Missing 1Gb of Ram?

banger9365

all you need to do is get a x64 disk ,
you pay for the coa not the shiny round thing

John_Gray

KiwiCrazy wrote: »

There is a difference in speed with the 64 and 32-bit OS and obviously the 64-bit is faster.

It is not "obviously" faster at all - and in some instances the same program in its 64-bit form can be somewhat slower than its 32-bit form. Have a look at (for example) this commentary. A well-written application can be faster in 64-bit because there will usually be more available RAM in the system.

Hammyman

KiwiCrazy wrote: »

There is a difference in speed with the 64 and 32-bit OS and obviously the 64-bit is faster.

Wrong. 64 bit merely means it can address 64bit memory addresses.

i.e

Windows 32bit can only address memory up to:
11111111111111111111111111111111 ^ 2

Windows 64bit can address memory up to:
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ^2

...so quite a lot more.

There is no difference in speed except in applications that are 64bit and can address more than 3GB and benefit from being able to do operations in RAM and not paging to disc.

MajorR

jazzy wrote: »

I installed the Windows 7 O/S myself, there was an option when I installed Windows 7 if I wanted to set up with a 32 bit or 64 bit. I decided to use the 32 bit option just in case there were some software incompatibility problems.

Perhaps I should have used the 64 bit option, would there have been much difference, speed wise?

If you're worried about compatibility issues, you can run any programme in XP mode with win7 OS. So best to go for 64bit OS and use the XP mode if any programmes don't like it.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows7/products/features/windows-xp-mode

prowla

Hammyman wrote: »

Wrong. 64 bit merely means it can address 64bit memory addresses.

Not quite the whole story - 64-bit means a bit more than just more memory capability...

[Deleted User]

prowla wrote: »

Not quite the whole story - 64-bit means a bit more than just more memory capability...

Hammyman's posts clearly display a lack of understanding of the 64bit architecture..

mr_fishbulb

prowla wrote: »

I thought you should get 3.5 GB usable (that's what my machine has).

I think it varies by machine - not sure if it is the mobo type, or some other internal gubbins, but they seem to go anything up to 3.5GB . My one at work is showing as 3.25 with 4GB in it.

I remember when Vista service pack 1 came out and people with 32-bit versions said it now shows the correct amount of RAM in their machines. Doesn't mean it could use it though.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Shedloads of compatibility info for those of a nervous disposition, the move to 64bit from a reluctant start was sod all to do with compatibility / faster / slower etc, but was led largely by the OEM's when the price of memory fell over the last several years. Software writers who were initially reluctant then started to code for the 64bit, even Microsoft's own Office didn't go [ seamless ] 64bit till last summer.

KiwiCrazy

I like how people try to make out they know a lot when they dont, well done.

prowla

64-bit is not driven by the price of memory; it is driven by computing performance, and Windows was lagging behind.

Microsoft recommend using 32-bit applications (eg. Office) even with the 64-bit OS. The compatibility issue revolves around driver availability. There are relatively few applications that need 64-bit or over 1 GB of memory.