Which type of windows?

[Cvrk]

On a AMD Phenom II X4 840 processor what kind of Windows do I install? A 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) ?
I think either of them will work, but not sure .
Right now I have on my pc a AMD Athlon 64 3000+ and everest tells me it's an x86 - 64 type processor. So I guess I can use either versions of windows on this one.

 

[mullered07]

All Athlon/Phenom since A64 days are x64 if you have 3gb+ ram then go x64 if you only have 2gb and don't plan to upgrade there's no point running x64 as it uses a bit more than x86

 

[ChiSox]

Either will work for your setup...x64 address larger amounts of memory...id go 64bit

 

[cheesy999]

On a AMD Phenom II X4 840 processor what kind of Windows do I install? A 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) ?
I think either of them will work, but not sure .
Right now I have on my pc a AMD Athlon 64 3000 and everest tells me it's an x86 - 64 type processor. So I guess I can use either versions of windows on this one.

either will run on that processor

x64 is better if you have more then 4gb of ram as x86 cannot use more then about 4gb, less if you have a gfx card

x86 is better if you have many really old programs (pre 2000) as x64 has no support for 16 bit programs

 

[brandonwh64]

I would run X64 windows 7 personally, they have made it were its compatible with a lot of older software

 

[mullered07]

either will run on that processor

x64 is better if you have more then 4gb of ram as x86 cannot use more then about 4gb, less if you have a gfx card

x86 is better if you have many really old programs (pre 2000) as x64 has no support for 16 bit programs

You can't run 16bit apps in Windows 7 x86 or x64.

3gb+ is good in x64 as it runs faster than x86, anything less and the ram hit x64 takes over x86 isn't worth it. Though you are correct, with an x64 OS the OS can address more than 4gb but most programs are written to use a max of 2gb anyway, with x64 it just means you can run multiple apps and use 4gb+ ram

 

[newtekie1]

anything less and the ram hit x64 takes over x86 isn't worth it.

There is no noticeable difference in RAM uasge between x86 and x64.

 

[mullered07]

There is no noticeable difference in RAM uasge between x86 and x64.

I beg to differ, run 2gb or less on x64 and it's noticeable, for anything above 2.5-3gb it's not though my laptop with 2gb and igp runs smoother and uses less ram to boot running x86 than it does with x64.

 

[newtekie1]

I beg to differ, run 2gb or less on x64 and it's noticeable, for anything above 2.5-3gb it's not though my laptop with 2gb and igp runs smoother and uses less ram to boot running x86 than it does with x64.

I'm typing this from a machine that only has 2GB with x64 installed, it ran no differently with x86 installed. There is really no noticeable RAM usage difference between x86 and x64, that is a myth. I've tested it myself:

When both are freshly installed, there is no memory usage difference.

 

[qubit]

On a AMD Phenom II X4 840 processor what kind of Windows do I install? A 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) ?
I think either of them will work, but not sure .
Right now I have on my pc a AMD Athlon 64 3000+ and everest tells me it's an x86 - 64 type processor. So I guess I can use either versions of windows on this one.

Both will work, but going 64-bit nowadays is a no-brainer. I've been using 64-bit Vista and now 7 for the last couple of years and have had almost no problems. Especially nowadays, I have zero problems with 64-bit and the default is 64-bit, not 32-bit. Try buying a new laptop with 32-bit Windows, for example.

I'm typing this from a machine that only has 2GB with x64 installed, it ran no differently with x86 installed. There is really no noticeable RAM usage difference between x86 and x64, that is a myth. I've tested it myself:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/Win7x86.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/Win7x64.png

When both are freshly installed, there is no memory usage difference.

I'm surprised at this, because even Microsoft themselves claim higher memory useage due to the doubled word size. Also, the 64-bit install DVD is bigger.

It probably depends on the useage scenario, I guess.

 

[erocker]

I have the same experience as Newtekie using much older hardware and 2gb's of RAM. There is no reason not to use x64 really.

 

[mullered07]

I'm typing this from a machine that only has 2GB with x64 installed, it ran no differently with x86 installed. There is really no noticeable RAM usage difference between x86 and x64, that is a myth. I've tested it myself:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/Win7x86.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/Win7x64.png

When both are freshly installed, there is no memory usage difference.

I am just stating what I have found in my personal experience, also why does MS recommend 1gb for x86 and 2gb for x64?

When you have 1.5gb even 100mb is noticeable

 

[newtekie1]

Both will work, but going 64-bit nowadays is a no-brainer. I've been using 64-bit Vista and now 7 for the last couple of years and have had almost no problems. Especially nowadays, I have zero problems with 64-bit and the default is 64-bit, not 32-bit. Try buying a new laptop with 32-bit Windows, for example.



I'm surprised at this, because even Microsoft themselves claim higher memory useage due to the doubled word size. Also, the 64-bit install DVD is bigger.

It probably depends on the useage scenario, I guess.

The bigger DVD just means the amount of hard drive space taken up is more, which makes since because the x64 version has to include all the legacy stuff to support x86 software.

I am just stating what I have found in my personal experience, also why does MS recommend 1gb for x86 and 2gb for x64?

When you have 1.5gb even 100mb is noticeable

And I'm stating what I've found from mine, and including actual proof from testing as well.

I agree that even 100MB can be noticeable but there isn't even that much of a difference between the two. When the two are installed on identical hardware, the two use virtually identical amounts of RAM. There is no extra RAM usage by going with x64.

In fact, I've got x64 installed on a system with 1GB of RAM, and it isn't the least bit sluggish.

 

[mullered07]

The bigger DVD just means the amount of hard drive space taken up is more, which makes since because the x64 version has to include all the legacy stuff to support x86 software.



And I'm stating what I've found from mine, and including actual proof from testing as well.

I agree that even 100MB can be noticeable but there isn't even that much of a difference between the two. When the two are installed on identical hardware, the two use virtually identical amounts of RAM. There is no extra RAM usage by going with x64.

In fact, I've got x64 installed on a system with 1GB of RAM, and it isn't the least bit sluggish.

Ok I hear what your saying, heck if I have to format the Mrs's laptop tomorrow and install x86 and x64 I will man, dont make me do it

Still unclear as to why MS recommends as a min 1gb for x86 and 2gb for x64

(Still might do the laptop on the weekend Shhh don't tell her )

 

[newtekie1]

Ok I hear what your saying, heck if I have to format the Mrs's laptop tomorrow and install x86 and x64 I will man, dont make me do it

Still unclear as to why MS recommends as a min 1gb for x86 and 2gb for x64

(Still might do the laptop on the weekend Shhh don't tell her )

More than likely they say 2GB because you don't really see any improvement with x64 unless you have over 2GB(since programs don't really use more than 2GB anyway), and because if you only have 1GB of RAM you probably have older hardware and older peripherals that are more likely to have x86 drivers than x64 drivers.

It seems they picked the system requirements based more on logic than on actual requirements. I know both will actually install with 512MB, but Microsoft said minimum of 1GB so OEMs would stop loading it on systems with 512MB and so people would stop bitching about it running so crappy(like Vista). In fact, I know after being installed(the installer requires 512MB), Win7 will actually boot with 192MB of RAM.

 

[qubit]

@NT

192MB is really small for this OS, I'm surprised it didn't bsod, lol.

I know from experience though, that 64-bit 7 runs badly on 1GB RAM and is something to be avoided. Initially it seems ok, with just a bit of excessive HD activity and it's quite responsive. But give it a bit of time and the PC just sits there, fairly unresponsive, bogged down with excessive HD activity whenever an application is opened/closed, extra windows opened etc. Even a reboot doesn't cure it.

My friend's older generation PC, single core Athlon 3800+ with 1GB RAM was doing this a lot and I kept telling him to stick another gig in it to cure it. To prove it to him, I set my main PC which is normally pretty fast with it's E8500 @ 4GHz to use only 1GB of the 4GB RAM fitted. It was ok for about 45 minutes, when it then started to obviously thrash the HD, just like my friend's PC. It wasn't quite as unresponsive though, being a better spec, but it ran along quite haltingly and unpleasantly. Again, rebooting didn't help and it remained like this for the next day or so. It was weird to see this repeated.

Setting RAM usage to 2GB returned most of it's previous performance straight away and it was still perfectly useable a couple of days later. Setting RAM to 4GB then brought back its full performance.

Bottom line is, I dunno why 7 reacts this way with 1GB RAM, but it certainly does and it's no illusion. In the end, we stuck another gig in my friend's PC and it runs acceptably smoothly now.

 

[alexsubri]

I would go 64bit just because I have heard that 32bit will be yesterday's news becasue a lot more programs are supporting it. I even heard that Windows new O/S will only support 64bit *rumor* so don't quote me on it

 

[newtekie1]

@NT

192MB is really small for this OS, I'm surprised it didn't bsod, lol.

I know from experience though, that 64-bit 7 runs badly on 1GB RAM and is something to be avoided. Initially it seems ok, with just a bit of excessive HD activity and it's quite responsive. But give it a bit of time and the PC just sits there, fairly unresponsive, bogged down with excessive HD activity whenever an application is opened/closed, extra windows opened etc. Even a reboot doesn't cure it.

My friend's older generation PC, single core Athlon 3800+ with 1GB RAM was doing this a lot and I kept telling him to stick another gig in it to cure it. To prove it to him, I set my main PC which is normally pretty fast with it's E8500 @ 4GHz to use only 1GB of the 4GB RAM fitted. It was ok for about 45 minutes, when it then started to obviously thrash the HD, just like my friend's PC. It wasn't quite as unresponsive though, being a better spec, but it ran along quite haltingly and unpleasantly. Again, rebooting didn't help and it remained like this for the next day or so. It was weird to see this repeated.

Setting RAM usage to 2GB returned most of it's previous performance straight away and it was still perfectly useable a couple of days later. Setting RAM to 4GB then brought back its full performance.

Bottom line is, I dunno why 7 reacts this way with 1GB RAM, but it certainly does and it's no illusion. In the end, we stuck another gig in my friend's PC and it runs acceptably smoothly now.

It did BSOD when I removed the 64MB stick and tried to boot with just 128MB.

As for the x64 running baddly with 1GB, it does not, if you keep it clean. The front desk machine at my office has 1GB in it, runs Win7 x64 smoothly as the day I installed it(on the day Win7 was officially released). However, this computer is kept clean, just the software that needs to be on it is installed. So an AV(Microsoft Security Essential), Microsoft Office, Quickbooks(quick startup processes disabled), and a few other useful pieces of software. The problem you describe isn't because the OS is x64, it is because the person using the computer isn't keeping it clean. It is going to happen the same with the x86 version, in fact it will happen with Vista and XP as well, it is just the way of computers.

 

[qubit]

It did BSOD when I removed the 64MB stick and tried to boot with just 128MB.

Well, that's just cruel.

As for the x64 running baddly with 1GB, it does not, if you keep it clean. The front desk machine at my office has 1GB in it, runs Win7 x64 smoothly as the day I installed it(on the day Win7 was officially released). However, this computer is kept clean, just the software that needs to be on it is installed. So an AV(Microsoft Security Essential), Microsoft Office, Quickbooks(quick startup processes disabled), and a few other useful pieces of software. The problem you describe isn't because the OS is x64, it is because the person using the computer isn't keeping it clean. It is going to happen the same with the x86 version, in fact it will happen with Vista and XP as well, it is just the way of computers.

hmmm... I've not tried running a brand new install on 1GB and our installs have been around for many months, so I couldn't say if it would make a difference, which it might well do. Mine in particular, has had a lot of stuff installed and removed over time and with 4GB RAM it runs as fresh as the day I installed it. This is really quite something for Windows and one of the big improvements over XP.

But isn't that normal use for a PC? The strangest thing is where it works fine for a bit and then permanently degrades, such that a RAM increase is the only solution. No, I think there's more to this. Happily, in practice it doesn't really matter, because 4GB of DDR3 is so cheap nowadays that the problem can be avoided altogether.

Just wondering, both installs have got different internet security programs on. Mine has the latest Kaspersky and my friend's the latest Norton. I wonder if that was contributing to it or causing it, perhaps?

 

[Cvrk]

Thank you very much guys for your quick reply.
And I have reached the following conclusion : I LOVE mullered07 avatar picture ! TY

 

[Cvrk]

I have 4 Gb of RAm, the windows recognises it but I can use only 3.12 ? Why??
http://postimage.org/image/2zwywlmuc/

 

[Yukikaze]

I have 4 Gb of RAm, the windows recognises it but I can use only 3.12 ? Why??
http://postimage.org/image/2zwywlmuc/

Short version:
Because you are running a 32-bit version of windows.

Long version:
32-bit Windows can only address 4GB of memory address space. The problem is that this address space includes your RAM, your GPU memory and the memory of any device in the system which is mapped into the memory space. The result is that there is less RAM visible to the OS because part of the memory space is allocated to other things other than RAM.

 

[newtekie1]

Well, that's just cruel.



hmmm... I've not tried running a brand new install on 1GB and our installs have been around for many months, so I couldn't say if it would make a difference, which it might well do. Mine in particular, has had a lot of stuff installed and removed over time and with 4GB RAM it runs as fresh as the day I installed it. This is really quite something for Windows and one of the big improvements over XP.

But isn't that normal use for a PC? The strangest thing is where it works fine for a bit and then permanently degrades, such that a RAM increase is the only solution. No, I think there's more to this. Happily, in practice it doesn't really matter, because 4GB of DDR3 is so cheap nowadays that the problem can be avoided altogether.

Just wondering, both installs have got different internet security programs on. Mine has the latest Kaspersky and my friend's the latest Norton. I wonder if that was contributing to it or causing it, perhaps?

As you install and uninstall more shit, the amount of RAM that is being used increases. It eventually gets to the point that the 1GB is filled pretty much right when the computer boots, and the page file starts to get hit pretty heaviliy. This obviously degrades performance. Adding another 1GB now means that, even though 1GB of memory is being filled, there is more room for other programs to use before the page file becomes necessary. Obiously moving to 4GB extends the time even futher.

 

[qubit]

As you install and uninstall more shit, the amount of RAM that is being used increases. It eventually gets to the point that the 1GB is filled pretty much right when the computer boots, and the page file starts to get hit pretty heaviliy. This obviously degrades performance. Adding another 1GB now means that, even though 1GB of memory is being filled, there is more room for other programs to use before the page file becomes necessary. Obiously moving to 4GB extends the time even futher.

Yeah, I'm sure that's part of it, as installing programs does take more RAM and causes general slowdown, but I still think there's more to it, because my PC didn't show signs of distress for 45 minutes, but then suddenly went downhill and stayed there.

I can't remember clearly now, but I believe that I did look at the memory useage in Task Manager and it seemed reasonable. But that doesn't seem to mean much: I've seen many XP installations at work that struggle with low RAM, yet Task Manager doesn't show them as overflowing the physical RAM.