Should I run Vista 64-bit

I have a notebook with Intel T7500 processor, using Office 2007 should I run
Vist 64-bit? Why not Vista 32-bit?
--
KC

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 11:53:02 -0700, KCav
<> wrote:

> I have a notebook with Intel T7500 processor, using Office 2007 should I run
> Vist 64-bit?


Probably not.


> Why not Vista 32-bit?


That's probably fine for you.

The 64-bit version is basically faster, and can also use more RAM than
the 32-bit version.

Those are the theoretical pros. *However* the improved speed of the
64-bit version is only present if you run 64-bit application software
and/or if you need more RAM than the 3-3.5GB that the 32-bit version
can use.

There is very little 64-bit software available yet, and whatever there
is would cost you extra money for newer versions. And very few people
can make effective use of the extra RAM the 64-bit version can use.

Also bear in mind that there may not be 64-bit drivers available for
whatever peripheral hardware (printers, scanners, etc.) you want to
use with it.

So in practice, there is little or no advantage to running the 64-bit
version now.

But its potential advantages will be realized as future applications
are developed. If it were me, I would choose the 64-bit version so I
could realize the potential advantages in the future, *if* its extra
cost was not significant, and *if* it worked with my peripheral
hardware.

One more 64-bit disadvantage I should mention. It's not common, but an
occasional32-bit program (in particular, a utility) will not run under
64-bit Vista and will have to be replaced.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

If you plan to install more than 3 GB of RAM you will need 64 bit Vista to
use it. If you already have 32 bit installed and don't need the RAM then
stick with 32 bit. On a new system I'd go with 64 bit just so you can
increase the RAM later. You can't upgrade 32 to 64 so if you add more RAM
you would have to backup your data, clean install 64 bit, install your
programs, restore your data. It's easier to start with 64 bit if you think
it may be needed in the future. That said, not all hardware and software is
compatible with 64 bit. Before you install 64 bit make very sure that any
hardware or software you can't live without is 64 bit compatible.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/


"KCav" <> wrote in message
news:E1EA7E53-F841-49B8-8DC0-...
>I have a notebook with Intel T7500 processor, using Office 2007 should I
>run
> Vist 64-bit? Why not Vista 32-bit?
> --
> KC

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:00:34 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
<> wrote:

>But its potential advantages will be realized as future applications
>are developed. If it were me, I would choose the 64-bit version so I
>could realize the potential advantages in the future, *if* its extra
>cost was not significant, and *if* it worked with my peripheral
>hardware.

It shouldn't cost anything extra at all. I bought Vista Business and requested
the x64 DVD from MS with the information contained in the pack. I believe they
sent it for free.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:12:33 GMT, Memnoch
<> wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:00:34 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> <> wrote:
>
> >But its potential advantages will be realized as future applications
> >are developed. If it were me, I would choose the 64-bit version so I
> >could realize the potential advantages in the future, *if* its extra
> >cost was not significant, and *if* it worked with my peripheral
> >hardware.
>
> It shouldn't cost anything extra at all.


That is not necessarily the case. It depends on what kind of version
you have. For example, if it's OEM, the experience you had wouldn't be
applicable in this case.


> I bought Vista Business and requested
> the x64 DVD from MS with the information contained in the pack. I believe they
> sent it for free.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"KCav" <> wrote in message
news:E1EA7E53-F841-49B8-8DC0-...
>I have a notebook with Intel T7500 processor, using Office 2007 should I
>run
> Vist 64-bit? Why not Vista 32-bit?
> --
> KC


32-bit works with up to 4GB of RAM in your notebook. You would need more RAM
than that to make use of a 64-bit OS.

Saucy

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:08:21 -0400, "Saucy"
<> wrote:

> "KCav" <> wrote in message
> news:E1EA7E53-F841-49B8-8DC0-...
> >I have a notebook with Intel T7500 processor, using Office 2007 should I
> >run
> > Vist 64-bit? Why not Vista 32-bit?
> > --
> > KC
>
>
> 32-bit works with up to 4GB of RAM in your notebook.



No, that's not correct. You can never use all of 4GB with any 32-bit
client version of Windows. The actual number you can use varies
depending on your hardware, but it's usually around 3-3.5GB

All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP) have a 4GB
address space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can
not go.

But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
address space to map it too.



> You would need more RAM
> than that to make use of a 64-bit OS.



Also not correct. Although the 64-bit version *can* use 4GB and more,
which the 32-bit version can not, you certainly don't *need* more than
4GB to make use of the 64-bit version

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Ken Blake, MVP" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:08:21 -0400, "Saucy"
> <> wrote:
>
>> "KCav" <> wrote in message
>> news:E1EA7E53-F841-49B8-8DC0-...
>> >I have a notebook with Intel T7500 processor, using Office 2007 should I
>> >run
>> > Vist 64-bit? Why not Vista 32-bit?
>> > --
>> > KC
>>
>>
>> 32-bit works with up to 4GB of RAM in your notebook.
>
>
>
> No, that's not correct. You can never use all of 4GB with any 32-bit
> client version of Windows. The actual number you can use varies
> depending on your hardware, but it's usually around 3-3.5GB
>
> All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP) have a 4GB
> address space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can
> not go.
>
> But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
> have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
> That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
> available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
> use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
> range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
> 3.1GB.
>
> Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
> RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
> address space to map it too.
>
>
>
>> You would need more RAM
>> than that to make use of a 64-bit OS.
>
>
>
> Also not correct. Although the 64-bit version *can* use 4GB and more,
> which the 32-bit version can not, you certainly don't *need* more than
> 4GB to make use of the 64-bit version
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup



Go ahead, bring up partitioning of virtual address space.

Regards,
Saucy

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:05:10 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
<> wrote:

>
>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:08:21 -0400, "Saucy"
><> wrote:
>
>> "KCav" <> wrote in message
>> news:E1EA7E53-F841-49B8-8DC0-...
>> >I have a notebook with Intel T7500 processor, using Office 2007 should I
>> >run
>> > Vist 64-bit? Why not Vista 32-bit?
>> > --
>> > KC
>>
>>
>> 32-bit works with up to 4GB of RAM in your notebook.
>
>
>
>No, that's not correct. You can never use all of 4GB with any 32-bit
>client version of Windows. The actual number you can use varies
>depending on your hardware, but it's usually around 3-3.5GB

For me with an Nvidia 9800 GX2 I only had 2.7xGB of space free to use under XP
SP3.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:39:09 GMT, Memnoch
<> wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:05:10 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> <> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:08:21 -0400, "Saucy"
> ><> wrote:
> >
> >> "KCav" <> wrote in message
> >> news:E1EA7E53-F841-49B8-8DC0-...
> >> >I have a notebook with Intel T7500 processor, using Office 2007 should I
> >> >run
> >> > Vist 64-bit? Why not Vista 32-bit?
> >> > --
> >> > KC
> >>
> >>
> >> 32-bit works with up to 4GB of RAM in your notebook.
> >
> >
> >
> >No, that's not correct. You can never use all of 4GB with any 32-bit
> >client version of Windows. The actual number you can use varies
> >depending on your hardware, but it's usually around 3-3.5GB
>
> For me with an Nvidia 9800 GX2 I only had 2.7xGB of space free to use under XP
> SP3.



Yes, it can be that low, or even lower. Note that I said "*usually*
around 3-3.5GB." In the part of my message you clipped, I said it
could be as low as 2GB. That's an unusually low number, but it does
occasionally happen.

The points I was making was that Saucy said two things, and both were
incorrect. That misinformed the OP, who asked.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup