32-bit Vista on AMD64?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Shane, Mar 16, 2009.

  1. Shane

    Shane Guest

    Greetings,

    I have a newbie question so bear with me...

    I just bought a new laptop that has an AMD Turion X2 (dual-core) 64-bit
    processor. The operation system, however, is a 32-bit Vista Home Premium. So
    I was wondering, why would the manufacturer (HP) bother putting a 32-bit
    operating system (OS) on a 64-bit processor? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS be more
    efficient?

    Thanks,
    Shane.
    Shane, Mar 16, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. My guess is that 32 bit drivers are a lot more available where as a lot of
    older hardware like printers and scanners don't have 64 bit drivers. If you
    want to changeover to 64 bit make sure everything you are going to use with
    the computer has 64 bit drivers available. Unless you are going to run more
    than 4 gigs of ram I wouldn't spend the money for Windows 64 bit as there is
    no upgrade from 32 bit. You need a complete new install of Windows Vista 64
    bit which could set you back a couple hundred dollars plus the extra ram to
    make it worth while. Let us know what you decide.
    ================
    "Shane" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Greetings,
    >
    > I have a newbie question so bear with me...
    >
    > I just bought a new laptop that has an AMD Turion X2 (dual-core) 64-bit
    > processor. The operation system, however, is a 32-bit Vista Home Premium.
    > So I was wondering, why would the manufacturer (HP) bother putting a
    > 32-bit operating system (OS) on a 64-bit processor? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS
    > be more efficient?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Shane.
    David B. Mathews, Mar 17, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. The AMD64 processors are also excellent at 32-bit operations, so there's no
    downside from that perspective. The real reason for the choice comes down to
    memory and drivers. If you run >4 GB of RAM, you have no choice - only
    64-bit will let you use all of your memory. If you have less than 4 GB, and
    no specific need for a 64-bit program, then 32-bit Windows is just fine.
    There are more drivers for more hardware for 32-bit Windows, though the
    64-bit driver situation is improving all the time.

    For a laptop? Stick with 32-bit Vista. You're unlikely to run >4GB with that
    laptop, and you don't really need 64-bit for it.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

    "Shane" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Greetings,
    >
    > I have a newbie question so bear with me...
    >
    > I just bought a new laptop that has an AMD Turion X2 (dual-core) 64-bit
    > processor. The operation system, however, is a 32-bit Vista Home Premium.
    > So I was wondering, why would the manufacturer (HP) bother putting a
    > 32-bit operating system (OS) on a 64-bit processor? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS
    > be more efficient?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Shane.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Mar 17, 2009
    #3
  4. Shane

    Shane Guest

    I supposed I'll stick with the 32-bit Vista the way it is. I just thought it
    was weird that the processor is 64-bit.

    Thanks,
    Shane.

    "David B. Mathews" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My guess is that 32 bit drivers are a lot more available where as a lot of
    > older hardware like printers and scanners don't have 64 bit drivers. If
    > you want to changeover to 64 bit make sure everything you are going to use
    > with the computer has 64 bit drivers available. Unless you are going to
    > run more than 4 gigs of ram I wouldn't spend the money for Windows 64 bit
    > as there is no upgrade from 32 bit. You need a complete new install of
    > Windows Vista 64 bit which could set you back a couple hundred dollars
    > plus the extra ram to make it worth while. Let us know what you decide.
    Shane, Mar 17, 2009
    #4
  5. I don't keep a close watch on processors but I think a good share of them
    are all 64 bit now and more all the time. 64 bit has been around for about
    a couple years anyhow if not longer.
    =================
    "Shane" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I supposed I'll stick with the 32-bit Vista the way it is. I just thought
    >it was weird that the processor is 64-bit.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Shane.
    >
    > "David B. Mathews" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> My guess is that 32 bit drivers are a lot more available where as a lot
    >> of older hardware like printers and scanners don't have 64 bit drivers.
    >> If you want to changeover to 64 bit make sure everything you are going to
    >> use with the computer has 64 bit drivers available. Unless you are going
    >> to run more than 4 gigs of ram I wouldn't spend the money for Windows 64
    >> bit as there is no upgrade from 32 bit. You need a complete new install
    >> of Windows Vista 64 bit which could set you back a couple hundred dollars
    >> plus the extra ram to make it worth while. Let us know what you decide.

    >
    David B. Mathews, Mar 17, 2009
    #5
  6. Shane

    Shane Guest

    > Well, the processor is CAPABLE of running a 64bit OS. It can handle
    > both widths equally good.
    >
    > Usually, 64 bit also cost more RAM (64 bit applications are physically
    > larger), and as already mentioned here, the driver support is worse
    > ("not as good" if you like to look at the bright side of life).


    One of the reasons I bought the laptop was because it came with 3 GB of RAM,
    as opposed to most other machines (for the same price) that came with 2 GB.

    I've heard, however, that 64-bit Vista requires 4 GB of RAM. So switching to
    a 64-bit OS would be too expensive for me.

    Regards,
    Shane.
    Shane, Mar 18, 2009
    #6
  7. Shane

    R. C. White Guest

    Hi, Shane.

    > I've heard, however, that 64-bit Vista requires 4 GB of RAM.


    You heard WRONG!

    Vista x64 will run - slowly - with 512 MB; 1 GB is much better, and 2 GB is
    the "sweet spot". Of course, more is always better, and x64 will support
    some humongous amount - like, 2 terabytes?

    In 2006, I built my present rig with 2 GB and installed the then-new Vista
    Ultimate x64. Later I added another 2 GB, which ran fine for about 6
    months. Then one stick went bad and OCZ replaced it under warranty. But I
    procrastinated for several months before sending in the bad stick, running
    with 3 GB during that time. So Vista x64 ran very well with 2 GB, with 3
    GB, and with 4 GB.

    As you may also have heard, any 32-bit OS, including Vista x86, can address
    a maximum of 4 GB. That's a limit imposed by the simple fact that 2 ^ 32 =
    4 G. So a 32-bit CPU simply can't address any higher location, and neither
    can a 32-bit OS, even when running on a 64-bit CPU. Also, any drivers used
    by the 32-bit OS must fit within that 4 GB space, along with some other
    system overhead, making some of the RAM unavailable to the OS. Therefore,
    Vista x86 running on a 4 GB system - whether 64-bit or 32-bit hardware -
    will have something less than the full 4 GB available, typically around 3.1
    GB, but it varies with the hardware configuration.

    > a 64-bit OS would be too expensive for me.


    The only cost is for the OS itself, since you already have the hardware.
    There are very few 64-bit applications available today, and it remains to be
    seen if they will cost more or less than 32-bit apps when they appear, but
    you can continue to run all your 32-bit applications in Vista x64 for the
    foreseeable future - at NO extra cost at all.

    I'm an accountant, and retired at that, not a techie of any kind. But if
    you'll read a few dozen posts here, you'll see this explained several times
    by gurus who understand all this much better than I do. You need to listen
    to people who know, rather than to friends who "have heard" about these
    things. Or do some serious research for yourself.

    RC
    --
    R. C. White, CPA
    San Marcos, TX

    Microsoft Windows MVP
    Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8064.0206) in Win7 Ultimate x64 7000

    "Shane" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> Well, the processor is CAPABLE of running a 64bit OS. It can handle
    >> both widths equally good.
    >>
    >> Usually, 64 bit also cost more RAM (64 bit applications are physically
    >> larger), and as already mentioned here, the driver support is worse
    >> ("not as good" if you like to look at the bright side of life).

    >
    > One of the reasons I bought the laptop was because it came with 3 GB of
    > RAM, as opposed to most other machines (for the same price) that came with
    > 2 GB.
    >
    > I've heard, however, that 64-bit Vista requires 4 GB of RAM. So switching
    > to a 64-bit OS would be too expensive for me.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Shane.
    R. C. White, Mar 18, 2009
    #7
  8. 128 Mb of RAM is the limit for Vista Ultimate 64bit. (And XP Professional
    x64). To go past 128, you need Server Enterprise or Datacenter.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

    "R. C. White" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi, Shane.
    >
    >> I've heard, however, that 64-bit Vista requires 4 GB of RAM.

    >
    > You heard WRONG!
    >
    > Vista x64 will run - slowly - with 512 MB; 1 GB is much better, and 2 GB
    > is the "sweet spot". Of course, more is always better, and x64 will
    > support some humongous amount - like, 2 terabytes?
    >
    > In 2006, I built my present rig with 2 GB and installed the then-new Vista
    > Ultimate x64. Later I added another 2 GB, which ran fine for about 6
    > months. Then one stick went bad and OCZ replaced it under warranty. But
    > I procrastinated for several months before sending in the bad stick,
    > running with 3 GB during that time. So Vista x64 ran very well with 2 GB,
    > with 3 GB, and with 4 GB.
    >
    > As you may also have heard, any 32-bit OS, including Vista x86, can
    > address a maximum of 4 GB. That's a limit imposed by the simple fact that
    > 2 ^ 32 = 4 G. So a 32-bit CPU simply can't address any higher location,
    > and neither can a 32-bit OS, even when running on a 64-bit CPU. Also, any
    > drivers used by the 32-bit OS must fit within that 4 GB space, along with
    > some other system overhead, making some of the RAM unavailable to the OS.
    > Therefore, Vista x86 running on a 4 GB system - whether 64-bit or 32-bit
    > hardware - will have something less than the full 4 GB available,
    > typically around 3.1 GB, but it varies with the hardware configuration.
    >
    >> a 64-bit OS would be too expensive for me.

    >
    > The only cost is for the OS itself, since you already have the hardware.
    > There are very few 64-bit applications available today, and it remains to
    > be seen if they will cost more or less than 32-bit apps when they appear,
    > but you can continue to run all your 32-bit applications in Vista x64 for
    > the foreseeable future - at NO extra cost at all.
    >
    > I'm an accountant, and retired at that, not a techie of any kind. But if
    > you'll read a few dozen posts here, you'll see this explained several
    > times by gurus who understand all this much better than I do. You need to
    > listen to people who know, rather than to friends who "have heard" about
    > these things. Or do some serious research for yourself.
    >
    > RC
    > --
    > R. C. White, CPA
    > San Marcos, TX
    >
    > Microsoft Windows MVP
    > Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8064.0206) in Win7 Ultimate x64 7000
    >
    > "Shane" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>> Well, the processor is CAPABLE of running a 64bit OS. It can handle
    >>> both widths equally good.
    >>>
    >>> Usually, 64 bit also cost more RAM (64 bit applications are physically
    >>> larger), and as already mentioned here, the driver support is worse
    >>> ("not as good" if you like to look at the bright side of life).

    >>
    >> One of the reasons I bought the laptop was because it came with 3 GB of
    >> RAM, as opposed to most other machines (for the same price) that came
    >> with 2 GB.
    >>
    >> I've heard, however, that 64-bit Vista requires 4 GB of RAM. So switching
    >> to a 64-bit OS would be too expensive for me.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >> Shane.

    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Mar 18, 2009
    #8
  9. > 128 Mb of RAM is the limit for Vista Ultimate 64bit. (And XP Professional
    > x64). To go past 128, you need Server Enterprise or Datacenter.


    Hi,
    you had a typo here : you for sure meant 128 GB

    regards jk
    Juergen Kluth, Mar 18, 2009
    #9
  10. Charlie Russel - MVP, Mar 18, 2009
    #10
  11. Shane

    Tom Lake Guest

    > One of the reasons I bought the laptop was because it came with 3 GB of RAM, as
    > opposed to most other machines (for the same price) that came with 2 GB.
    >
    > I've heard, however, that 64-bit Vista requires 4 GB of RAM. So switching to a
    > 64-bit OS would be too expensive for me.


    Vista-64 will run in 1 GB RAM (maybe even less!) but if you have less than 4 GB, why
    would you want to? That's the main attraction of 64-bit over 32-bit;
    It can use more than 4 GB memory.

    Tom Lake
    Tom Lake, Mar 18, 2009
    #11
  12. Shane

    Tom Ferguson Guest

    This might work if you have the latest series of this device, the 3000
    series.

    http://www.belkin.com/uk/support/article/?lid=enu&pid=F5D8051uk&aid=6301&scid=0

    --

    Tom
    MSMVP 1998-2007


    "Shane" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Greetings,
    >
    > I have a newbie question so bear with me...
    >
    > I just bought a new laptop that has an AMD Turion X2 (dual-core) 64-bit
    > processor. The operation system, however, is a 32-bit Vista Home Premium.
    > So I was wondering, why would the manufacturer (HP) bother putting a
    > 32-bit operating system (OS) on a 64-bit processor? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS
    > be more efficient?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Shane.
    Tom Ferguson, Mar 19, 2009
    #12
  13. An x64-capable processor can run either Windows x86 or Windows x64, although
    you also need an x64-capable BIOS on the motherboard and be using devices
    that have x64 drivers.

    > Usually, 64 bit also cost more RAM (64 bit applications are physically
    > larger), and as already mentioned here, the driver support is
    > worse ("not as good" if you like to look at the bright side of life).


    Driver suppport for Windows Vista x64 and Windows 7 x64 is certainly much
    better than it was for Windows XP x64 Edition. I don't think it's fair to
    say it is "worse" than the 32-bit OS. It is true that you may not be able to
    find a x64 driver for many older legacy devices that have a 32-bit driver
    (and therefore can't use that device with Windows x64), but the driver
    QUALITY with x64 tends to be very good since they are more recently
    developed.

    Also, the "4 GB" line is a bit fuzzier than presented here. To use MORE than
    4 GB, you must have a Windows x64 installation. Windows x86 can succesfully
    use somewhere between 3 GB and 4 GB, but it only theorically supports 4 GB.
    The best I've seen is 3.75 GB available for a 32-bit OS, sometimes it can't
    get over 3 GB due to BIOS, installed devices, etc.

    See
    http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3602/sponsored_feature_ram_vram_and_.php

    --
    -Chuck Walbourn
    SDE, XNA Developer Connection

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warrenties, and confers no rights.
    Chuck Walbourn [MSFT], Mar 19, 2009
    #13
  14. Shane

    Tom Ferguson Guest

    Ignore. Correct reply but wrong thread.

    Tom

    "Tom Ferguson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > This might work if you have the latest series of this device, the 3000
    > series.
    >
    > http://www.belkin.com/uk/support/article/?lid=enu&pid=F5D8051uk&aid=6301&scid=0
    >
    > --
    >
    > Tom
    > MSMVP 1998-2007
    >
    >
    > "Shane" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Greetings,
    >>
    >> I have a newbie question so bear with me...
    >>
    >> I just bought a new laptop that has an AMD Turion X2 (dual-core) 64-bit
    >> processor. The operation system, however, is a 32-bit Vista Home Premium.
    >> So I was wondering, why would the manufacturer (HP) bother putting a
    >> 32-bit operating system (OS) on a 64-bit processor? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS
    >> be more efficient?
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> Shane.

    >
    Tom Ferguson, Mar 19, 2009
    #14
  15. Shane

    Tom Lake Guest

    "Tom Ferguson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ignore. Correct reply but wrong thread.
    >
    > Tom


    Oh, good. I was wondering if my reading comprehension had suddenly plummeted
    since I didn't understand what the answer had to do with the question. Now I
    know I'm OK! 8^)

    Tom Lake
    Tom Lake, Mar 20, 2009
    #15
  16. I think is one of the reasons, but not the only one. 64-bit apps are faster
    than 32-bit apps for the simple reason they take chunks of data twice the
    size in the same time. For me, that was the selling point of why I chose
    Windows Vista Ultimate 64 over WVU 32.

    "Tom Lake" <> escribió en el mensaje de
    noticias:...
    >> One of the reasons I bought the laptop was because it came with 3 GB of
    >> RAM, as opposed to most other machines (for the same price) that came
    >> with 2 GB.
    >>
    >> I've heard, however, that 64-bit Vista requires 4 GB of RAM. So switching
    >> to a 64-bit OS would be too expensive for me.

    >
    > Vista-64 will run in 1 GB RAM (maybe even less!) but if you have less than
    > 4 GB, why
    > would you want to? That's the main attraction of 64-bit over 32-bit;
    > It can use more than 4 GB memory.
    >
    > Tom Lake
    César Monroy, Mar 23, 2009
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charles Hanes
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    665
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    Jul 6, 2005
  2. Homer J. Simpson
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    743
    Jim Barry
    Jan 19, 2009
  3. David B.
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    476
    David B.
    Jan 20, 2009
  4. Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    421
    Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
    Jan 21, 2009
  5. sandi_ro
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    518
    sandi_ro
    Jan 28, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page