thoughts about 32 bit v 64 bit?

[andrewj]

Apologies if this has already been addressed, but I'm thinking about buying the X201 or X201s and am debating between getting 32 bit v 64 bit Windows 7. Do people think that 64 bit is worthwhile, even though you can only install 4 GB of memory?

[ZaZ]

I don't think it makes much of a difference either way.

[dr_st]

You should be able to install up to 8GB of memory. And in any case, even to have full 4GB you need a 64bit OS.

Go with 64bit. No reason to stay living in the past.

[andrewj]

Thanks. I just get a little bit concerned about incompatibilities with software by using 64 bit instead of 32 bit.

[dr_st]

64bit OS runs 32bit software natively. The only problems you may encounter are lack of drivers for old peripherals (which the manufacturer stopped supporting several years ago, before 64bit drivers were considered necessary) or ancient 16bit DOS software, which does not run under 64bit Windows of any flavor.

[K0LO]

I went all 64-bit last year when Windows 7 came out. I have a lot of old hardware at home and work, and 5-yr old PCs. Everything has worked perfectly on W7 64-bit.

[bblumberg]

My experience is that virtually everything works well with Windows 7-64-bit. Be aware, though, that 64 uses MUCH more memory at idle than 32-bit. My 64-bit, 8G systems (not TP) idle at ~1G RAM usage. The 32-bit installations with identical software installations use around 500M RAM. Therefore, unless you are going to install more than 4G RAM, it may not get you much extra memory to install 64 vs 32.

Just my 0.02.

Bruce

[jvarszegi]

Bruce makes a good point. From what I've read, there's not much reason for most users to install 64-bit unless you might want more than 4 GB of RAM during the lifetime of the machine (whilst avoiding the hassle of an OS reinstallation). However, some functions, like encryption, might work faster under 64-bit, which could be important I suppose.

However, getting the use of all your RAM installed, at 4 gigs or less, really isn't a big reason. The reason ~3.5 gigs or so is available to programs under 32-bit Windows 7 is that the rest is reserved for hardware devices (graphics card et al.), so it's not really wasted. In light of that, possible problems with incompatibility which linger on in an occasional way, and the fact that you'd only be getting a displayed increase of .5 gigs, installing 64-bit Windows wouldn't be my choice for 4 gigs of RAM or less.

[GrandMasterKhan]

64 bit is zippier no doubt. The only incompatability is Adobe Flash does not like 64 bit IE. But with the 64 bit W7 OS, you get a 32 bit IE along with 64 bit IE. There is no reason not to go 64 bit IMO. Even Office 2010 now ships in 64 bit. There is really no hardware nor software incompatibility. Mostly rumours started by those who have not tried. HP for example made 64 bit drivers available for printers shipped in the modern computing era (ie since Pentium).

[tinue]

The reason ~3.5 gigs or so is available to programs under 32-bit Windows 7 is that the rest is reserved for hardware devices (graphics card et al.), so it's not really wasted.

It IS wasted. In 32 bit Windows, only 4GB can be addressed. Because some of the address room is used for the hardware devices, it is mapped into the addressable range. The RAM "there" is switched off.
In 64 Bit Windows, all of the 4GB RAM can be used, plus the hardware devices' requirements can be met, because more than 4GB can be addressed.
The 3.5GB is best case anyway; In Thinkpads, I never saw more than 3GB being used.
Regards, Martin

[bill bolton]

My experience is that virtually everything works well with Windows 7-64-bit. Be aware, though, that 64 uses MUCH more memory at idle than 32-bit. My 64-bit, 8G systems (not TP) idle at ~1G RAM usage. The 32-bit installations with identical software installations use around 500M RAM. Therefore, unless you are going to install more than 4G RAM, it may not get you much extra memory to install 64 vs 32.

Firstly, an x64 system has more memory available to it in a 4GB configuration (that is the full 4GB) that an x32 system (which has about 3GB actually available), so at the end of the day you still have more usable uncommitted memory available in a 4GB memory configuration with x64 than with x32.

Secondly, the amount of stuff that Windows 7 load into memory (for quickest access) on a standing basis is somewhat dependent on the total actually accessible memory available.... so with an extra 1GB available (as above), Windows 7 x64 take the opportunity to use of a larger standing memory load than x32. This is because of the memory actually accessible, not explicitly because of the x32 or x64 technology.

In my (limited) experience with Thnkipads having 2GB and 3GB of actually installed physical memory, the standing memory usage of Win 7 x32 and x64 is generally similar.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[GrandMasterKhan]

From what I have seen, Lenovo doesn't charge a premium for 64-bit, at least not much if any. If you want to be in the modern computing era, you should just go 64-bit. There really are no compatibility issues assuming you are using modern hardware. If you have something really old, you can run Virtual PC with and old OS like XP. Software is free from Mister Softee. If you really want to be retro then dual boot WinME with W7 64-bit. I don't understand the hesitation.

[dr_st]

Secondly, the amount of stuff that Windows 7 load into memory (for quickest access) on a standing basis is somewhat dependent on the total actually accessible memory available.... so with an extra 1GB available (as above), Windows 7 x64 take the opportunity to use of a larger standing memory load than x32. This is because of the memory actually accessible, not explicitly because of the x32 or x64 technology.

Indeed Bill hit the spot here. Vista does the same actually. My Vista x64 typically boots up with ~1.1GB taken on 4GB of RAM. When I briefly ran with only 2GB (debugging a case of a bad RAM stick), the footprint on startup was smaller (about 700-800MB used).