Question: 64-Bit OS's

I currently have as my OS Windows Vista 32-bit. I have 4GB of RAM and an Intel Penryn T9300 2.5GHZ. My startup time is very slow because I have all the Lenovo "bloatware", but the thing is, I want all of the software on my computer. My question is now, will Windows Vista 64-bit give a performance impact that is noticeable for startup times. I put XP on my computer once and it had all the software Vista did and it loaded up MUCH quicker. I had the same startup times, same everything. In Vista I even optimized the startup items, took away un-needed stuff and XP still loaded faster on startup.

What is better about a 64-BIT OS and why do people like it?

 

64 Bit allows you to use all of your ram. 32 bit usually tops out at around 3.5GB due to 32 bit limitations. It also allows for programs to use more than 2GB of ram just for themselves, but that does not matter to most people. I personally have used x64 exclusively since XP x64 came out. Tried to use 32 on my C90s.... didn't work out to well for me.

 

Will my boot-times be faster?

 

Not really. 64-bit does much more than allow you to use all your RAM, but...

 

It DOES, but I don't think that they are uber-important for the OP's needs.

 

I am pondering whether to use Vista 64 Bit or XP. I really like XP's loading times.

I have a Intel Penryn T9300 Processor, 4GB of ram. You really don't think getting 64-bit Vista is better?

 

According to this report, Vista 64-bit is 11 to 17 seconds slower than 32-bit for boot up times.

 

Do you use 64 BIT? How do I know if my processor supports 64 bit?

 

Not at this moment. I'm waiting for the official SP2 or W7 before moving to 64-bit. The main reason to use 64-bit is to utilize 4 GB or more RAM, other reasons are currently still disputable in regards of performance and compatibility.

The T9300 does support 64-bit.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLAQG

 

Why would you wait for SP2? I don't understand why XP loads faster then Vista with the same applications EXT.

Would you recommended me going to 64-bit?

 

I've 4 GB of RAM installed, but at the moment I'm not even able to use 3 GB with the applications that I use, so I can wait a bit. Right now, the support for most 32-bit software is still better than 64-bit. We're still in the transition phase. Many software don't even have a 64-bit version yet.

The other day I set up a new ThinkPad for my father, I must say if you have all the Lenovo software installed, that will definitely make a big dent on startup, because you will have more than 90 processes loaded. I managed to drop the number down to about 55 with anti-virus installed, which made a big difference, still not as good as my own with less than 43 processes, but I kept some Lenovo software for him.

If you need to use all of your 4 GB of RAM, then sure go ahead with 64-bit. Otherwise, don't expect 64-bit to be a lot faster. For sure 64-bit is faster overall, but not day and night difference. It also depends what software you run, some games and software actually run faster in 32-bit Windows.

 

How did you uninstall, using Windows? What did you remove in terms of software?

 

Honestly, how often do you reboot? In my opinion, that extra 15-20 seconds of boot time is more than worth being able to use my full 4GB of RAM.

 

Seconded. The only time I reboot is when installing updates. Hail sleep and hibernate.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=4239375&postcount=4

 

Yeah, just uninstall them from the Control Panel.

I removed Access Connections, Productivity Center, Message Center, Rescue and Recovery, and a few other useless software that Lenovo installed. I kept CSS, APS, and a couple of others for him.

Take a look at swarmer's post, great summary.

 

One issue you should consider if you're deciding between Vista 64-bit and XP is battery lifetime. Many Thinkpad users have reported that using XP has made a significant negative impact on their battery lifetime, presumably because Vista has better power managemnt. Of course, if you're plugged in for the majority of the time, this won't be a huge factor.

 

I'm running Vista 64 on my x200 Tablet. I am generally satisfied with it, and recommend it to others; however, my boot time is unbearably slow (it is a few minutes after I have logged in that the system is generally unresponsive). However, once it has finished booting up and loading the various caches, it runs very well. It also performs superbly, and quickly, when resuming from standby.

I rarely use XP, despite having it installed, because my battery life is worse in XP, and Vista is better for tablet input.

One other thought that might improve startup times is disabling Superfetch and Readyboost. I believe superfetch to be a valuable feature for overall performance; however, it drastically increases your load time because it has to spool data from your hard drive to fill your RAM (4GB in your case). This can take a while, and your system will probably perform more like XP (fast boot, but slower application starts) if you turn it off.

 

Actually, ReadyBoost reduces boot time, because ReadyBoot relies on the ReadyBoost service. Try re-enable ReadyBoost, some users see a decrease of more than 60 seconds.

 

"Few extra seconds load time"

Agreed. who shuts donw PCs anymore. That's what S3/s4 states are for and especially optimised for notebooks is what lead us to using it on desktops since the P3 days. I have a set w/ RAID 0 and of corse takes slightly longer to load but once it does, it go a lot faster.

x64 is the now and tomorrow, so why would you want to go backwards? I can barely name a small handfull of x86 apps that wont run under wow64 un x64 systems. Lots of good apps and even most highend games show improved performance as a x86 under a x64 enviroment. Then lots of cool new stuff is comeing out as we speak to better utilize 64 bit. ie: Adobe Photoshop CS4 and soon to come Adobe Flash Player.

So, unless you have some really old classic apps that can not run in a wow64 backwards compatable enviroment, then go x64 for sure and advance forward.

 

Staying with 32-bit is not going backwards, using 16-bit would be though.

You can barely name a small handful of x86 apps that won't run under wow64 and x64 systems? True, but the fact is most "current" apps are still native 32-bit. As for high end games, Crysis in low-res runs faster in 32-bit, and Quake Wars in high-res runs slower in 64-bit mode. But even then, the difference is not significant.

I'm not against the use 64-bit, for sure it's the future. All I'm saying is, at the moment, an average user will less likely to encounter problems or compatibility issues using 32-bit Windows. Give it a little more time, the 64-bit support should get better.

 

You have been a great help!! Thanks for your posts, you are really good at these kind of things! I have made my decision and I am going with 64-bit ONLY because Lenovo provides EVERY driver for my hardware on my computer so I won't have any issues. I also checked the drivers for my printer ext.

 

Well, with 64-bit OS's here to stay, I would respectfully disagree. It's like deciding to stick with your 32" regular television when HDTV sets are now mainstream. Your set isn't necessarily *bad*, but it's a step backwards from mainstream.

But that compatibility is due to the fact that the apps were designed for 32-bit. By not adopting 64-bit, you're perpetuating this, when native 64-bit apps are the better choice.

That likelihood minimal at this point - almost not worth even mentioning anymore.

 

I'd be really appreciated if you can try not to twist my words nor take them out of context.

Of course 64-bit is here to stay, no need a genius to figure that out.

Last I checked, more 32-bit OS are still being sold AND used on the market, so that's not mainstream?

Are you implying that there are more native 64-bit software than 32-bit on the market today?

I've never said native 64-bit apps aren't the better choice. Being better and availabe are two different things.

Even today, I still see people posting on forums about problems with some drivers or software in their x64 OS. Have you seen the same problems for the same driver/software for x86? Nope.

 

I wouldn't bother with Vista 64bit on any machine with 4GB or less. The small amount of memory gained would be used up by the operating system anyway with the additional cost of slight loss in performance and an increase in compatibility problems. 64 bit Vista does have some issues but thankfully nowhere near as many as XP 64.

AFAIK there are NO programs that would run on a laptop that require a 64 bit os.

32 bit programs will never run faster on Vista 64.

The only real gain to using Vista 64 bit is a larger memory addressing space. Only programs designed to use over 2GB will do so and there aren't many of those.

64 bit programs are a mixed bag since the larger addresses and data fields increases memory access and increases bus contention. Presumably programming would be smart enough to avoid 64 bit fields when 32 bit will do but so much code is generated nowadays I wouldn't count on it. The processor normally runs much faster then the memory bus. In practice, since few programs are designed for a 64 bit environment this would be limited mostly to slowing down the OS only. Also for most dual core (or greater) machines the cpu's spend most time idle anyway so it would only be an issue under heavy load.

So, if you have an intention of upgrading beyond 4GB of memory you must have 64 bit. If it's for bragging rights that's another thing

My 2 cents (about 1.6 after xchange)

 

I didn't twist anything. "With 64-bit OS's here to stay..." is a supporting statement for my own point, not an argument against yours. I tried to be as civil as possible with my reply in hopes it would be taken as no more than it was - a differing opinion. Please don't try and blow it up into any more than that. People can disagree without any offense being taken or intended.

That's a good point, but I would be interested in seeing the actual numbers. I'm sure 32-bit sales would be higher, but the trend over just the last two years would be telling, I think. When you consider the number of machines that are being sold today with more than 3GB of RAM, I'm sure the numbers would speak for themselves.

Not at all. I'm outright stating that the more people delay the move to 64-bit OS's, the longer it will be before we *do* see more 64-bit apps on the market. As it stands, business server infrastructures are predominantly 64-bit, and have been for some time. There is a reason for that.

Granted, but we weren't talking about the availability of 64-bit apps. I can run just about any 32-bit app I need right now in my 64-bit OS. In fact, I haven't found one I can't.

Let me put it this way. If you buy a machine today and use peripherals from the last year or two rather than that old printer or scanner that you've had since Windows 98, I would be surprised if you had *any* issues. I have a Brother laser printer that I've used for about six years now. The only problem I have is that my Vista 64 OS won't share it out successfully to a non-Vista OS (Vista 32 can attach to it just fine). I don't consider that an argument against 64-bit OS's. I consider it an argument against sticking with 6-year-old hardware.

I'll admit that a using a 32-bit OS may not exactly be a "step back", but I would argue that it is stifling an important step forward with very little reasonable justification.

Again, no offense intended. I'm perfectly happy agreeing to disagree.

 

Well of course Rich is more right than wrong.

64-bit may be on the way in. It's on the way in. The argument may be cut short by the fact that the industry has decided it is to be sold so it will be.

Stevie, the comparisons you made aren't valid because it's different code being booted.

Sooo were about to go 64-bit because the industry says so, not because its the wise thing to do.

Sales dont do any good either since noone knows whats really being talked about and people don't know what 32 and 64 bits refer to. "Why one of them 64 bit systems has to be twice as good as a 32 bit system".

 

We’re not going to x64 because the industry says so, we’re going x64 because it’s the only real way to leverage four or more GB of RAM.

 

yeah, but do we need to?

 

If you have a computer with four or more GB of RAM you probably should. If you plan to use any technologies that greatly benefit from an x64 OS and related you definitely should.

 

BinkNR,
Thankyou for the caring answer. I do have a t61R with 4 gigs of memory. But I cant buy any more warranty for it than the two years on it now. To be honest if I had bought from Lenovo, I would have bought full insurance but a delay caused me to go to ebay and it had two years of insurance i believe.
Renee

 

Unless you run some extremely memory hungry applications that individually require more address space than 32-bits offer, I am not entirely sold on the benefits of going 64-bit.

If you have more than 3GB of RAM, you can still use the excess RAM in a 32-bit OS. At least three different Ramdisks applications support creation of Ramdisks from the memory that is beyond 3GB under a 32-bit OS. Just use one of those Ramdisk applications and create a Ramdisk utilizing the memory above 3GB. Then disable the pagefile on your HDD and create a pagefile on the Ramdisk.

Voila, you now have a 32-bit OS that can use more than 3GB RAM.

 

jketzetera, that's a good idea for those with 4GB of RAM and no other need to switch to 64-bit Windows. Heck just the expense of buying another Windows license would be enough for many to stick with 32-bit.

I would add though that if they *were* running 64-bit and *could* access all of that RAM, then it's quite likely that they could turn their swap file off entirely and not have to worry with the RAM disk.

 

RAMDisk is OK, but it's not exactly like using additional RAM such as for programming or media work.

 

Sorry if I came a little aggressive earlier, I just felt like you made it sound like I'm against the use of 64-bit.

I know the trend of 64-bit has picked up quite a bit in the past 2 years, but it is still far from being the mainstream. Just go to any computer stores today, how many systems are being sold with a 64-bit Windows by default without the need of a request from a customer? And the number of machines that are being sold today with more than 3GB of RAM, most of them still come with a 32-bit Windows regardless of over 3 GB of RAM unless the customer requests for a 64-bit version.

Is it really people delaying or the developers aren't truly ready? Today, most software developers still release the 32-bit version first before the 64-bit. If 64-bit software and support are as widely available as 32-bit, I'm sure more people will use 64-bit without a question. So it's not fair to blame it all on the consumers.

Sure you can, but that isn't a valid argument for backing your statement of 64-bit being the current mainstream. You can also install 533 MHz RAM into your 667 or 800 MHz chipset. I hope you understand that running 32-bit apps in 64-bit Windows is still bound to the 2 GB per app limitation.

People who posted about problems aren't using apps from 1 or 2 years ago, they're current apps.

As I explained earlier, it's not really the customer's fault.

Sorry, but it seems like you are not sure about the differences between 32-bit and 64-bit yet.

And we're still in the transition phase, is it not?

 

The point is to put the pagefile on the RAMDIsk. Thereby you actually are using the additional RAM (beyond 3GB) for "programming or media work".

 

Actually, if a 32-bit application is large address space aware and is run under 64-bit it gets 4GB of address space (as opposed to 2GB under 32-bit OS).

 

jketzetera, you're correct, but they're more like exceptions, applications that has the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag set in the image header can get 4 GB of address space, which is still a limit. If not flagged, then it is still bound to the 2 GB limit. For the record, applications that has the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag set can still get up to 3 GB of address space in Windows 32-bit. So the large address aware rule doesn't only apply to 32-bit apps in 64-bit Windows.

My point is, most 32-bit apps still won't get the benefits of a native 64-bit app in 64-bit Windows. Also, 32-bit apps may not be able to create as many threads under WOW64 as they can on x86. There are always some drawbacks. In addition, if you understand how WOW64 works, there are other overheads when running 32-bit apps in 64-bit environment that many people don't realize. In other words, you should always try use applications that are designed for x64 if you're using Windows 64-bit.

 

Oh Stevie Im VERY familiar with the difference between 32 and 64 bit applications having been an engineer on the first 32 bit machine out there for
30 years.

 

Sorry if I misunderstood your previous post. What invalid comparisons you were referring to? If you were talking about the difference between native 32-bit and 64-bit, I know the coding is different, never said they aren't.

 

So do you like 64-bit or 32-bit?

 

Ok, I was speaking of you comparison of the xp boot code and the Vista and post-vista boot times. It not the same code and therefore any comparison has no meaning. If it were the same code it would be meaningful.

Renee

 

XP boot code? I wasn't comparing to XP nor posted any boot times for XP. The OP is currently using Vista 32-bit and asked if going Vista 64-bit will decrease the boot time. And the boot times I posted were just comparing Vista 32-bit and Vista 64-bit.

 

LenovoT61B,

I'm unsure yet. I love the 64 bit code to the extent that I run it. But I have second doubts too. I wonder if its not deliberate. I mean 32-bit is huge so why are they running out? Stellar numbers havent gotten any larger. Fractions haven't gotten any smaller so why?

I do have a t61b at home, I think. (Home will have to be moved after this trip to the hospital.)

Coding standards have changed. They are worse in that there is no mention of address space. You can take up as much room as the want with the relaxed standards of today so I don't know. Plus our machine had P0,P1 and
S0 space carved out. So user space was cut into forths. Still the number of applications that out did 32 bit space was very small. So I wonder if the rush to 64 bit space is not "manufactured".

Renee

 

Stewie,

You are correct then. If you specify in the future, we won't have these comparion problems.

 

So guys. I made my choice, I am going for 64-bit. Do you agree or disagree. I have all the compatible drivers for 64-bit.

 

I believe you're the only one that thought I was comparing to XP's boot times, which were never mentioned in my posts. and the Vista boot times I posted were clearly stated as Vista boot times.

Sure, go ahead.

 

From a user point of view, you loose real old images and gain 32 bits of addressing space. Although you dont need it you get close to ten percent more speed.

It's important to remember that 1 bit of memory doubles the address space.

 

My Vista 64bit partition always runs more stable than my 32bit partition. Boot time and shutdown time also improve as well. Maybe Microsoft optimized Vista 64bit but not 32bit, who knows.