32 bit or 64 bit?

L

lee18041990

New Member
hello im buying a new computer and dont know what os to get??

1.vista 32bit
2.vist 64bit
3xp media centre(which i already own)

i belive if i get vista 64bit i ca hold 4gb of ram but f i get 32bit i can only have 2gb of ram? is this true and which one do you think is best??
 
lee18041990 said:
hello im buying a new computer and dont know what os to get??

1.vista 32bit
2.vist 64bit
3xp media centre(which i already own)

i belive if i get vista 64bit i ca hold 4gb of ram but f i get 32bit i can only have 2gb of ram? is this true and which one do you think is best??
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd not go the Vista route, but 32-bit regardless. Do you really need 4 GB of Ram? I have 1 GB physical RAM for XP, and in addition, a 2 GB Swap for a very graphics-intensive Ubuntu environment, and I rarely use more than 25% of Swap. 32-bit can recognize just over 3 GB, IIRC.
 
What is this computer going to be used for? What are the computer specifications you are looking at? Motherboard? Processor (CPU)? Random Access Memory? Power Supply?
 
dont listen to all these people bashing vista. yes it takes up more resources but you'll have to make the switch eventually so you may as well get used to it now. as for the 32bit vs 64 bit, i believe the 32 bit can recognize up to 4 gb of memory. this is including the separate memory for your graphics card. you could have 4 gigs of ram but because of your graphics card it will only recognize 3. Also if you're planning on getting a version of vista thats not basic you should get at least two gigs of ram.
 
i ran vista 32bit and it would only reconize 3.25gb memory (i have 4gb) which is the same as xp pro,
i have now switched to vista 64bit and it reconizes all my ram it also seems to run smoother the only draw back was finding drivers for my printer which is no biggy it just took a bit of time and now everything i run works great i even play call of duty uo
on it.
 
I'm not sure how my one statement of 'Personally, I'd not go the Vista route' was read as 'dont listen to all these people bashing vista.', but anyway...

A 32-bit based system can only allocate a certain amount of resources towards RAM. It will not read the full amount. Period. It's a limitation based on the technology.

64-bit is the new-age of technology, but there are still quirks with it. Not many, mind you, but they are there. Some people love it, others think it's not quite ready for the mainstream. I'm of the latter group.

He specifically asked about RAM and I answered his question. He asked what I thought was best - I told him and my reasoning why.
 
Here are the RAM limits of the standard OS packages
winramhy4.jpg

but if you need more ram than this in a 32bit OS you can always use the Physical Address Extension
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/aa366796.aspx

dont listen to all these people bashing vista. yes it takes up more resources but you'll have to make the switch eventually so you may as well get used to it now.
Click to expand...
totally untrue, I never went onto windows ME, did you?
you dont havt to move to every new version, XP is so pervasive that MS will support it as a main OS for years, and we will be well past vista by that point.
Lots of people are shunning vista to see what the service packs bring. Vista isn't add that much value compared to XP at the moment.

In this case the clear winner in my book is to stick to the MCE version you already have
 
Last edited:
ok thanks, this is what ive ordered or already have!! if you have any improvements tell me as i can always change parts!

motherboard
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...odid=MB-131-AB
cpu
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...odid=CP-172-IN
ram
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...odid=MY-082-OC
case
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...odid=CA-065-AN
fan controller
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...odid=BB-001-ZA
fan
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...odid=HS-031-ZA
disk rw
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...odid=CD-032-AS
harddrive
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...odid=HD-030-HI

subtotal £571.56

not included in price:
sound
sound blaster augiy 7.1
graphics
nivedia geforce 8600gts
psu
650 watt
operatin system
windows media xp


what i think i need to upgrade is:
nivedia 8800gts
also maybe 4gb of ram!
os

=D
 
nyhk said:
But none of the windows editions you listed support more than 4GB, even in pae mode
Click to expand...

the ones i listed only show maximum support without PAE, if you enable PAE the supported max ram will increase on 32 bit xp, and vista
 
There are several kb articles stating that pae is only present to give support for dep. In pae mode xp and vista simple ignores the upper part of the 64 bit address

And i haven't seen og heard of anyone getting any of those two systems to go beyond 4gig in pae mode
 
i got a PM from imsati and thought best to answer it here
Hey, where did you get those RAM limits for XP? My friend bought 4 gigs about a year ago, and his XP SP2 system only read 3.2 of them. He ended up going with 2 gigs and giving the other 2 away away. I currently have 1 Gig physical RAM, but room for four slots, so I'm going to borrow some sticks from a few friends and see how high my system can read.
Click to expand...
hehe, the problem is due to other things sitting on your PCI requiring memory address space. the best example is your graphics card, e.g.:

Win 32bit can address 4gb
If you have 4gb ram and 512kb gpu then the OS is not going to be able to address all the space (you have effectively trying to address 4.5gb)
It will address 512kb on the gpu first and will then use all other address space for the ram, giving you 3.5gb available.
If you have other things on your pci (eg bios, other pic cards, sound processor) then these will all take up some of your available 4gb address space.
Hence you are seeing 3.xgb available for ram

This doesn't mean MS are lying, and it is in fact something that has always been happening. Only now are we running out of address space (as ram is so cheap). The fact remains....xp 32bit can address 4gb of ram....but due to other things on the pci you will never get there (not without pae)
 
nyhk said:
There are several kb articles stating that pae is only present to give support for dep. In pae mode xp and vista simple ignores the upper part of the 64 bit address

And i haven't seen og heard of anyone getting any of those two systems to go beyond 4gig in pae mode
Click to expand...

Ive never used pae, so all my knowledge is just from articles. I looked again, i can see cases where pae can solve the problems i noted above (that of only seeing 3.xgb due to address shortages from the pci devices) and thus allow the full 4gb to be address. But your right I cant see a test case that shows someone exceeding 4gb :mad:
 
Re: Post #13

So, my original explanation of "A 32-bit based system can only allocate a certain amount of resources towards RAM. It will not read the full amount. Period. It's a limitation based on the technology." holds true, as the system will first recognize any and all devices/services before RAM sticks and grant them allocation priority, yes? Then only after they are granted priority, will the system release the remaining allocation, up to 4 GB (with 32-bit), to RAM.

So, the only way to read a full 4 GB RAM with a 32-bit system is to not have anything prioritized before the RAM, right? No video card, sound card, filled PC slots, etc.
 
imsati said:
Re: Post #13

So, my original explanation of "A 32-bit based system can only allocate a certain amount of resources towards RAM. It will not read the full amount. Period. It's a limitation based on the technology." holds true, as the system will first recognize any and all devices/services before RAM sticks and grant them allocation priority, yes? Then only after they are granted priority, will the system release the remaining allocation, up to 4 GB (with 32-bit), to RAM.

So, the only way to read a full 4 GB RAM with a 32-bit system is to not have anything prioritized before the RAM, right? No video card, sound card, filled PC slots, etc.
Click to expand...

you've got it matey, but as I said to nyhk i think enabling pae may allow you to address the full 4gb as long as you have a 64bit cpu.
its fairly easy to enable pae.
 
a 32-bit cpu and a 32-bit OS can go above 4GB with PAE (with memory remapping supported in hardware, you can remap your ram so it don't conflict with the mmio), but because microsoft worries about bad drivers they ignore the address space above 4GB when you go into pae mode in xp and vista.

server windows can go above 4gig

When you enable dep you automatically enable pae in xp and vista (on newer cpus), so many people already have pae enabled
 
I would stay with XP. Vista just plain sucks (now lets see the flame :) )

Just wait another couple of years and Microsoft will come out with Another OS that you JUST have to have. I skipped ME and 2000. And I waited about 4 years before I went to XP from 98. And yes, some day I "might" have to go the vista route, but I will wait until SP2 comes out for it before I do.

If anyone ever ports DX10 to XP, then I will never go to Vista. Since DX10 is the only reason I see going to vista right now. And since there are only a couple of games that even need DX10, why would anyone with any sense pay the outrageous price they want for that piece of crap they call vista. I say wait a couple of years and the price for Vista will drop to A more reasonable price.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top