How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by E Pericoloso Sporgersi, Feb 18, 2008.

  1. and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?

    My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.
    Microsoft claims that Vista SP1 (32bit) will report the full amount of RAM
    present, 4 GB in my case.
    But if I understand correctly, Vista SP1 will actually keep on using only 3
    GB RAM minus the graphic card's memory.

    This means that Vista Home Premium SP1 (32bit) on my portable will still use
    only 2.5 GB RAM, because the graphic card has its own dedicated 512 MB.
    That's 1.5 GB RAM just sitting there idle.

    The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...

    1. Can my x86 CPU handle that?
    (Packard Bell Easynote
    http://support.packardbell.com/global/item...p;pn=pb93q034a7 with an Intel
    Core 2 Duo T7700 @ 2.40GHz)

    2. I have to be able to run two old DOS applications (NOT games), but Vista
    64bit does not have NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) and therefore doesn't run
    DOS software.
    OTOH DOSBox 0.72 does work in Vista 32bit and claims to work in Vista 64bit
    too. This might allow me to run my 2 DOS applications in Vista 64bit.
    Does anybody have experience with this setup: Vista 64bit + DOSBox + DOS
    application software?

    3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit and
    Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2), I'm
    almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

    Before installing (or trying to install) Vista 64bit, I would first like to
    make sure it would not be a big waste of time (and money).

    Thanks for any thoughts.
    --
    E Pericoloso Sporgersi
    "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]
    XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my
    desktop!
    E Pericoloso Sporgersi, Feb 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. E Pericoloso Sporgersi

    S.SubZero Guest

    The space below 4GB is used by system resources, address space, etc.
    If you are using a 32-bit OS, **ANY** 32-bit OS at all, this occurs.

    DOSbox should allow you to run your DOS apps.
    S.SubZero, Feb 18, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. E Pericoloso Sporgersi

    R. C. White Guest

    Hi, Pericoloso.

    > 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit
    > and
    > Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2), I'm
    > almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.


    Yes. It need not even be on separate HDs; separate "volumes" (primary
    partitions and/or logical drives in an extended partition) work just fine,
    even on a single HD.

    MANY variations are possible, but the simplest method is just to install one
    Vista, either x86 or x64, and then boot from the other DVD to install the
    second version. You will need two licenses, of course. The Vista Ultimate
    package includes 2 disks - but only a single product key. The PK will work
    for either version, but you can't install x64 with that PK until you've
    uninstalled x86 - or vice versa.

    Both installations will use the one System Partition (usually the first
    partition on your first HD), but each will install into a separate volume,
    which will become the Boot Volume for that installation. Disk Management
    will show you which volume is the Boot Volume for the OS currently running.
    When you boot from the DVD to install the second Vista, it will assign the
    letter C: to its own Boot Volume, even if that volume is on the second HD.
    If you want the drive letters to be consistent between the two
    installations, then boot into the first installation, use Disk Management to
    assign the letters you want, then insert the DVD and run Setup from there.
    (I'm not sure if this last sentence will work in your case, since we can't
    install 32-bit from 64-bit, or vice versa; I haven't done this in several
    months.)

    Microsoft's dual-boot system works well for WinXP, too, and it's easy to add
    Vista to a computer that already has WinXP installed. Just be sure to
    follow the Golden Rule for dual-booting and install the NEWEST operating
    system LAST. Vista's Setup knows how to handle an existing WinXP, but
    WinXP's Setup has no idea what to do about Vista. With Vista, either x86 or
    x64 can come last.

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

    Microsoft Windows MVP
    (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

    "E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <>
    wrote in message news:D...
    > and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?
    >
    > My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.
    > Microsoft claims that Vista SP1 (32bit) will report the full amount of RAM
    > present, 4 GB in my case.
    > But if I understand correctly, Vista SP1 will actually keep on using only
    > 3
    > GB RAM minus the graphic card's memory.
    >
    > This means that Vista Home Premium SP1 (32bit) on my portable will still
    > use
    > only 2.5 GB RAM, because the graphic card has its own dedicated 512 MB.
    > That's 1.5 GB RAM just sitting there idle.
    >
    > The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...
    >
    > 1. Can my x86 CPU handle that?
    > (Packard Bell Easynote
    > http://support.packardbell.com/global/item...p;pn=pb93q034a7 with an Intel
    > Core 2 Duo T7700 @ 2.40GHz)
    >
    > 2. I have to be able to run two old DOS applications (NOT games), but
    > Vista
    > 64bit does not have NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) and therefore doesn't
    > run
    > DOS software.
    > OTOH DOSBox 0.72 does work in Vista 32bit and claims to work in Vista
    > 64bit
    > too. This might allow me to run my 2 DOS applications in Vista 64bit.
    > Does anybody have experience with this setup: Vista 64bit + DOSBox + DOS
    > application software?
    >
    > 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit
    > and
    > Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2), I'm
    > almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.
    >
    > Before installing (or trying to install) Vista 64bit, I would first like
    > to
    > make sure it would not be a big waste of time (and money).
    >
    > Thanks for any thoughts.
    > --
    > E Pericoloso Sporgersi
    R. C. White, Feb 18, 2008
    #3
  4. Thanks for the confirmation ArCee.

    I'll give it a whirl with a second license.

    Before any important system interventions, I always take images of all
    partitions to an external hard disk, with a tested routine. That way I can't
    lose anything but time and some money.

    One more question if you don't mind.
    To save a little money, I did a clean install of Vista Business on my
    floortop computer (that's a full tower case on wheels) from an Upgrade to
    Vista DVD. No problem if you know the trick.
    Would the same clean install (in dual boot of course) work on my portable
    with a Vista 64bit Upgrade DVD?
    --
    E Pericoloso Sporgersi
    "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]
    XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my
    desktop!



    "R. C. White" wrote:

    > Hi, Pericoloso.
    >
    > > 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit
    > > and
    > > Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2), I'm
    > > almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

    >
    > Yes. It need not even be on separate HDs; separate "volumes" (primary
    > partitions and/or logical drives in an extended partition) work just fine,
    > even on a single HD.
    > ...
    E Pericoloso Sporgersi, Feb 18, 2008
    #4
  5. E Pericoloso Sporgersi

    Mark Guest

    An "upgrade" to Vista x64 from x86 must be a clean install.
    As such, if you take the upgrade path, it will require you to select Custom
    Install to produce a "clean" install.
    There are MS KB articles on this that delineate the valid "upgrade" paths
    for x64 from x86.

    "E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <>
    wrote in message news:D...
    > Thanks for the confirmation ArCee.
    >
    > I'll give it a whirl with a second license.
    >
    > Before any important system interventions, I always take images of all
    > partitions to an external hard disk, with a tested routine. That way I

    can't
    > lose anything but time and some money.
    >
    > One more question if you don't mind.
    > To save a little money, I did a clean install of Vista Business on my
    > floortop computer (that's a full tower case on wheels) from an Upgrade to
    > Vista DVD. No problem if you know the trick.
    > Would the same clean install (in dual boot of course) work on my portable
    > with a Vista 64bit Upgrade DVD?
    > --
    > E Pericoloso Sporgersi
    > "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]
    > XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my
    > desktop!
    >
    >
    >
    > "R. C. White" wrote:
    >
    > > Hi, Pericoloso.
    > >
    > > > 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista

    32bit
    > > > and
    > > > Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2),

    I'm
    > > > almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

    > >
    > > Yes. It need not even be on separate HDs; separate "volumes" (primary
    > > partitions and/or logical drives in an extended partition) work just

    fine,
    > > even on a single HD.
    > > ...

    >
    Mark, Feb 18, 2008
    #5
  6. Yes, the upgrade edition workaround will work exactly the same way.
    Remember, though, that you still must own a license for Windows 2000 or XP
    that is not installed on any computer and may not use that license again.
    It may not be the same license you used for the Vista x86 installation.
    And, of course, as was pointed out by R.C., you must have a license for each
    of the two copies of Vista.

    "E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <>
    wrote in message news:D...
    > Thanks for the confirmation ArCee.
    >
    > I'll give it a whirl with a second license.
    >
    > Before any important system interventions, I always take images of all
    > partitions to an external hard disk, with a tested routine. That way I
    > can't
    > lose anything but time and some money.
    >
    > One more question if you don't mind.
    > To save a little money, I did a clean install of Vista Business on my
    > floortop computer (that's a full tower case on wheels) from an Upgrade to
    > Vista DVD. No problem if you know the trick.
    > Would the same clean install (in dual boot of course) work on my portable
    > with a Vista 64bit Upgrade DVD?
    > --
    > E Pericoloso Sporgersi
    > "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]
    > XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my
    > desktop!
    >
    >
    >
    > "R. C. White" wrote:
    >
    >> Hi, Pericoloso.
    >>
    >> > 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit
    >> > and
    >> > Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2),
    >> > I'm
    >> > almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

    >>
    >> Yes. It need not even be on separate HDs; separate "volumes" (primary
    >> partitions and/or logical drives in an extended partition) work just
    >> fine,
    >> even on a single HD.
    >> ...

    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Feb 18, 2008
    #6
  7. E Pericoloso Sporgersi

    Gary Mount Guest

    Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory. Some of the
    extra memory you may get to use with 64 bit is also lost to the larger 64
    bit values that are now used instead of using 32 bit values. So not as much
    of a memory gain as you might think.


    "E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <>
    wrote in message news:D...
    > and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?
    >
    > My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.
    > Microsoft claims that Vista SP1 (32bit) will report the full amount of RAM
    > present, 4 GB in my case.
    > But if I understand correctly, Vista SP1 will actually keep on using only
    > 3
    > GB RAM minus the graphic card's memory.
    >
    > This means that Vista Home Premium SP1 (32bit) on my portable will still
    > use
    > only 2.5 GB RAM, because the graphic card has its own dedicated 512 MB.
    > That's 1.5 GB RAM just sitting there idle.
    >
    > The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...
    >
    > 1. Can my x86 CPU handle that?
    > (Packard Bell Easynote
    > http://support.packardbell.com/global/item...p;pn=pb93q034a7 with an Intel
    > Core 2 Duo T7700 @ 2.40GHz)
    >
    > 2. I have to be able to run two old DOS applications (NOT games), but
    > Vista
    > 64bit does not have NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) and therefore doesn't
    > run
    > DOS software.
    > OTOH DOSBox 0.72 does work in Vista 32bit and claims to work in Vista
    > 64bit
    > too. This might allow me to run my 2 DOS applications in Vista 64bit.
    > Does anybody have experience with this setup: Vista 64bit + DOSBox + DOS
    > application software?
    >
    > 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit
    > and
    > Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2), I'm
    > almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.
    >
    > Before installing (or trying to install) Vista 64bit, I would first like
    > to
    > make sure it would not be a big waste of time (and money).
    >
    > Thanks for any thoughts.
    > --
    > E Pericoloso Sporgersi
    > "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]
    > XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my
    > desktop!
    >
    Gary Mount, Feb 18, 2008
    #7
  8. E Pericoloso Sporgersi

    R. C. White Guest

    Hi, Pericoloso.

    > Thanks for the confirmation ArCee.


    Heh! My name is Robert Charles but I usually use only the initials, R. C.
    (and sometimes just RC). That's a common practice here in Texas and in
    Oklahoma, where I was born. Remember J. R. Ewing of "Dallas"?

    But I've been called worse! ;<)

    And I don't think I've ever met anybody named Pericoloso.

    Mark and Colin have answered your question better than I can, so I'll be
    quiet about that.

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

    Microsoft Windows MVP
    (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

    "E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <>
    wrote in message news:D...
    > Thanks for the confirmation ArCee.
    >
    > I'll give it a whirl with a second license.
    >
    > Before any important system interventions, I always take images of all
    > partitions to an external hard disk, with a tested routine. That way I
    > can't
    > lose anything but time and some money.
    >
    > One more question if you don't mind.
    > To save a little money, I did a clean install of Vista Business on my
    > floortop computer (that's a full tower case on wheels) from an Upgrade to
    > Vista DVD. No problem if you know the trick.
    > Would the same clean install (in dual boot of course) work on my portable
    > with a Vista 64bit Upgrade DVD?
    > --
    > E Pericoloso Sporgersi
    >
    >
    > "R. C. White" wrote:
    >
    >> Hi, Pericoloso.
    >>
    >> > 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit
    >> > and
    >> > Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2),
    >> > I'm
    >> > almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

    >>
    >> Yes. It need not even be on separate HDs; separate "volumes" (primary
    >> partitions and/or logical drives in an extended partition) work just
    >> fine,
    >> even on a single HD.
    R. C. White, Feb 18, 2008
    #8
  9. > Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory.
    > ...
    > So not as much of a memory gain as you might think.


    Ouch, I didn't think of the 64 bit overhead. Thanks for pointing that out.

    So scratch a memory gain justifying the hassle of reinstalling OS, updates,
    applications, tweaks and all (40-50 hours concentrated work).

    Could there be some other advantage making it worthwhile to install 64bit
    Vista on a portable?
    More speed?
    More stability?

    Or is it all just a dilettante's wishful thinking?
    --
    E Pericoloso Sporgersi
    "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]
    XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my
    desktop!

    "Gary Mount" wrote:

    > Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory. Some of the
    > extra memory you may get to use with 64 bit is also lost to the larger 64
    > bit values that are now used instead of using 32 bit values. So not as much
    > of a memory gain as you might think.
    >
    >
    > "E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <>
    > wrote in message news:D...
    > > and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?
    > >
    > > My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.
    > > ...
    > > The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...
    > >
    E Pericoloso Sporgersi, Feb 19, 2008
    #9
  10. E Pericoloso Sporgersi

    Gary Mount Guest

    If a program is written to take advantage of 64 bit values when for example
    it had to use two 32 bit values on a 32 bit environment to make up a 64 bit
    value, then it potentially could see about a doubling of speed, at least in
    that portion of code.
    In Microsoft's .NET development environment, there is a 64 bit value that
    one can use even if you compile to a 32 bit executable. Compiling to a 64
    bit environment would greatly speed up the code that is using those 64 bit
    values. On a 32 bit compile, the .NET takes care of the 64 bit values
    without the programmer having to do any work, but it will not be as fast.
    A programmer can also use much larger bit sizes such as 128 bit or as large
    as she likes with the newer .NET versions. Of course it still gets computed
    using the physical values of 32 bit or 64 bit on 64 bit environments.



    "E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <>
    wrote in message news:...
    >> Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory.
    >> ...
    >> So not as much of a memory gain as you might think.

    >
    > Ouch, I didn't think of the 64 bit overhead. Thanks for pointing that out.
    >
    > So scratch a memory gain justifying the hassle of reinstalling OS,
    > updates,
    > applications, tweaks and all (40-50 hours concentrated work).
    >
    > Could there be some other advantage making it worthwhile to install 64bit
    > Vista on a portable?
    > More speed?
    > More stability?
    >
    > Or is it all just a dilettante's wishful thinking?
    > --
    > E Pericoloso Sporgersi
    > "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]
    > XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my
    > desktop!
    >
    > "Gary Mount" wrote:
    >
    >> Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory. Some of the
    >> extra memory you may get to use with 64 bit is also lost to the larger 64
    >> bit values that are now used instead of using 32 bit values. So not as
    >> much
    >> of a memory gain as you might think.
    >>
    >>
    >> "E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <>
    >> wrote in message
    >> news:D...
    >> > and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?
    >> >
    >> > My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.
    >> > ...
    >> > The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...
    >> >

    >
    Gary Mount, Feb 19, 2008
    #10
  11. On 2008-02-19, E Pericoloso Sporgersi <> wrote:
    >> Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory.
    >> ...
    >> So not as much of a memory gain as you might think.

    >
    > Ouch, I didn't think of the 64 bit overhead. Thanks for pointing that out.
    >
    > So scratch a memory gain justifying the hassle of reinstalling OS, updates,
    > applications, tweaks and all (40-50 hours concentrated work).
    >
    > Could there be some other advantage making it worthwhile to install 64bit
    > Vista on a portable?
    > More speed?


    For the typical application not, but there are exceptions.

    > More stability?


    Less, as 64-bit is less tested. `New' in computer land generally
    means `less stable'. Of course development must go on, so developers
    (like me) are very happy that people want test their new stuff :)

    You forget running applications that are hungry for virtual address
    space. Typically though these are big database servers that aren't
    the typical notebook application, but their are surely exceptions
    to this rule.

    > Or is it all just a dilettante's wishful thinking?


    Its a very weird marketing trick. Same for multi-core. It provides
    very little for todays Windows environments. Some people say it keeps
    the system more responsive if there is a completely cpu-bound task
    active, but Unix (Linux) systems remain nicely responsive in this
    case, so this is just a matter of different choice by Microsoft (I'm
    polity today). I guess a few games use multi-core and it is likely
    more and more games start using this.

    Multi-core 64-bit hardware is now commonplace for the home user, but I
    think it will take another 3 years or so before there is enough
    software that exploits multi-core and the typical home machine will
    have more than 4GB.

    My 2c

    --- Jan
    Jan Wielemaker, Feb 19, 2008
    #11
  12. E Pericoloso Sporgersi

    Guest

    On Feb 19, 6:43 am, Jan Wielemaker <4all.nl> wrote:
    > On 2008-02-19, E Pericoloso Sporgersi <> wrote:
    >
    > >> Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory.
    > >> ...
    > >> So not as much of a memory gain as you might think.

    >
    > > Ouch, I didn't think of the 64 bit overhead. Thanks for pointing that out.

    >
    > > So scratch a memory gain justifying the hassle of reinstalling OS, updates,
    > > applications, tweaks and all (40-50 hours concentrated work).

    >
    > > Could there be some other advantage making it worthwhile to install 64bit
    > > Vista on a portable?
    > > More speed?

    >
    > For the typical application not, but there are exceptions.
    >
    > > More stability?

    >
    > Less, as 64-bit is less tested. `New' in computer land generally
    > means `less stable'. Of course development must go on, so developers
    > (like me) are very happy that people want test their new stuff :)
    >
    > You forget running applications that are hungry for virtual address
    > space. Typically though these are big database servers that aren't
    > the typical notebook application, but their are surely exceptions
    > to this rule.
    >
    > > Or is it all just a dilettante's wishful thinking?

    >
    > Its a very weird marketing trick. Same for multi-core. It provides
    > very little for todays Windows environments. Some people say it keeps
    > the system more responsive if there is a completely cpu-bound task
    > active, but Unix (Linux) systems remain nicely responsive in this
    > case, so this is just a matter of different choice by Microsoft (I'm
    > polity today). I guess a few games use multi-core and it is likely
    > more and more games start using this.
    >
    > Multi-core 64-bit hardware is now commonplace for the home user, but I
    > think it will take another 3 years or so before there is enough
    > software that exploits multi-core and the typical home machine will
    > have more than 4GB.
    >
    > My 2c
    >
    > --- Jan


    A few games use 64 bit code, such as Half Life Remember that the mobo
    is pulling 64 bits at a time, so just doing mundane stuff is improved
    due to the data bandwidth. I run the Bon Echo 64 bit mozilla software,
    but don't see any advantage to 64 bit Firefox due to plug in issues.

    I find 64 bits more "fun" under linux where you get to compile the
    tarballs and thus get more native code.
    , Feb 20, 2008
    #12
  13. E Pericoloso Sporgersi

    Mark Guest

    You really cannot compare x86 and x64 directly.
    They simply work differently.

    If you have a 32-bit application and run it on an x86 machine, it's doing as
    much as it can in one clock cycle.
    If you run the same 32-bit application and run it on an x64 machine, the
    processor, if used correctly, could be accessing a second 32-bit application
    simultaneously making it twice as productive. But, this is very atypical.
    If you try to run a 64-bit application on an x86 machine, it would have to
    be "emulated" to break each command into 32-bit strings and process one
    command over 2 to 6 clock cycles. Significant loss in production. (This is
    the major road block on any platform: Most drivers attempt to talk to 8-bit
    or 16-bit peripheral chips and devices causing those wonderful pauses in
    operation.)
    If you run that 64-bit application on an x64 machine, there may be "wasted
    space" as some of the smaller commands tie up registry space unnecessarily,
    but the move, copy, math functions, etc can now process larger amounts of
    data in one clock cycle.

    So where is the gain?
    Typically, graphics. More data can be pushed around in the same amount of
    time.
    This means that a graphics-oriented program, compiled in 64-bit code, will
    run faster.
    A math-oriented program, will not run faster, but will have a higher degree
    of precision without additional coding.
    A user-interface oriented program (Word), will not run any faster since it
    still processes the same set of instructions in the same amount of clock
    cycles.
    (Unless you do lots of cut and paste.)

    If graphics are the only real gain, then more memory is warranted so that
    you can load more at one time. But, then comes the speed bump. Can the
    application assign and access more memory. Usually not. It is usually
    limited to a 2 GB window. (There are exceptions!)

    End result... it's pretty much a wash until programming catches up with the
    technology available. But, using x64 pushes them to get better at it.


    "E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <>
    wrote in message news:...
    > > Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory.
    > > ...
    > > So not as much of a memory gain as you might think.

    >
    > Ouch, I didn't think of the 64 bit overhead. Thanks for pointing that out.
    >
    > So scratch a memory gain justifying the hassle of reinstalling OS,

    updates,
    > applications, tweaks and all (40-50 hours concentrated work).
    >
    > Could there be some other advantage making it worthwhile to install 64bit
    > Vista on a portable?
    > More speed?
    > More stability?
    >
    > Or is it all just a dilettante's wishful thinking?
    > --
    > E Pericoloso Sporgersi
    > "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]
    > XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my
    > desktop!
    >
    > "Gary Mount" wrote:
    >
    > > Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory. Some of the
    > > extra memory you may get to use with 64 bit is also lost to the larger

    64
    > > bit values that are now used instead of using 32 bit values. So not as

    much
    > > of a memory gain as you might think.
    > >
    > >
    > > "E Pericoloso Sporgersi"

    <>
    > > wrote in message

    news:D...
    > > > and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?
    > > >
    > > > My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.
    > > > ...
    > > > The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...
    > > >

    >
    Mark, Feb 20, 2008
    #13
  14. E Pericoloso Sporgersi

    Sov Guest

    I agree with Mark.

    I just went through this upgrade and it was painful. I am still having
    problem with 1394, but here is what I did and it is not the right way.

    1. The install would BSOD so I had to remove 2 gigs of RAM before installing.
    2. After installed Vista 64, ran the patch to fix the BSOD problem.
    3. I put the 2 Gigs back in---everything works EXCEPT...

    4. My product key was only for upgrade so I could NOT activate Vista.
    5. I spent quite a bit of time with MS to fix this problem.

    Now it works, except for 1394.


    Hope this helps.


    --Sov

    "E Pericoloso Sporgersi" wrote:

    > and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?
    >
    > My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.
    > Microsoft claims that Vista SP1 (32bit) will report the full amount of RAM
    > present, 4 GB in my case.
    > But if I understand correctly, Vista SP1 will actually keep on using only 3
    > GB RAM minus the graphic card's memory.
    >
    > This means that Vista Home Premium SP1 (32bit) on my portable will still use
    > only 2.5 GB RAM, because the graphic card has its own dedicated 512 MB.
    > That's 1.5 GB RAM just sitting there idle.
    >
    > The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...
    >
    > 1. Can my x86 CPU handle that?
    > (Packard Bell Easynote
    > http://support.packardbell.com/global/item...p;pn=pb93q034a7 with an Intel
    > Core 2 Duo T7700 @ 2.40GHz)
    >
    > 2. I have to be able to run two old DOS applications (NOT games), but Vista
    > 64bit does not have NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) and therefore doesn't run
    > DOS software.
    > OTOH DOSBox 0.72 does work in Vista 32bit and claims to work in Vista 64bit
    > too. This might allow me to run my 2 DOS applications in Vista 64bit.
    > Does anybody have experience with this setup: Vista 64bit + DOSBox + DOS
    > application software?
    >
    > 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit and
    > Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2), I'm
    > almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.
    >
    > Before installing (or trying to install) Vista 64bit, I would first like to
    > make sure it would not be a big waste of time (and money).
    >
    > Thanks for any thoughts.
    > --
    > E Pericoloso Sporgersi
    > "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]
    > XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my
    > desktop!
    >
    Sov, Feb 20, 2008
    #14
    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. Anton

    How to Achieve Wireless Security?

    Anton, Oct 19, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    770
    Carey Holzman
    Nov 10, 2004
  2. AM
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    502
  3. John Rennie
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,228
    John Rennie
    Aug 26, 2005
  4. =?Utf-8?B?UGllcmx1aWdp?=

    WOW64 and Actual Phisical RAM Usage

    =?Utf-8?B?UGllcmx1aWdp?=, Jun 8, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    811
    jorgen
    Jun 12, 2007
  5. Kue2
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    345
Loading...

Share This Page