Vista Tutorial - 64-bit: More than just the RAM

Another one - posted 2 days ago by Ed Bott (and that means people are really taking a close look at x64 now):

Ed Bott's Microsoft Report

Ed Bott
August 4th, 2008

You’ve got Vista x64 questions, I’ve got answers

Posted by Ed Bott @ 4:20 pm

I got a lot of great questions and comments via e-mail and in the Talkback section of my previous post on the sudden surge in adoption rates for Windows Vista x64. In this follow-up, I summarize the answers I’ve found for each question.
How (and why) do 64-bit Windows versions use memory differently?

Rather than try to explain that here, I’m going to refer you to a very crisply written blog post by Microsoft’s Mark Russinovich, entitled “Pushing the Limits of Windows: Physical Memory.” The short version is that 32-bit operating systems can, in theory, address memory above the 4GB line on specially configured systems, but doing so is problematic:

[When] Windows XP SP2 was under development, client systems with more than 4GB were foreseeable, so the Windows team started broadly testing Windows XP on systems with more than 4GB of memory. […]
What they found was that many of the systems would crash, hang, or become unbootable because some device drivers, commonly those for video and audio devices that are found typically on clients but not servers, were not programmed to expect physical addresses larger than 4GB. As a result, the drivers truncated such addresses, resulting in memory corruptions and corruption side effects. Server systems commonly have more generic devices and with simpler and more stable drivers, and therefore hadn’t generally surfaced these problems. The problematic client driver ecosystem [led] to the decision for client SKUs to ignore physical memory that resides above 4GB, even though they can theoretically address it.

You might be surprised to learn that “[e]ven systems with as little as 2GB can be prevented from having all their memory usable under 32-bit Windows because of chipsets that aggressively reserve memory regions for devices.” My colleague Adrian Kingsley-Hughes noted another potential problem with memory usage on 32-bit systems in this comment:

over the past few years we’ve started seeing another [big] addressible space hog - graphics cards. 265MB seems to be about the norm nowadays, but you can get monster cards with 1GB. Start messing with SLI/CrossfireX and you’re consuming a LOT of addressible space there.

Mark Russinovich confirms that observation with this real-world example:

The consumption of memory addresses below 4GB can be drastic on high-end gaming systems with large video cards. For example, I purchased one from a boutique gaming rig company that came with 4GB of RAM and two 1GB video cards. I hadn’t specified the OS version and assumed that they’d put 64-bit Vista on it, but it came with the 32-bit version and as a result only 2.2GB of the memory was accessible by Windows.

Does Vista x64 use more memory than x86?
One commenter confessed to being confused by conflicting information he’s read. Vista x64 does indeed use more memory than its 32-bit cousin, but in my tests on a dual-boot system I found the difference to be about 12-15 percent for the operating system and its essential services.
I have one test machine that’s ideally suited for this purposes, being equipped with 4GB of RAM, two hard disks, and separate installations of x86 and x64 Vista Ultimate running on separate drives. On this test platform, I found that the x64 machine consistently uses roughly 1.05GB of RAM after startup, while its x86 counterpart uses 935MB to run roughly the same number of processes. (These numbers are consistent on other systems as well.) On the x86 machine, the top 11 processes use 220MB of RAM, while the same group of processes at the top of the x64 list use 251MB.
Measuring memory use is tricky. For example, the x64 systems occasionally grabbed extra RAM from the available pool, presumably to use in building the page file and Superfetch cache. In all cases, though, memory usage eventually retreated to a baseline level and stayed there.
Is there any advantage or disadvantage to running 64-bit Windows on a system with only 1-2GB of RAM?
I haven’t specifically tested this, but I certainly wouldn’t recommend Vista x64 on a system with 1GB of RAM. With 2GB, it’s probably a wash and only worth doing if you are certain you will upgrade the system to 4GB or more. Because there’s no upgrade path from 32-bit to 64-bit Windows, this strategy avoids the need to reinstall the operating system from scratch and migrate all your programs and data files after completing the RAM upgrade.
Are there major hardware or software compatibility issues with switching to x64?
Driver coverage for mainstream devices, such as video cards, digital cameras, and network adapters, is uniformly excellent, and by design, any new system you buy with Vista x64 preinstalled will include all necessary drivers and support software for hardware such as fingerprint readers, sound, and card readers. You’re most likely to encounter problems with legacy hardware, especially scanners.
On the software side, the biggest offender is VPN software, a topic so rich it’s worth its own entry (see the next question for more details). Most 32-bit software runs fine on 64-bit Windows, although specific features sometimes change or vanish when you try to run 32-bit software on a 64-bit OS. Microsoft’s OneNote, for example, uses the Vista search index for its own internal searches but doesn’t return useful results when you search from the Start menu. The Print To OneNote feature is available only under 32-bit Windows versions, a showstopper for some OneNote fanatics. Popular consumer-focused security programs (Norton, McAfee, Windows Live OneCare) run well under Vista x64 with the noteworthy exception of ZoneAlarm (noted by this commenter), whose system requirements pointedly add “(32-bit)” after every mention of Windows Vista. It’s encouraging to see new arrivals such as Sunbelt Software’s VIPRE Antivirus + Antispyware support x64 right from the start.
Under Vista x64, some Windows utilities are available in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, with the 32-bit versions of Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer set as defaults to allow compatibility with plug-ins. You get no support for Flash or Silverlight, for instance, if you run a 64-bit version of IE7 or Firefox.
What’s the story with VPN clients?
Readers report problems with VPN clients from Check Point, SonicWALL/Aventail, and Cisco. Microsoft has compiled information into Knowledge Base article 929490, Windows Vista-compatible third-party virtual private network (VPN) client schedules. The article, whose Last Review date is listed as November 5, 2007) includes an awful lot of “Unknown” entries in the x64 column and notes that Cisco has no plans to update its VPN Client. The release notes for the June 2008 VPN Client 5.0 release makes it clear in two places that only 32-bit Windows versions are supported. This section documents the error message you’ll get if you try:

Installing the VPN Client on a 64-bit Vista Machine Results in a 1721 Error
Cisco IPSec Client does not support 64-bit. If the user requires 64-bit support, the upgrade path is to use the Cisco AnyConnect VPN Client instead, which does support 64-bit. Note that the AnyConnect Client supports only SSL VPN connections (CSCsi26069).

Aventail’s website confirms that its Global VPN Client software works only with 32-bit Windows. Check Point Software likewise notes that its VPN-1 SecuRemote/SecureClient software is “supported on the Windows Vista 32-bit operating system,” with no mention of plans to add x64 compatibility.
Several commenters recommend using Virtual PC 2007 or another virtualization solution under Vista x64 to run a separate 32-bit OS dedicated to VPN access.

Another blog:


Time For A 64bit OS?

Monday, August 4th, 2008
by Matt Hartley

Despite reservations early on, there is something to be said about rolling with a 64bit operating system. Sure, there have been issues with both Windows XP 64bit and Linux 64bit. But now that software is becoming available for both platforms along with the benefit of extra RAM capacity, things are looking much brighter.

One of the biggest complaints from the past, is compatibility with Flash on 64 bit systems. But some of you might be surprised to find that own Windows XP 64 bit and Ubuntu (Linux) 64 bit, the solution is an easy one. Because I run a with a notebook that benefits from the 64 bit option (dual core here), my Ubuntu install handles Flash for me when I first browse to a Flash enabled Website. For XP 64 bit users, it is nearly as simple - just install Firefox for 32 bit systems on your Windows box, then as with Ubuntu, browse to a Flash enabled page - simple.

I am also interested in seeing where Windows gaming is going to end up as a number of people have pointed out that future games may indeed require more than a mere four gigs of RAM.

Is 64 bit Linux ready for your home? To best answer that would require a close examination of what you use your PC for I suppose. For Windows users, I would say here soon gaming and video editing will yield favorable conditions. For Linux users, I would say anyone looking to get more out of their Intel dual-core or AMD 64 bit systems would benefit. Am I nuts? Hit the comments and set me straight.

OMG...I got PWNED!!!!
LOL....OK..ok, I bow to you pointing out my own error (of omission no less)! I just shortened it up a tad...didn't wanna look like a Techno-nerd or anything you know..
BTW...you spelt "architecture" wrong....GOTCHA!!! Ha...so there..darn know-it-all
(heh-heh-heh)


Concerning the stability between the 32 & 64bit platforms, I can confirm this myself. I had 32bit to begin with and then built a machine for my Mom and loaded that on her machine and picked up 64bit for myself. I'll never go back now! I did have serious stability issues on 32bit while beta testing security software, but the same work on a 64bit Vista hardly caused a hiccup.

Also, one thing I hate is these old stubborn users who considered XP to be Teletubbies lookin, and now with Vista they have it looking like W95 with that drab, UGLY, brownish-grey color and square boxy interface.....BARRFFF!!
And it seems most prevelent in the Tech Blogger bunch, I see almost all of them posting screenshots of Vista with a ****e-brown drabbish looking interface. It seems that they don't think you're "Techie" enough unless you appreciate the "nuances" of ancient OS's.
Good lord people...is your living room still done in orange shag carpeting with vinyl furniture and pastel on black felt pictures on the wall's, which happen to be ALL painted in a colorless brown shade of ugly??
Get out of the 60's people!

MS added color and style to the OS (finally), made it easy to change it as you wish, and they hate it? Personally, I LOVE it! I change my color scheme & font style every month or so, and change my wallpaper every few days. I like playing with all the neat looks I can get now and Aero is my favorite toy. I have all my windows open "down" but dragged full screen so I can manitain the aero border and color.

About Office, I have to agree that the ribbon was put in too fast and folks who could use Word or Excel in their sleep before, were now lost in the new interface. It took me lots of time to get used to it since I'm just a casual Office user, but it's all still there just...different now...like Vista!! I like how the ribbon looks, fresh and less clutter but it sure did cause allot of productive slowdowns for people until th get used to the new style.

O yah, I Love RAM too, the more the merrier...64bit ROX!!

The article explains a lot of technical details but the truth is…

For an overwhelming % of users, it’s STILL the extra RAM that will make any noticeable difference.

That being said consider this.

• Superfetch makes your computer’s “data-access” speed much faster the more RAM you have (comparatively the 64-bit “processing” speed advantage is negligible for most apps other than making a Boeing 797 etc.).

• Since many workers like to have 20 windows open and not shut down to save time in the morning (even Monday morning), they can now leave 40 windows (or more) open.

• For the above, the more RAM they have, the more stuff can be SuperFetched and Auto Disk Defragmenter and whatever can run more efficiently in the background when AFK too.

• For the above scenario, workers will probably turn off Vista with the S3 sleep more because they can boot up in 5 seconds anyway…translating to a huge savings on energy consumption while still having their applications running and pre-cached as a bonus.

All these are big bonuses from having a large amount of RAM (which is dirt cheap these days as well as cheaper going forward). I think any costs associated with driver/equipment upgrade for 64-bit compatibility will be more than made up for in productivity savings by having more RAM regardless of how many seconds are saved per day on common business applications.

ok, I can admit that I have a lot of reading to do. I have worked with computers with over 20 years experiance. The main difference between 8 and 16 bit was the size of the variables the maths can handle. As you get better this decreases because the numbers inside the varialbles make less difference. In other words the software benifits less as the hardware gets better to a point. "john dont jump at me for this one hear me out". The hardware now is 64 bit. This means the OS can handle a stupid amount of ram, which the mother boards have not caught up with. If they had there would be about 20 ram slots. Try that for prefetch. If the hardware and software worked together we would have a realy good system. It can not do this. I say give it a year or two to let the hardware catch up.

How about this?

...all 64-bit versions of Microsoft operating systems currently impose a 16 TB limit on address space and allow no more than 128 GB of physical memory due to the impracticality of having 16 TB of RAM. Processes created on Windows Vista x64 Edition are allotted 8 TB in virtual memory for user processes and 8 TB for kernel processes to create a virtual memory of 16 TB.
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5709

And I can't exactly say this is "normal use" but it is used...

It's funny that you expected me (or did you mean some other john?) to jump at you - because in this respect I agree with you 100% - it will be at least 5 years before we even see 128 GB of *ram* in a computer made for desktop use.

@rasmasyean: BTW, I fixed your post - we have a [youtube][/youtube] set of tags that allow you to use the very last part of the You Tube ID to post the video inline here on the boards....

I'd just like to point out an inaccuracy in the article. The PowerPC 970, aka "G5" is a full 64 bit processor, based on the Power4. The G5 won't even run an unmodified 32 bit operating system, hence it won't run an OS X version earlier than 10.3. 10.4 introduced 64 bit kernel extensions (on a 32 bit kernel) and 10.5 full 64 bit kernel. It is correct however in stating previous CPU's (G4s, G3s) were 32 bit.

It's interesting to see how everything is based on "how much RAM this and that". I've actually ran Vista x64 with 1GB RAM just for the heck of it, not trouble at all for common tasks (not games).

But for example, the benefit I get from 64 bit computing is not the ammount of RAM it can adress (if it has it to being with), but the ability to actually run my programs twice faster. I never thought it would be such a change to make my simple equation solver on 64 bit, it was actually twice faster for double and I loved the long long variables.

Nevertheless, knowing that actually the M$ OS are becoming more and more like an X-PC-Box gaming OS. It's logical to think just about the RAM and if the "x64" on the box would give you more FPS... or if you could put more stuff in SLI... kinda, depressing.

That's because most people don't to mathematics work on their PC's.

I hear that people who want response from gaming were going back to XP. But that could be before hardware became cheaper in order to more economically build systems to actually take advantage of Vista 64 maybe?

In the commercial sector, there are many people who use Windows as primarily a gaming computer. Although relatively, it's a minority (solitaire doesn't count ). So MS includes some technology for that but in reality, DX is a small part of Win OS anyway. X-Boxes were made to capture a part of the more casual gaming market in the "consumer electronics sector".

The real technology behind M$ OS is in the industrial sector. Interestingly, excluding servers, this is probably where CPU is the most underutilized. It doesn't tax the CPU much to run office applications / business software and several Internet Explorers. I bet that if you install Folding at Home on all company PC's, we would cure cancer by the end of the year!

That's why RAM size is regarded the bigger benefit usually I believe.