Windows 7 64-bit Creeping Up on 32-bit Installs

[g00fysmiley]

I am still behind the 4Gb max ... reasoning being my asus motherboard only supports a max of 1Gb per slot ddr2 and my single core amd64... well i'd ratehr put money when i have it into the system than a new os that i can't really utilize

 

[hpram99]

[citation][nom]Lord_gandalf[/nom]because we dont have that kind of money[/citation]


Wait... you haven't had $80 for months? Wow, I must be rich.

 

[wotan31]

Why is Windows always the last OS to adopt technologies like this? My IRIX desktop has been 64 bit since 2001, my Compaq Alpha desktop dates from 1999 and is fully 64-bit. Our HP-UX servers at work have been 64-bit since the late 90's. Heck, even my OSX laptop at home has been running a 64 bit OS since 2007. Why is Windows still stuck in 32-bit land? 64-bit Windows is available. You'd think Microsoft would just stop selling the 32-bit version, either that or consumers would just stop buying it.

 

[palladin9479]

Ok STOP. The primary reason to use a NT x64 kernel OS (Windows XP x64 / Vista x 64 / Windows 7 x64) has nothing to do with address space, although that is a good side benefit.

The #1 biggest reason is that the NT x64 kernel was built from the ground up, its completely 100% done from scratch. The NT x86 kernel has much code left laying around from the Win 98 / 2K / XP era, even a few 16-bit DLL's are in there. This is a requirement for the NT x86 kernel to be backwards compatible with software made for previous windows OS's, both 16 and 32 bit. This legacy code and support for undocumented features is what lead to the famous "windlblowz" and blue screen nightmares. It also led to the huge security flaws because the older NT kernels allowed applications access to kernel space memory.

The NT x64 kernel was built from scratch with a better security model in mind, sand-boxing of kernel vs user processes and preventing user mode programs from accessing kernel memory or otherwise interfering with kernel mode drivers. A NT x64 system is very hard to crash from an application point of view. The application can crash but it won't take the system down with it. A buggy x64 driver can still cause a BSoD or unstable behavior, but that is why MS went nuts with requiring signed kernel drivers and such. Everything in kernel mode must be x64 code, you can't naively load a 32 bit piece of code into the NT x64 kernel, it just won't work. Because of that lots of older HW drivers don't work in Windows 7 and there isn't much you can do about it. They sacrificed backwards compatibility for system stability.

32-bit applications are executed inside a virtualized system environment. There is a system component called Windows on Windows 64 (WoW64) that creates a virtual environment to execute the 32 bit code in. This includes 32-bit DLL's for DirectX, a different program files folder, and a completely different registry. 32-bit programs are rooted in the WoW64Node section of the registry instead of the main software section. If a 32-bit program crash's all it can do is take down its own bubble, all other programs remain unharmed.

-That- is the reason you use Windows x64. Not for the memory addressing (2gb application space vs near infinite) but for the system stability and security.

 

[Regulas]

[citation][nom]arokia[/nom]i bought a new copy of window 7 and installed the 64bit version, it worked fine for two days but later i started getting this irritating blue screen problem which causes immediate restart. This started happening every 10 minutes. I think its mainly due to the incompatibility of windows 7 64bit with my X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Pro Series creative sound card. So i tried to reinstall 64bit and got the same problem. Then i installed 32bit windows 7 and the problem was solved.[/citation]
You are getting thumbs down for telling the truth about MS. This site is full of MS fanboys who don't want to hear the truth. Kinda like the idiots who follow the Al Gore cult. When you tell them facts they stick their fingers in their ears and say, "la la la'. This goes for Apple fanboys too.

 

[palladin9479]

[citation][nom]Asera[/nom]FYIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physi [...] ft_Windows"However, "client" versions of 32-bit Windows (Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7) limit physical address space to the first 4 GB for driver compatibility [2] and licensing[14] reasons, even though these versions do run in PAE mode if NX support is enabled."The memory ceiling in 32bit Windows has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it's a 32bit OS, assuming the OS in question supports PAE... and I would assume Win7 32bit does.[/citation]

PAE mode is ridiculously slow. It requires that the OS keep a section of address space set aside as a page frame. Then when it wants to access memory above 4gb it alters the location of the page frame and rereads it. The CPU is basically doing virtual memory mapping for the OS because the OS can't keep track of address space above 2^32. It was used as a work-around for when NT 4.0 / 5.0 x86 servers needed more memory then what was physically possible. Also each application can only access up to 2gb of memory. This is because the NT x86 kernel reserves the last address bit to separate user mode from kernel mode memory. Then again it also reserves the final 512MB of address space (within the kernel mode range) for mapping hardware devices. This includes GFX card memory and any shared memory (onboard IGM and what not). Literally every piece of HW is your system must have a memory address associated with it. If you want to see it then open device manager and set view to "resource by type" and look at memory. You will see a bunch of stuff mapped to a really high address FFFFF000+ type locations.

The NT x64 kernel did away with all the limitations. The new theoretical limitations are insane, we won't hit those anytime in the next decade or so.

In recap, 32-bit means a direct limitation to 2^32 total bits of addressable memory. With 2^31 being addressable by applications and the rest being dedicated to the kernel. A system can not directly address more then that, but they can have the CPU indirectly re-map sections of the address space to area's of memory that are otherwise non-addressable. This requires the CPU / MB / OS to all support this, very few consumer systems can do this. Look in your BIOS for a "PAE MODE" setting, if its there then your MB can use PAE (if your CPU supports it) if its not then your MB can't.

 

[dbowlin17]

i have a much older computer, running a single core pentium 4, that I don't know will even support 64-bit. and my motherboard maxes out at 2 gb, but i only have 1.5 installed. and its not really easy to upgrade the mobo since it is a socket 478 chip. i use older tech i guess

 

[gwolfman]

I'm glad they added the "total" column there for us, just in case we forgot how to add.

 

[tokenz]

[citation][nom]Zingam[/nom]2 gb RAM and 64bit OS - that's just simply stupid![/citation]
Why would that be stupid. He can always add ram to it. If anything It would be future proofing the machine. People need more than 4gigs of ram now days. They add it when they can afford it.

 

[Camikazi]

[citation][nom]regulas[/nom]You are getting thumbs down for telling the truth about MS. This site is full of MS fanboys who don't want to hear the truth. Kinda like the idiots who follow the Al Gore cult. When you tell them facts they stick their fingers in their ears and say, "la la la'. This goes for Apple fanboys too.[/citation]
I can't even find any reports about BSOD and restarts with that sound card, it seems it had problems with Vista x64 but that was cause Creative sux when it comes to drivers As for 7 x64 it has worked out the box with no problems, chances are he does have a problem with RAM. Without the error number of the BSOD and finding no reports of those types of errors with that card RAM would be the next best choice, since bad RAM can make it seem like other hardware is going bad.

 

[michaelahess]

Been running 64 bit of XP, Vista, and 7 for the last 5 years or so at least. Got 32 bit XP on my work laptop though

 

[viometrix]

[citation][nom]arokia[/nom]i bought a new copy of window 7 and installed the 64bit version, it worked fine for two days but later i started getting this irritating blue screen problem which causes immediate restart. This started happening every 10 minutes. I think its mainly due to the incompatibility of windows 7 64bit with my X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Pro Series creative sound card. So i tried to reinstall 64bit and got the same problem. Then i installed 32bit windows 7 and the problem was solved.[/citation]


you are wrong, it wasnt the sound card as i have the same one, it was your motherboard and the fact you didnt directly disable onboard sound. some midrange motherboards require this as they dont run both at once well in a 64 bit environment. it is a problem i have seen many times, and just disabling the onboard hardware first, then install the card and go to creatives website and auto detect/ install the software works wonders

 

[viometrix]

or as Camikazi said there is a chance it could be bad ram, but as ive seen this issue before i believe it is what i suggested.

 

[wittermark]

lol it seems that the whiners who still uses 32bit OS are ones who don't have enough money to upgrade and on the bottom on the social status. haha they just need to grow up and get a real job. because yea, life isnt fair. get used to it.

 

[bustapr]

My laptop has Win7 and 4gb. But it only uses 1.2 gb for some reason. Anyone know how to make this better. Its better if people upgrade to 64 bit and leave 32 bit behind slowly. We need to start moving forward and let 64 bit OS releases get better.

 

[wittermark]

[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]My laptop has Win7 and 4gb. But it only uses 1.2 gb for some reason. Anyone know how to make this better. Its better if people upgrade to 64 bit and leave 32 bit behind slowly. We need to start moving forward and let 64 bit OS releases get better.[/citation]
lol i see you aren't very bright so i'll make this easy for you, you are simply not sophisticated enough for your computer to actually use all 4gb, RAM usage is dependant on your applications, if you are just surfing the web, chatting to friends, no, your computer will not utilize all 4gb, I have 16GB ram, and I use it for studio rendering/animation, yes my applications use all of that and wanting more.

 

[surfer1337dude]

Im currently running 32-bit (vista) and will be upgrading to win7 in a couple of weeks, although Im trying to decide if I want to upgrade to 64 bit or not. My desktop right now only has 4 gb of ram as it is, and using the slots left I could get another 4 gb in it. But Im just not sure if it is worth it (asus am2+ mb, athlon 64 x2 6400+ BE, with a 9500gt video card). Also I know in the past gaming wise, some games wouldnt support 64-bit which is why I never switched.

As for upgrading, the ram will cost 95 bucks (which seems like quite a bit when I will need to upgrade that after a year or 2), and 10 bucks for win7 (either version).

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]regulas[/nom]"arokia :

i bought a new copy of window 7 and installed the 64bit version, it worked fine for two days but later i started getting this irritating blue screen problem which causes immediate restart. This started happening every 10 minutes. I think its mainly due to the incompatibility of windows 7 64bit with my X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Pro Series creative sound card. So i tried to reinstall 64bit and got the same problem. Then i installed 32bit windows 7 and the problem was solved."
You are getting thumbs down for telling the truth about MS. This site is full of MS fanboys who don't want to hear the truth. Kinda like the idiots who follow the Al Gore cult. When you tell them facts they stick their fingers in their ears and say, "la la la'. This goes for Apple fanboys too.[/citation]


you are both geting thumbs down becuase you are both tryign to lay blame n MS for a problem that has been clearly documentedas an issue of Creative's , win 7 in not at faul there , creative lab's shitty driver code is the reason why win 7 is crashing with x-fi cards. the issue is not becuase windows 7. the x-fi drivwers are even causing problems in 32 bit win7 sometimes and the much older XP OS as well especially the pci-e variants of thier cards.

 

[secolliyn]

I Work at a retailer that sells computers and all of the computers we have are preinstalled with Windows 7 64 bit even computers with 3 GB of ram so this is no surprise to me at all myself of course build my own and i went from 32-64 from my last build and frankly i don't like it at all and wish i would have stayed with the 32 bit there are just to many problems for instance the Anti virus i use i can not right click and scan a single file i have to configure a scan for a folder before i can scan it and this is something basic and Symantec have said they don't plan on doing anything about it when i went looking for a solution

 

[groveborn]

I run with 2 gb of ram, and while I prefer the 64bit speeds (small, I know) I also really love using every program that I can... so I stick to 32bit most of the time. I've fiddled with 64bit for a while and decided that the few options that can't use them were enough to keep me away until there is a solution.

 

[jecastej]

I am on the lousy 1% windows XP 64 bit side, but I already bought a copy of Windows 7 64 so I am lazy or don't want to mess yet with what has worked fine for years. I use a few 3D extremely valuable apps that can make use of those 64 bits, at least some parts of it. I would never go 32 bits again, I just hope more parts of the software to be rewritten to take advantage of a true 64 bit system. So for me Windows 7 64 is attractive and on my upgrade path but I am going from 64 bits to 64 bits. I know it will be a gain and I will get there.

 

[dragonhart]

get a real antivirus instead of that bloatware.

 

[fball922]

[citation][nom]surfer1337dude[/nom]Im currently running 32-bit (vista) and will be upgrading to win7 in a couple of weeks, although Im trying to decide if I want to upgrade to 64 bit or not. My desktop right now only has 4 gb of ram as it is, and using the slots left I could get another 4 gb in it. But Im just not sure if it is worth it (asus am2+ mb, athlon 64 x2 6400+ BE, with a 9500gt video card). Also I know in the past gaming wise, some games wouldnt support 64-bit which is why I never switched. As for upgrading, the ram will cost 95 bucks (which seems like quite a bit when I will need to upgrade that after a year or 2), and 10 bucks for win7 (either version).[/citation]
You likely won't see any benefit going from 4GB to 8GB. I had 8GB for a while and really never utilized it... If anything I would look at putting in 2GB more for 6GB if you feel like 4 isn't enough. I'm sitting with 4 right now and am very happy with the performance.

 

[CoryInJapan]

[citation][nom]Lord_gandalf[/nom]because we dont have that kind of money[/citation]
It only cost like 25-30 bucks on new egg to add the extra 2gigs.

unless u talking about the extra ram and buying the whole new OS..then yea.I hear yuh. Luckily I upgraded when I did have the money lol.God is good.

 

[Guest]

Even if you only have 4 GB of system RAM I would still go with 64 bit Windows 7. The 4 GB limit includes all memory including the video card and cache etc. So if you have 32 bit OS with a 1GB video card you will less than 3 GB out of your 4 GB of system RAM