Vista - 64-bit: More than just the RAM

Thought I'd share an interesting article about memory usage in 32-bit Vista. Seems like 32-bit is not limited to 4 GB of ram afterall (as we've all been lead to believe).

"That 32-bit editions of Windows Vista are limited to 4GB is not because of any physical or technical constraint on 32-bit operating systems. The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista all contain code for using physical memory above 4GB. Microsoft just doesn’t license you to use that code."

Read more .... Geoff Chappell, Software Analyst - Viewer


P.S. (to admins/mods): I tried to post this as a new thread in the "News" section, but lacked the privileges. Suppose it's just as good here.

Hey guys, i'm new to the forums ... It's good to be around all you techies .. I must say that a x64 bit really rocks .. I've got an Asus G50VT-X5 lappy , stuffed with a 4GB RAM , X64 Bit OS & 9800 nVIDIA GC..

The Reason i like my 64 ?
It's damn fast when i'm backing up my data.. I can transfer 100GB of data in less than 80mints.. Data processing speed really matters to me ..

Cheers, D

should 64bit is better than 32bit version with 4gb ram???

I'm happy that I decided to purchase an x64 version of Vista.

Yes I like the speed but I find that the programs that run in a 64 bit enviornment are really taking a long time to surface. Maybe WIN 7.0 will push everyone a little harder. I can't wait for the release.

I have also begun to "DO WITHOUT" other 3rd party softwares and run strickly MSFT software. I back up with Vista (best I have ever had) super simple etc. I also run Defender and not some other for that security. I use BING exclusively and deleted everything for Google. My toolbars are all MSFT and I can't help but think my system runs better and faster as a result.
If it wasn't for my children I would also delete ITUNES.

64-bit takes up more base overhead RAM so if you don't have that much to begin with, you might experience slower launch.

SuperFetch, is a technology that launches your commonly used stuff (based on scheduled usage habits) much faster. But you need some extra RAM for it to work better.

i installed 32 bit vista and its fast

32-bit is still good for many situations. If you are a frequent computer user of a lot of apps I would suggest 64-bit is a must for your main. Other than that 32-bit is just fine.

I have a 32-bit Vista Ultimate laying arround from a sample. I'm waiting for prices of bare-bones systems to come down so I can make a cheap Windows Media Center.

+1 for you sir!

You know what, I read your post again and I think I misunderstood your post. lol I thought “surface” meant “launch”.

Yeah, 64-bit apps exist mostly where it’s actually needed, like in intense data processing applications and design software and some games for now. There isn’t as much need to develop for 64-bit from many dev standpoints so they try to stick to where the market is. At this point "consumer usage" mostly benefits from the multitasking capability of 64-bit.

Also, if you have a video card with high VRAM, 64-bit doesn’t eat into the maximum usable RAM like in 32-bit. After all, a good video GPU is one of the keys to a well performance Vista machine. Many people in the early days of Vista shopping didn’t know this. Can’t blame them as the details are sort of “technical”, but Vista sort of off-loads a lot of graphics to the GPU to relieve the CPU for other stuff. It’s a big difference from XP as well so even many veteran PC users got thrown off by this and most STILL do not know this to this day!

But now even the Intel GMA on-boards are pretty decent as long as you're not into high power games so, whatever.

Windows Vista Display Driver Model