http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit- … er.html?lang=EN <- How about the patch? I use 64-bit so I do not know if it works.

For me win7 Pro x64 works great for me, although I only play xp games or later. If really older it would go through steam or GOG.

I also don't know if that patch removes the 2GB per app limit. x64 doesn't have that issue but many games will not take more than 2GB alone (alas GTA4 takes gobs of it though and maybe fallout)

Whats the rest of the specs on that machine?

I have found that x64 is generally more stable and feels snappier than its x86 counterpart, perhaps in part because of the lack of some of some of the legacy baggage. It is nice to have the extra address space for memory intensive things.

The only real drawback really is the lack of 16-bit support and the need for 64-bit drivers. XP Mode goes a long way towards both of these issues. My old USB scanner still works great, even though I could find no 64-bit drivers for it. I just installed it in the XP Mode VM. I have TrackWinstall on the VM to install games and applications that have a 16-bit installer and use the information to manually install it on the host.

With DOSBox and Win3x, there are only a few games that I have had to resort to a VM that I can't get to run on my Win7 x64. Most of those have trouble on Vista/Win7 x86, anyway.

As far as whether or not it is worth it would depend on how many things you have installed and configured and how much work it would be to get you back to where you want to be. Time I have redone my system, I have used a new hard drive, so I still have access to my old system until I have the new one setup to a usable level. This also allows me access to any files I forgot to back up. When everything is done I can reformat the old drive for extra storage. Of course you could also just setup a dual boot and have both.

These are my specs:

AMD Phenom Quad Core
ATi Radeon HD3800 (512 MB)
500 MB SATA II hard disk
4 GB DDR2 800 RAM

I think I am going to stay at 32 bit because I don't know if apps. or games can handle more than 2 GB of address space (probably not), but then, why some people install 8 GB+ on their machines? (for using memory intensive apps.?)

The ddr-lock patch seems quite dangerous. Do you know anyone who have tried it? And then again, "if memory address space is limited to 2 GB", what would be its purpose? If you can reclaim that memory (beyond 3-3.5 GB), can apps. make use of it?

I am pretty confused.

Interesting article, by the way...

What about memory management on 32 bit Linux? Does anybody know?

If you do upgrade to an x64-bit OS then you wil want to use the 3GB enabler patches found using the Vc++ editbin procedures out there for games like Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

However, remember that any Steam games are protected by Steam, modifying these .exe files will result in the Steam game not running due ot the inherint built-in DRM protection by the Steam Client itself.

I always make a copy of the main exe file first before modification just in case.

I can state however that many titles can benefit from this increased memory addressing space, it's called /LARGEADDRESSAWARE

The downside however is that you only have 4GB of ram installed, this will then leave only 1GB for the OS to play around in, this is why I recommend using the above if you have 6GB or more of ram installed while using an x64-bit OS.

I'm going against the stream here, but note that W7 64 bit has a higher memory footprint for starters and so do most 64 bit applications.

IMO I wouldn't bother upgrading to W7 64 bit, unless you have 6 or 8 GB Ram.

That is mostly because of the way Win7 x64 manages memory. Superfetch uses up memory to help load your most common applications faster, but it releases it as needed. Here is an article on 4sysops that compares the differences between 32 and 64 bit systems:

The most significant advantage of a 64-bit system is that it can use more than 4GB of RAM. One thing that has changed since I last concerned myself with this topic is that most new desktops and laptops now come with at least 4GB of RAM. The problem is that like Vista, Windows 7 x86 is capable of only using about 3 GB of RAM. By contrast, Windows 7 x64 cannot only make use of up to 16TB 192GB RAM, but is capable of using the memory remapping feature of modern BIOSes, which allows the operating system to really use the complete 4GB. Thus, if you install Windows 7 64-bit on a 4 GB machine you won’t waste 1 GB of RAM like you would with Windows 7 32-bit.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Superfetch is a feature both versions use, it's not relevant to this debate.

64 bit software in general requries more memory and the applications require more storage. They are simply larger and that's what many people don't see. If you think about it what going from 16 to 32 to 64 bit actually means, it's quite obvious.

While you might free up some memory, all your software has ballooned as well. Larger software also means more data needs to be loaded, which explains why a 32bit load of W7 will boot and load applications somewhat faster.

Try it for yourself. Open IE a few times, then open IE 64 bit a few times. You will notice that IE 64 takes somewhat longer to load.

The iso images of W7 64 are also larger.

That most applications are still 32bit is another consideration.

Applications AFAIK can't use more than 2GB anyway, unless they are 64 bit applications.

So IMO this whole 64bit issue is totally overrated.

Most benefits are placebo and there is no hard evidence / benchmark results that will show you an advantage of going with W7 64 bit on a 4GB machine.

It's not about individual applications using large amounts of RAM.

Applications running on 32 bit editions of Windows only have access to 3GB of "user" memory space, without using tricks like PAE.

Each 32 bit application running on a 64 bit edition of Windows has a 4GB memory space within a 16 exabyte memory space. This is because 32 bit applications run inside WOW64, which is itself a 64 bit application.

So whether or not you're running 64 bit applications, you can make better use of large amounts of RAM by switching to a 64 bit OS.

On a modern machine (=x64-capable CPU), just use a 64-bit OS. 1 or 2GB of RAM doesn't cut it anymore, if you're actually doing work on your machines you'll appreciate 4 or even 8GB of RAM. I've recently upgraded by notebook from 4GB to 8GB, and the 8GB cost me € 100,- (even less when I can sell the 4GB) - the "bang for the buck" factor is pretty good I'd say.

In theory, 32-bit OSs should be able to use 4GB of RAM (see here). For some reason, 32-bit Windows 7 (and Vista IIRC) can only use 3.2GB or something like that, not sure why. It's an OS limitation, and I don't think some "magic patch" will make it go away. You don't mess with your OS in that way, you simply don't.

I have found that x64 is generally more stable and feels snappier than its x86 counterpart, perhaps in part because of the lack of some of some of the legacy baggage.

In fact, 64-bit Windows versions carry _more_ "baggage" than 32-bit versions because they include the 32-bit subsystem(s) for compatibility reasons. I'm not an expert in the field, but I guess a 64-bit OS is taking advantage of certain modern CPU features, which is probably why it feels "snappier".

The only real drawback really is the lack of 16-bit support and the need for 64-bit drivers.

Lack of 16-bit support is no real problem when you're looking at the context. If you're installing a 64-bit OS you most likely have 2GB of RAM or more. That's more than enough to run a virtual machine of some kind which can be used to install troublesome apps/games. Most old apps/games will run in a 64-bit environment, it's mostly the installers that cause problems. You can use old and/or unsigned drivers by putting Windows into "test mode" with a tool like DSEO, though using native 64-bit drivers is of course preferrable.

I have TrackWinstall on the VM to install games and applications that have a 16-bit installer

Hey, that's _my_ solution! (;

why some people install 8 GB+ on their machines?

Because you can run more apps/memory intensive apps without the OS swapping memory (too much). I'm working with multiple VMs, Office apps, Adobe apps, etc. , so I need all the RAM I can get (; . Even if a 32-bit app can use only 2GB of RAM (I'm not sure if this is true), you could run two of those apps using up all the memory they can and still have a snappy OS because of no (or little) swapping on a machine with 8GB of RAM.

64 bit software in general requries more memory and the applications require more storage.

Irrelevant, unless you're trying to install your OS on a 20GB harddisk. It's 2011, live with it.

which explains why a 32bit load of W7 will boot and load applications somewhat faster.

Unless you have some kind of data to back that theory of yours up I call bullshit.

That most applications are still 32bit is another consideration.

Irrelevant. 64-bit OSs will run 32-bit apps just fine.

I will stop at this point. Mau1wurf1977 seems to be mentally stuck in the XP 64-bit era. A lot has changed since then, so IMO it'd make sense to adjust to the new situation lest you come across as an ignorant old fart (; .

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Applications AFAIK can't use more than 2GB anyway, unless they are 64 bit applications.

32 bit applications which are not "Large Address Aware" can only use 2GB of virtual memory.

Those that are can use 3GB on 32bit Windows, 4GB on 64bit Windows.

Applications which use PAE can access a larger amount, up to 16GB or so.

In this case, "virtual memory" means the application's private address space, not swap space on the hard disk. "Virtual memory" can be made up of physical RAM and hard disk swap space.

EDIT: I'm talking about W7, just for clarification!

Firstly: Have you tried launching IE and IE64 bit and noticed a difference? Would love to hear other peoples view.

SquallStrife wrote:

It's not about individual applications using large amounts of RAM.

It's certainly one important aspect in this issue.

Going from 32 to 64 has a lot of implications. We should mention all of them.

So whether or not you're running 64 bit applications, you can make better use of large amounts of RAM by switching to a 64 bit OS.

Yes, large amounts of Ram. And that's exactly my point. Once you have 8 or 16G of Ram and run applications that use 4 or more GB each, that's where 64 bit really shines.

But staying at 4GB and upgrading to 64 bit? I don't see the benefits.

Happy to be shown otherwise with benchmarks or reviews if there are any...

ADDiCT wrote:

In theory, 32-bit OSs should be able to use 4GB of RAM (see here). For some reason, 32-bit Windows / (and Vista IIRC) can only use 3.2GB or something like that, not sure why. It's an OS limitation, and I don't think some "magic patch" will make it go away. You don't mess with your OS in that way, you simply don't.

The reason for this is that a 32-bit OS only 4GB worth of address space. This must include physical RAM, and any memory addresses uses by other devices for MMIO. The consequence is that some memory addresses are not available for physical memory, and that physical memory becomes inaccessible to the OS.

The various "patches" out there cause the Control Panel to display the correct amount of installed RAM, it has no impact on what RAM applications may use.

Unless you have some kind of data to back that theory of yours up I call bullshit.

Start IE a few times.

Then start IE 64 bit a few times.

Tell me if you notice a difference in loading times.

ADDiCT wrote:

Irrelevant, unless you're trying to install your OS on a 20GB harddisk. It's 2011, live with it.

Unless you have some kind of data to back that theory of yours up I call bullshit.

Do you see the contradiction?

The data has grown, so there is more data to process. And you don't see how this translates into slightly longer loading / processing times?

Think about it...

They both start nigh-on instantly for me.

But I use them both semi-frequently so they're probably both prefetch'd.

This is a bad benchmark.

Yup, they are both cached after loading them a few times. But IE 64bit takes somewhat longer to launch.

You can do a clean install of W7 32 bit, measure the time it takes to boot and then do the same with W7 64 bit. You will find that W7 32bit will boot a little bit faster.

Do you have any other benchmarks which could help this discussion?

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

The iso images of W7 64 are also larger.

That's a bit of a red herring to the argument here.

The reason the x64 DVD is bigger is because it contains both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of most DLLs, as part of WOW64.

Not because a 64 bit executable is intrinsically bigger.

Even if the 32-bit version of the OS is running fine, if the machine is capable of using a 64-bit OS, especially in that quad core processor and 4 gigs or ram, I'd say,...why not?

If you want to see how things would run, try installing the x64 OS to another partition or drive and try using your programs from there. It might help you to decide if you want to continue using the x64 or revert back to x86 os.

For me, since the days of Vista, I've never gone back using the 32-bit versions. Win7-x64 (764) is fine if it has access to multi-core processors and 4GB or more of RAM.

(I'm still using XP 32-bit in my other partition for MIDI based programs and 3D audio gaming and for the 16-bit programs.)

SquallStrife wrote:

Not because a 64 bit executable is intrinsically bigger.

So you are saying 64 bit is smaller? Sure about that?

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Yup, they are both cached after loading them a few times. But IE 64bit takes somewhat longer to launch.

No, sorry, I'm not experiencing that.