Any good reasons not to run Vista 64?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by David, Nov 20, 2007.

  1. David

    David Guest

    I'm ordering a new laptop and am strongly thinking of getting Vista 64 as I
    could use the entire 4 GB RAM space.

    One reason I can think of is that the Cisco VPN only runs Vista 32:

    The Cisco VPN client supports Windows 2000, XP and Vista (x86/32-bit only);
    Linux (Intel); Mac OS X 10.4; and Solaris UltraSparc (32 and 64-bit).

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps2308/

    I called and they seem to not even have anything in beta.

    TIA
     
    David, Nov 20, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. A 32bit OS will also support up to 4GB, minus a fraction. If yours don't a
    BIOS update would probably fix it.

    Tony. . .


    "David" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm ordering a new laptop and am strongly thinking of getting Vista 64 as
    > I could use the entire 4 GB RAM space.
    >
    > One reason I can think of is that the Cisco VPN only runs Vista 32:
    >
    > The Cisco VPN client supports Windows 2000, XP and Vista (x86/32-bit
    > only); Linux (Intel); Mac OS X 10.4; and Solaris UltraSparc (32 and
    > 64-bit).
    >
    > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps2308/
    >
    > I called and they seem to not even have anything in beta.
    >
    > TIA
    >
     
    Tony Sperling, Nov 21, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David

    David Guest

    I have an IBM/Lenovo laptop and people in the forum.thinkpads.com claim that
    when they install 4 GB under Vista 32 they only see 3 GB. Could please give
    me a link that 32 bit OS supports 4GB, minus a fraction?

    Also, Cisco VPN new AnyConnect Software does work in 64 bit I found out.
    Thanks...

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    >A 32bit OS will also support up to 4GB, minus a fraction. If yours don't a
    >BIOS update would probably fix it.
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "David" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I'm ordering a new laptop and am strongly thinking of getting Vista 64 as
    >> I could use the entire 4 GB RAM space.
    >>
    >> One reason I can think of is that the Cisco VPN only runs Vista 32:
    >>
    >> The Cisco VPN client supports Windows 2000, XP and Vista (x86/32-bit
    >> only); Linux (Intel); Mac OS X 10.4; and Solaris UltraSparc (32 and
    >> 64-bit).
    >>
    >> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps2308/
    >>
    >> I called and they seem to not even have anything in beta.
    >>
    >> TIA
    >>

    >
    >
     
    David, Nov 21, 2007
    #3
  4. Well, a bit more than a small fraction - 3 GB is a good estimate, but it
    will vary depending on the specifics of the hardware you're running. A
    couple of 512 MB Video cards and you'll see a good deal less than 3 GB.

    If the Cisco works, and you don't have any other issues, go for 64bit. But
    keep in mind that drivers are still taking a while to get into the
    marketplace, and older hardware may never see 64bit drivers. So do your due
    diligence.

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


    "David" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have an IBM/Lenovo laptop and people in the forum.thinkpads.com claim
    >that when they install 4 GB under Vista 32 they only see 3 GB. Could
    >please give me a link that 32 bit OS supports 4GB, minus a fraction?
    >
    > Also, Cisco VPN new AnyConnect Software does work in 64 bit I found out.
    > Thanks...
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >>A 32bit OS will also support up to 4GB, minus a fraction. If yours don't a
    >>BIOS update would probably fix it.
    >>
    >> Tony. . .
    >>
    >>
    >> "David" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> I'm ordering a new laptop and am strongly thinking of getting Vista 64
    >>> as I could use the entire 4 GB RAM space.
    >>>
    >>> One reason I can think of is that the Cisco VPN only runs Vista 32:
    >>>
    >>> The Cisco VPN client supports Windows 2000, XP and Vista (x86/32-bit
    >>> only); Linux (Intel); Mac OS X 10.4; and Solaris UltraSparc (32 and
    >>> 64-bit).
    >>>
    >>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps2308/
    >>>
    >>> I called and they seem to not even have anything in beta.
    >>>
    >>> TIA
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 21, 2007
    #4
  5. David

    John John Guest

    With 32-bit Vista or Windows XP SP2 the lost "fraction" will be almost
    25%. The operating system will not access more than 3.12GB of RAM,
    depending on the hardware in the machine the op may see or be able to
    use even less than that. No amount of fiddling with the hardware or
    BIOS updates will change that. If the op absolutely wants or needs to
    use a Windows 32-bit operating system and still keep usage of the full
    4GB of installed RAM he will have to use one of the Windows Server products.

    John

    Tony Sperling wrote:
    > A 32bit OS will also support up to 4GB, minus a fraction. If yours don't a
    > BIOS update would probably fix it.
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "David" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>I'm ordering a new laptop and am strongly thinking of getting Vista 64 as
    >>I could use the entire 4 GB RAM space.
    >>
    >>One reason I can think of is that the Cisco VPN only runs Vista 32:
    >>
    >>The Cisco VPN client supports Windows 2000, XP and Vista (x86/32-bit
    >>only); Linux (Intel); Mac OS X 10.4; and Solaris UltraSparc (32 and
    >>64-bit).
    >>
    >>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps2308/
    >>
    >>I called and they seem to not even have anything in beta.
    >>
    >>TIA
    >>

    >
    >
    >
     
    John John, Nov 21, 2007
    #5
  6. It seems, I'm over-ruled on this one - I was under the impression that you
    should be able to squeeze a bit more than 3,6 out of it. Ah, well, we learn
    every day.


    Tony. . .
     
    Tony Sperling, Nov 21, 2007
    #6
  7. David

    John John Guest

    It used to be that depending on the hardware installed in the machine
    you might be able to see or use that much but with 32-bit Vista (and I
    beleive 32-bit XP SP2) Microsoft has trottled it to 3.12GB "to avoid
    potential driver compatibility issues".

    The system memory that is reported in the System Information dialog box
    in Windows Vista is less than you expect if 4 GB of RAM is installed
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/

    John

    Tony Sperling wrote:

    > It seems, I'm over-ruled on this one - I was under the impression that you
    > should be able to squeeze a bit more than 3,6 out of it. Ah, well, we learn
    > every day.
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    >
     
    John John, Nov 21, 2007
    #7
  8. David

    XS11E Guest

    John John <> wrote:

    > It used to be that depending on the hardware installed in the
    > machine you might be able to see or use that much but with 32-bit
    > Vista (and I beleive 32-bit XP SP2) Microsoft has trottled it to
    > 3.12GB "to avoid potential driver compatibility issues".


    Can't be 3.12GB, my 32-bit Vista reports 3.5GB, 62-bit Vista reports
    the full 4GB.

    I believe it depends on the BIOS, motherboard, CPU, video card and who
    knows what else.

    The only thing I do know for sure is that people who run Vista 32 all
    seem to report different amounts of RAM which are always less than the
    actual amount installed while those with Vista 64 all seem to report
    the actual amount installed.




    --
    XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project:
    http://improve-usenet.org
     
    XS11E, Nov 21, 2007
    #8
  9. David

    John John Guest

    XS11E wrote:

    > John John <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>It used to be that depending on the hardware installed in the
    >>machine you might be able to see or use that much but with 32-bit
    >>Vista (and I beleive 32-bit XP SP2) Microsoft has trottled it to
    >>3.12GB "to avoid potential driver compatibility issues".

    >
    >
    > Can't be 3.12GB, my 32-bit Vista reports 3.5GB, 62-bit Vista reports
    > the full 4GB.


    In that case the information in http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/
    is incorrect, Microsoft should review and correct the article.

    John
     
    John John, Nov 21, 2007
    #9
  10. David

    XS11E Guest

    John John <> wrote:

    > XS11E wrote:
    >
    >> John John <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>It used to be that depending on the hardware installed in the
    >>>machine you might be able to see or use that much but with 32-bit
    >>>Vista (and I beleive 32-bit XP SP2) Microsoft has trottled it to
    >>>3.12GB "to avoid potential driver compatibility issues".

    >>
    >>
    >> Can't be 3.12GB, my 32-bit Vista reports 3.5GB, 62-bit Vista
    >> reports the full 4GB.

    >
    > In that case the information in
    > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/ is incorrect, Microsoft
    > should review and correct the article.


    That's correct, the information is incorrect.





    --
    XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project:
    http://improve-usenet.org
     
    XS11E, Nov 22, 2007
    #10
    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. RObErT_RaTh

    I haven't been on much for good reasons

    RObErT_RaTh, Sep 23, 2005, in forum: The Lounge
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    4,029
    unholy
    Sep 26, 2005
  2. Steven M. Scharf

    25 Reasons to Aviod the SD-10 (was 15 Reasons to Aviod the SD-10)

    Steven M. Scharf, May 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    823
    Views:
    10,191
    George Preddy
    Jul 2, 2004
  3. Networking Student
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,432
    vreyesii
    Nov 16, 2006
  4. Gander

    Blu-Ray sales tank for good reasons

    Gander, May 5, 2008, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    258
    Views:
    3,886
    The alMIGHTY N
    May 21, 2008
  5. Linerd

    8 Reasons Your Next Computer Should Run Linux

    Linerd, May 2, 2009, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    435
    Linerd
    May 2, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page