Settle a debate: how many of you use a 64-bit OS or >=4 GB RAM?

[Devastator_uk]

I wonder how many of us *are* sysadmins. judging from the knowledge on this forum about some pretty obscure stuff, I'd say there were more than a handful.

I manage about 650 servers with a team. I too use 64bit (dual proc, dual core mostly) with 64bit OS, 16GB of RAM is our standard. I can't imagine having to do it with WIndows. I think it would suck. I've managed a farm of 250 windows boxes and it was a nightmare.

🙁 Unfortunatly all the 200 odd servers I deal with are Win2k3 (with a couple of old 2000 still about). If I had my way they would all be Linux, and come to think of it so would the 15000 PCs/laptops.

 

[yipsl]

The number is actually 64 GB since PAE is 36-bit addressing, but yeah, MS turns it off in any XP/Vista non-server product and gradually re-enables some of it as you buy increasingly-expensive versions of Windows Server. PAE was actually working in Windows XP RTM to some extent but MS killed it with SP1 or SP2, I cannot remember which. I seem to remember their reasoning was that it broke DMA or something hideous like that.

Rifling through the dusty bins of my biological memory, I must have gotten the number 16 from the days of DOS, though that would make it 16 megs instead of 16 gigs. At any rate, even if Microsoft supported 64 gigs in their desktop OS's, I've noticed that 64 bit is more than just all the memory being recognized. It actually seems faster copying files from drive to drive or doing any memory intensive task.

Should I add another two 4 gig sticks and go to 8 gigs? Even if this is one of the boards that drops DDR2 1066 to 800 speeds with 8 gigs, it's no big deal because I'll just buy more DDR2 800. People tell me that there's not that much difference between the two speeds in real life, but that might be with the 32 bit OS's.

The halcyon days when an AMD 386SX-40 with a 40 meg Connor IDE, one meg of RAM in 4 256k sticks, a 512k VGA card, an Adlib sound card and a 14" CRT was a great gaming rig. If I'd have saved all those receipts, I'd probably find that I paid about the same as today (except memory's much cheaper in comparison). I do recall my first IDE drive (the Conner) cost me $300. I got each of the 1 terabyte drives in my sig for $96.

 

[NeilV]

Hi Not sure I actually voted correctly, I'm using a E6550 with 4Gb of DDR800 RAM and I dual boot between XP Professional (32bit) & Windows 7 Ultimate (64bit) which I am testing but will not adopt completely until more of my games can run on it!!

 

[avatar_raq]

Personally I run C2D E6750, 2x 2 Gb, vista SP1 x64 for my gaming rig.
P4, 768 Mb, XP pro x86 for my PC that run every thing other than games.
Switching to 64 bit OS seemed to enhance performance while muti-tasking and stability in demanding tasks.
What encouraged me to switch is the heart ache I had when I saw the OS not recognizing the whole 4 Gb I bought for about $200

 

[Orpheous]

I've just been up all night building my latest rig, which is a little toned down as I had to justify it to the Mrs LOL...
Core 2 Duo E8500
Gigabyte EP45-UD3R
4Gb DDR2 1066 Geil
9800GT 512

running
XP Pro 32
Vista Ultimate 32
Windows 7 64

Basically just a reasonably quick test rig, with some mild gaming in mind

 

[groo]

I never understood why Vista was ever released in 32 bit. By then everthing came with 64 bit CPUs. for anyone using an Atom or similar, just stick with XP, refresh it and rename it windows 5 if M$ wants. I have never found anything that doesnt work with 64 that does work with Vista 32. I think the restrictive 32 OR 64 bit licensing by M$ was a mistake. I like how the old licenses gave you the choice.

 

[firefly4423]

64 bit >4GB on a laptop

 

[lancando]

I intended to transplant my current mobo, RAM, CPU & video card into my next HTPC and install Windows Vista 64-bit. However, after doing some research I actually might stick with Win XP Pro until 2009 when Microsoft intend to release Vista's replacement.

Hopefully, the new OS will include the features that were supposed to be in Vista, but were eventually dropped. Specifically, that would be the new filing system and security features.

Windows 7 is out in Beta form for August release but is just Vista with a few new features.

 

[amdfangirl]

64bit + 6GB of RAM...

hehe... great from video encoding and watching...

 

[smartel7070]

64bit os, 64 bit cpu, 4gb of ram soon going to 8gb.

 

[carpe_mofo]

64 bit CPU, Vista Home Premium 64 bit, 8 gigs of ram.

 

[mamw93]

I'm running a x64 CPU, x64 OS, 6gb RAM, Windows, and Linux.

 

[P41nM4k3r]

I consider myself a casual power user. I opted to purchase Vista Home Premium 64bit OEM last month, (Jan2009), simply because of the upgrade path potential. After using Vista Home Premium 32bit for about a year, happily, I realized 2Gigs of RAM just wouldn't cut it for very much longer. I play around with Photoshop from time to time using family pics to make joke wallpapers, family portraits, birthday cards, etc. Nothing too serious. I also do a bit of video editing once in a while as well. I find it safe to say that even if you dabble in these endeavors casually, you would greatly appreciate 4+Gigs of RAM. Especially when applying multiple plugins or when converting video compression formats. I am also an avid gamer and enjoy such titles as Fallout3, Crysis Warhead, Deadspace, F.E.A.R.2, Burnout Paradise Box, RCT3 Platinum, the list goes on and on. Since I have only one rig, yeah I'm poor, my antivirus is also constantly running in the background. There goes more RAM. I believe the shift towards true 64bit computing is NOT because of the potential of elaborate 64bit code, but simply because 4Gigs or more of RAM cannot be physically allocated using a 32bit addressing system. And thanks in part to (unintentionally) bloated and resource hogging code that most of todays apps are written in, 4 Gigs of RAM will be minimum system specs sooner than you think! Whatever happened to assembly language, LOL! I plan on purchasing another 4Gigs of RAM next month when I've saved up enough scratch, for a total of 6Gigs. That should be enough for awhile.
My current rig is:
Mobo: Intel D975Xbx2kr.
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield SLACR.
HSF: Ultra ChillTEC Thermo-Electric Cooler.
RAM: 2x1Gig Corsair Dominator DDR2 800MHz.
GPU: 2x Radeon HD 3850 in CrossFire mode (Both at 8x electrical).
LCD: NEC AccuSync 223WXM 22inch widescreen.
PSU: PC Power and Cooling Silencer 750W.
UPS: Belkin 1500VA Tower or Rack (set up as tower, I liked the feet).
HDD: Western Digital 250 Gig SATAII (dreaming of 2 striped Velociraptors).
DVD: LG SuperMulti 20x.

 

[phantom93]

Over 4GB isn't really needed if just gaming, however if doing photo editing or video editing with adobe apps or others than over 8GB is probably recommended. But if just pure gaming like playing Crysis Wars thats aroudn 1GB of RAM and well if you have 4GB you still have a chunk left even after the amountr used by the OS is taken in.

 

[LN2009]

1x Vista 64 Ulitmate 4GB
1x Vista 64 Home Premium 4GB
3x XP Home 2GB
1x Vista Home Premium 32 2GB

Vista does the job, only problems i've ever had with it was with drivers when it was released and occasionally on the laptops I've used it would randomly lose wireless connection and would be a pain in the ass to get it back.

 

[Carson]

XP 64, 8GB RAM on an Athlon 64 x2 5600+.

I like it very much; built it myself. But I've compared XP x32 (so that would be an automatic drop of half the RAM) on the very same box, and the speed difference is not usually very much. The great advantage that x32 has is the storage of programs in just one location, instead of their being broken between x32 and x64.

For that reason, I think 64-bit has been gypped of its intended glory. On one website I saw a dev actually respond angrily to a forum question that simply asked if they were intending a 64-bit version. The dev demanded, "Why would we EVER do that? 32-bit works perfectly on a 64-bit OS!" But I am a bit horrified by just how much x32 I'm running on what is supposed to be a x64 system.

 

[verndewd]

8gb on vista home premmie 64

 

[harna]

I was, until last month, a big proponent of Vista 64. More RAM, supposed better security, and better memory usage.

However, I can't begin to explain the hellacious experience I'm going through right now finding a compatible wireless card. I've tried several D-Links, NetGear, TrendNet to no avail. Have installed dozens of drivers (including several 3rd party)... still no dice. No useful support from any company although all adapters I have used claim "Vista 64-bit compatibility". Considering the dozen forum threads I have seen, apparently, I am not the only one having trouble with wireless networking (and with XP 64).

Long story short, 64-bit is great... unless you want to use wireless. In that case, steer clear.

Edit: Considering my Wii, PS3, Xbox 360, iPhone and girlfriend's MAC and Zune all can use my connection/router perfectly, this is ridiculous.

I have D-Link AirPlus DWL-G520 wireless PCI Adaptor Rev B working plug and play in 2 x Vista 64 Ultimate and 1 X Vista 32 Home Premium. Works flawless. Driver version 7.4.2.75 dated 5/7/2008???
As far as usability is concerned, I love the 64 bit environment, fast, smooth and well optomised. Games beautifully.

 

[sdcrum]

Considering that less then a handful of the THG forum users have used servers let alone multiple servers your survey will be flawed.

I have over 100 servers in house and have found that a 64-bit Redhat running more than 4GB (most of my machines run 8-32GB RAM) is far superior to the 64-bit win2k3 servers running more than 4GB of RAM.

If you are looking for a personal machine responses.
I prefer 32-bit Linux or 32-Bit Windows (Vista) with 4GB. Yes it is true that windows cannot support the full 4GB but i have run into very little issues with this setup. In my opinion the 64-bit windows OS's do not have the driver support needed to be easily used and maintained.