64bit, 32bit: What's the difference?
QuadyTheTurnip
Icrontian
I'm looking at upgrading from Windows 7 RC to Windows 7. And I need to decide whether to get the 64bit or 32bit version. I've always gotten 32bit versions of OSs just because thats what I knew worked, but apparently(?) my laptop can run 64bit-style (AMD Turion64 x2), and I was wondering if there's any benefits or pitfalls to doing so.
(Yeah, I have no idea what the difference is between the two.)
(Yeah, I have no idea what the difference is between the two.)
0
Comments
The ram issue results from the fact that a 64bit os reserves a 64bit chunk of memory for each call so if a program is in 32 bit mode it's still reserving a 64bit chunk so it's effectively wasting memory. However a program written for 64bit uses the full chunk so it's more efficient. However the practical impact 32bit pograms have running on a 64bit os has long since passed. It's not significant anymore.
I agree with prime that 64bit is the only logical direction for a new OS. but considering that you only have 2GB of ram, and your laptop only supports 2GB. I'm not sure 64bit is right for that system. I consider minimum ram for 32bit as 2GB and the minimum for 64bit as 4GB since 64bit addresses more memory.
Even though your processor is 64bit capable, I would lean towards 32bit for that system as I doubt you will see a benefit to 64bit with a 2GB limit on RAM.
But you may want to consider not upgrading and putting the money towards a laptop that really can benefit from 64bit with more Ram to access.
How about next year when something new comes into his hands hardware wise. With 4 or 8GB of ram. Why limit yourself to 32-bit now just because you do not have the hardware to make "full" use of it?
Really your only choice at this juncture is to buy an edition which provides both media. You can go x86 now, and it will be fine, but the minute you upgrade to a better system, you need to drop x86 like a bad habit.
I don't see the point in considering license life and portability with laptops. This system is capped for hardware as I doubt a laptop motherboard swap. I don't know anyone who is really building their own laptops so portibility of the license is off the table unless it makes sense to move the license to a desktop later. If this was a desktop I would totally agree with your point, or if the plan was to junk the laptop and port the license to a desktop system later. As as a laptop license stand alone, I don't agree.
I think the above argument also applies to buying a full edition for this laptop. really this is a system that can't be modernized without a full replacement.
The assessment for sticking to 32bit is a good one for this specific situation... Unless someone can really justify a benefit for putting a 64bit OS on a laptop that is limited and maxed out at 2GB of ram.
Were we talking about windows XP 32 vs 64. Then yes I'd say stick with 32 in this case. However if we are talking windows 7 or vista and your mobo supports a 64bit os then get the 64 bit OS. The core functions run better in 64bit even with only 2 gigs of ram.
There is NO downside to putting x64 on any hardware. There is SIGNIFICANT downside to putting x86 on any hardware. One of them is portable to new systems; one of them will hamstring you when you want to upgrade.
I agree with Kryyst's statements and Prime's.
Doing some digging on some other forums about 64bit with only 2GB I came across this info "you should see performance improvements when using a 64-bit version, especially in tasks which are very CPU intensive....You also have the advantage of all the extra registers being available when actually executing code," "There is no performance increase with only 2 gigs of ram but there is a security increase," "I havent run into a damn thing going wrong under x64 and Ive been running it on a 2GB machine since Vista was released to the public. XP x64 now that was a different story," "Performance (in terms of increased speed) wasn't the point. Increased stability, however, was," "totally, I have the Win7x64 on my lap that has 2GB RAM and it works flawlessly." and another forum had this to say "I installed Windows 7 64bit on my PC (AMD64x2 w/ 2gb of ram) & IT WORKS REALLY GOOD! I originally installed the 32bit version & after a few days of using it I decided to upgraded to 64. It uses a little more memory than the 32bit version but not much more to make it a concern. I did however notice a difference as soon as I started it for the 1st time. The display is more clearer (the point arrow went from big & bulky to nice & tight as well as the taskbar, my background was re-adjusted automatically to not only fit my screen but it looked much clearer as well). I know that these things are small & somewhat insignificant to some BUT it did make more satisfying for me & that's what counts, right? So, "Yes" it will use up more memory than the 32 bit version BUT it is very minimal."
On a side note from the forum: "A P3 1ghz with 512mb of PC133 ram runs [32bit] W7 minus Aero just as well as it runs XP, which is amazing because Vista just tanks on CPU utilization."
After reading the above information I'm changing my opinion, Go 64bit, the memory it chews up over 32 bit is negligible, the stability and extra CPU leg room is worth it even on 2gb