still a memory hog.

 

[nightspydk]

Agreed try xp x86 best for a system like that. 🙂

64 bit does do faster filetransfer but at a cost of less system resources at hand imo.

 

[hamunaptra]

32-bit architecture has a memory access limit of 4GB (2^32 bytes) which permits you to use about 2.75-3.5GB of RAM after IO reservations are factored in. A 64-bit OS includes enhanced security with hardware-backed DEP, kernel patch protection and mandatory driver signing. With 2 GB of memory; Vista x86 will run (it really is a memory hog), so it's a shame you don't have that Windows 7 key.

Thats incorrect. x86-PAE can address and use up to 64GB of RAM(pae is used by default on any processor that supports the nx bit).
I wrote a script that allows client versions of windows vista & 7 32bit to use up to 64GB of RAM.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2304381

Ive been using 8GB of RAM in my vista 32bit for the last month... its running awesome!

 

[Ketchup]

In my experience anything with 4 GB of RAM or less will run better on the 32-bit version. But, as I recall, Vista is more of a hard-drive thrasher than 7.

 

[Bubbaleone]

Thats incorrect. x86-PAE can address and use up to 64GB of RAM(pae is used by default on any processor that supports the nx bit).
I wrote a script that allows client versions of windows vista & 7 32bit to use up to 64GB of RAM.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2304381

Ive been using 8GB of RAM in my vista 32bit for the last month... its running awesome!

Seriously?...It's great that you were able to write a script, and post threads here about it's amazing ability. But your script is not, and has never been an integral component of Microsoft x86 operating systems.

Thus your statement that my post is incorrect is true only for the infinitesimally small percentage of people, that have ever run Microsoft x86 operating systems, who have actually heard about, downloaded, and then integrated your script.

 

[hamunaptra]

Seriously?...It's great that you were able to write a script, and post threads here about it's amazing ability. But your script is not, and has never been an integral component of Microsoft x86 operating systems.

Thus your statement that my post is incorrect is true only for the infinitesimally small percentage of people, that have ever run Microsoft x86 operating systems, who have actually heard about, downloaded, and then integrated your script.

Actually, MS has, just look to 32bit server OS installs.... they support various amounts of RAM up to 64GB. My script simply unlocks this feature for client OS installs as well =)

 

[Bubbaleone]

Actually, MS has, just look to 32bit server OS installs.... they support various amounts of RAM up to 64GB. My script simply unlocks this feature for client OS installs as well =)

Until now this entire thread has been about installing Vista. So don't suddenly attempt justifying your statement, that the information in my post was incorrect, by trying to bring x86 server systems into the picture. Neither the OP or anybody else that's responded to this thread has been talking about installing an x86 server system.

If you had intended to say that you have written a beta script for x86 clients which will allow them to utilize the same amount of memory that an x86 server can utilize, then that's what you should have said.


.

 

[Ketchup]

Actually, MS has, just look to 32bit server OS installs.... they support various amounts of RAM up to 64GB. My script simply unlocks this feature for client OS installs as well =)

AS Bubbaleone, this only applies to server systems, nothing to do with the title.

 

[hamunaptra]

AS Bubbaleone, this only applies to server systems, nothing to do with the title.

I realize that but my original post quoted the statement that x86 32bit was limited to only using 4GB of RAM....which is false. This is all my argument went to disprove. I was correcting an incorrect statement.

 

[hamunaptra]

32-bit architecture has a memory access limit of 4GB (2^32 bytes)

In almost all modern implementations of the 32bit architectures(since the pentium pro) ... the above statement is false. This is all my post was pointing out. Now settle down people.

 

[Ketchup]

I realize that but my original post quoted the statement that x86 32bit was limited to only using 4GB of RAM....which is false. This is all my argument went to disprove. I was correcting an incorrect statement.

Again, out of context. In context there is nothing wrong with what he said. If you want to correct somebody by going out of the context of the discussion, please do it elsewhere.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm not sure you can address more than 4 GB with consumer versions of Vista even if you have PAE enabled.

ETA: Never mind, I see that's why the script was mentioned. No offense to the script writer, but I personally would be a bit worried about running a third party script for something like this...

 

[Ketchup]

desura, I am sorry your thread got so derailed. Did we answer your question?

 

[hamunaptra]

I'm not sure you can address more than 4 GB with consumer versions of Vista even if you have PAE enabled.

ETA: Never mind, I see that's why the script was mentioned. No offense to the script writer, but I personally would be a bit worried about running a third party script for something like this...

Thats why I included the source =), feel free to look at it. But w/e to each his own. Test it in a VM first if ur uncomfortable.
I wrote the script so others could get more out of their aging 32bit install, easily, if they wanted more RAM. I didnt write a virus.

 

[BrightCandle]

One of the big reasons to go 64 bit is the additional registers. Some programs benefit dramatically from the additional performance these registers bring. Even under 4GB of RAM you can benefit from that additional performance. 64 bit is not just a removal of the RAM limit for a single program (which incidentally with virtual RAM you can still utilise with only 2GB of physical RAM) but also a set of important changes for the x86 architecture.

 

[hamunaptra]

One of the big reasons to go 64 bit is the additional registers. Some programs benefit dramatically from the additional performance these registers bring. Even under 4GB of RAM you can benefit from that additional performance. 64 bit is not just a removal of the RAM limit for a single program (which incidentally with virtual RAM you can still utilise with only 2GB of physical RAM) but also a set of important changes for the x86 architecture.

yes you are correct about the extra registers and the additional space in 64bit long registers, providing the potential performance increase.

I dont know what you mean by virtual RAM - there is no such thing. But if you mean virtual memory then Im not exactly sure what you are saying about it because in both x86-32 & x86-64 all usable memory is virtualized between processes when running multitasking OS's(protected mode)

Also, you are incorrect about 32bit processes being limited to using only 2GB-3GB of RAM. Through the use of AWE..processes can utilize much more RAM than their 2GB-3GB virtual address space.

 

[SimMike2]

Eh, I'm actually running Vista on a Core i5 desktop right now. 8 gigs of RAM and so forth. Did it b/c I didn't feel like buying a copy of Win7, and all research I did showed that they were essentially the same thing. Win7 was just a rebranding and slight UI reskinning.

Win7 is light years more stable and better than Vista. No comparison. Vista could not even carry Windows 7's jock strap.