Am I really messing something up? (32 Bit Windows on 64 bit Athlon)

Raggaholic

Ok, so I was having some issues with my old laptop battery, so I just went out and bought a whole new laptop ($150 difference. I could spare it.). I do a fresh wipe on the laptop, install just the basics, and then I noticed something. The little Athlon sticker has a "64" in the bottom corner. Great, just great.

So, basically, my question is I've installed EVERYTHING on the computer, including Windows itself, for the 32 bit version because I figured that's what the laptop would come with. How much am I messing everything up?

Rook

Raggaholic wrote: »

Ok, so I was having some issues with my old laptop battery, so I just went out and bought a whole new laptop ($150 difference. I could spare it.). I do a fresh wipe on the laptop, install just the basics, and then I noticed something. The little Athlon sticker has a "64" in the bottom corner. Great, just great.

So, basically, my question is I've installed EVERYTHING on the computer, including Windows itself, for the 32 bit version because I figured that's what the laptop would come with. How much am I messing everything up?

Not at all. 32bit is fine on a modern 64bit processor.

Vulpine

So long as you don't intend on using more than 3 and a bit gigabytes of RAM*, not much.

With Windows XP, the 32-bit version has far superior driver support, so this can be a good choice to take. With Vista, 64-bit has equal or better driver support as far as I am aware, so 64-bit Vista is recommended. However, there's nothing wrong with using a 32-bit version, although again this will limit the amount of RAM you can use.

One interesting further point is that the DOS virtual machine and 16-bit application support have been removed from 64-bit Vista, so older 16-bit applications will only work on 32-bit Vista or on XP.

Hopefully all of that made a modicum of sense.

* 32-bit CPUs/operating systems can address up to 4GB of RAM. Some of the upper 4th gigabyte is reserved for memory mapping devices such as your video card, so in practice you get 3 and a bit. If you use PAE, each process can have its own 4GB slice.

Raggaholic

Ok, I guess I'll be picking up a 64-bit version of Windows Vista on Monday then, especially if it'll have better driver support. I don't want to handicap the laptop right out of the gate.

Thanks all.

RNEMESiS42

Running 32-bit Windows on a 64-bit processor shouldn't be a problem at all.

Dehumanized

Realistically, the software you will be running will be 32 bit, and won't see many (any, possibly) gains whatsoever from having a 64 bit operating system. I'm a huge enthusiast for it, but I don't think there's any reason for you to jump into it without looking before you leap. The gains are generally pretty moderate unless your computer meets certain criteria and you do a lot of particularly CPU/memory intensive activities with software that's written with 64-bit performance in mind. Video rendering, as an example. Typically at less than 4GB installed RAM you won't get much benefit from it, in particular.


Also, if you already own a copy of Windows Vista then you can use your same license key that you've used for 32-bit in 64-bit. All you need is a 64-bit install media.

Raggaholic

Dehumanized wrote: »

Also, if you already own a copy of Windows Vista then you can use your same license key that you've used for 32-bit in 64-bit. All you need is a 64-bit install media.

Yeah, but there-in lies the reason I'm waiting until Monday. I have a Vista Ultimate install disk for the 32 bit version, but the 64 bit version did not come with it (with XP, both came together). Now I have to wait to get the install disk.

wunderbar

you do realize that unless you have 4+ GB of ram running 64-bit vista offers essentially no improvement/difference over 32-bit right?

Rook

Also, I can't think of many laptops that will support 4+GB of ram either, and likely it'll be sharing the memory with the graphics card.