Read this before jumping to 64bit Vista

[S.SubZero]

So... You want to upgrade to 64bit Vista. You really think that everything is going to be better?

After reading this article, you may want to re-evaluate your decision.

http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5709

Document Type: Tutorial

NI Supported: Yes

Publish Date: Jan 26, 2007

Very relevant, accurate, timely information.

Guys I hear Vista is going to make our MP3s stop working too.

[Polarman]

Until Vendors see a market for 64-bit software no one will be willing to drop teh money it will take to create a 64-bit version of software (especially when most 32 bit version can run on 64bit windows now) till there is a general demand for 64-bit software you won't see vendors making it, 64-bit adoption will be exceeding slow as most people won't ever know the difference between 32-bt and 64.

Most of the 64bit software today are marketed more towards high end applications for large businesses and such. They possess a lot more $$$ than a average joe like me. So they can actually pay privately some company to develop 64 bit specifically for their purposes.

The only true 64 bit software left for the small time consumer are few. I could be mistaking here. And even if i were, would you re-buy all those apps that already work in 32 bit just to have them in the 64bit flavor ? I would'nt. I already spent enough and they work fine.

I remember Half Life 2 and Far Cry 64 bit version. OOUU! AHH!! Even if it was released in 2005, the reviews showed virtually no improvements over their 32bit counterparts. Upcoming 64bit titles will have a hard time too.

I know that 64bit systems offer better multitasking capabilities. So if you would have a 64 bit system with lets say 128GB of ram. Multitasking becomes easier because the OS allocates 2GB of dedicated ram for each application you open (unless specificaly written to take more). So you could open a whole bunch without putting a performance dent in the OS. This does not apply in my case.

Like most people out there, i multitask up to a certain point, but never to the point of dragging my system in the ground. I usualy don't do heavy multitasking when i'm gaming either.

Sarcasm: I have 64 bit windows. I can play Crysis, COD4 and Hellgate London all online and at the same time. I just use multitask to switch between games. YEAH RIGHT!!!

Yes... 64 bit is here and available! But i sincerely don't think that the average PC user will quantify his/her experience for the time being.

[Innocent Devil]

unless m$ stops producing 32bit OS the industry doesnt concentrate making 64 bit apps and drivers.

Tats industry standard. who gonna consider few 64 bit users who want their usb camera to work in x64, while it works in millions of 32 bit s/ms

Time is money

It takes the usual writing->testing->debuggin -stable build cycles to produce the x64 s/w or driver, that cause lot of time

for which it is not worth of time spent (wrt use of it or the demand)

[cluberti]

I know that 64bit systems offer better multitasking capabilities. So if you would have a 64 bit system with lets say 128GB of ram. Multitasking becomes easier because the OS allocates 2GB of dedicated ram for each application you open (unless specificaly written to take more). So you could open a whole bunch without putting a performance dent in the OS. This does not apply in my case.

The OS doesn't allocate any RAM specifically to processes, it creates Virtual Address Space for each application (and it's 8TB theoretical on x64, vs 2GB or 3GB on x86) and the memory manager handles whether or not that virtual address space is backed by RAM, pagefile, or both.

As to multitasking, there are other benefits that make native 64bit apps faster, like being able to address twice the CPU registers as a 32bit app, your kernel having 128GB for paged and nonpaged pool vs 256MB and 530MB (with 4GB of RAM in the box on boot) for the same pools under x86. File sizes can be larger, larger memory structures can be addressed (although this will take some time as RAM cheapens), and we remove a lot of architecture limitations that home users will be bumping into in the next few years as 4GB of RAM (or more) becomes more common.

I know it's somewhat nitpicking, but I really don't see a reason to run an x86 platform at this time unless you have a specific app or piece of hardware that just won't run under x64 properly - this is a reverse of my opinion a few years ago when XP/2K3 x64 was released, where I thought just the reverse. Most newer hardware has x86 and x64 drivers without issue, and almost all x86 applications will run just fine on x64 without modification unless they use kernel-mode filter drivers (antivirus, firewall, etc - and those almost always have x64 versions now) or have a specific architectural design that would preclude x64 (like some Adobe apps).

[Polarman]

According to my bios (see picture), i have 4096MB and Vista 64 reports the same. So far so good. But the bios is reporting that my actual usage memory is only 3072MB.

Apparantly, The reason for this is that the decreased memory is distributed to PCI bus by the chipset.

So Vista 64 reports 4GB but still only uses only 3GB or does it use it all?

Can you shed some light on this?

[cluberti]

It depends on how the BIOS reserves it - if it's just shadowed, Vista will use it. If it's actually reserved by the BIOS, Vista will not use it. Shadowed memory is just BIOS information copied to RAM so the system can access it faster, but it's not required. However, if the bios reserves the shadow range, the OS won't see it at all (or it'll see it, but cache the memory so no apps or kernel structures can allocate it).

[agoodfella]

Try to run a 32-bit system with 4GB of ram... what a nightmare.

Can someone explain why this is a nightmare?

(sorry, but I'm not that much of a tech expert... I have Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bit -- and am thinking about upgrading to 4GB of RAM from current 2GB)...

Is there something I should know?

[cluberti]

Can someone explain why this is a nightmare?

(sorry, but I'm not that much of a tech expert... I have Windows Vista Ultimate 32 bit -- and am thinking about upgrading to 4GB of RAM from current 2GB)...

Is there something I should know?

You need to know how much RAM your BIOS reserves under the 4GB mark - x86 versions of Windows can only use what the BIOS hasn't reserved (in some cases, 512MB to 1GB). Also, high-end video cards with 256MB or more of RAM generally shadow RAM as well, so most higher-end 256MB cards will reserve 256MB of RAM that Windows can't use, 512MB cards reserve 512MB, etc.

It's a good idea to check your motherboard vendor or system vendor's support email or telephone line to find this out if the BIOS doesn't specifically have this documented or in the documentation that came with your PC.

[amit_talkin]

According to my bios (see picture), i have 4096MB and Vista 64 reports the same. So far so good. But the bios is reporting that my actual usage memory is only 3072MB.

Apparantly, The reason for this is that the decreased memory is distributed to PCI bus by the chipset.

it depends on your BIOS dude. if your BIOS have a Memory Remapping option, thn enable it 1st. now it will allocate all 4GB RAM to your system. by default it only allocates 4gb ( 8GB in newer motherboards i think ) allocations for your physical devices like PCI cards, PCIE cards. and allocation size depends on your hardware , like if u have installed 512 MB gfx card ( in my case ) thn it will cost u 1 GB PAE allocation on ur system. so you will have only 3 GB memory allocation size left for your other devices. thts y ( in my opinion ) your BIOS showing you only 3 GB RAM.

[Polarman]

The latest bios 1.7 (for my mobo) is set by default to see 4GB. Earlier bios like 1.5 was worse.

PCI devices always "steal" RAM, even on a system with less memory. You just don't notice it because PCI devices are usually sitting at an address beyond the end of physical memory.

Most PCI devices are memory mapped. This means they are mapped to a memory address. If the CPU wants to talk to your Sound Card, it reads and write to a certain memory address, which happens to be where your Sound Card is listening.

The memory address that your device uses is determined by the BIOS at boot time (the operating system can remap the device later). The device can claim anywhere from 0 to 6 memory regions, and they can be just about any size.

Exactly how many memory regions, and their size can vary greatly by the device. Ethernet cards tend to use very little. Graphics cards, however, can use a lot. Graphics cards have a lot of onboard RAM, and that RAM can be often addressed by the PCI bus. If you have a video card with 256MB of RAM, it may claim a 256MB window on the PCI bus. Some controllers claim a lot of address space as well.

If you want to see the addresses claimed on your system, go to Control Panel - System - Hardware - Device Manager. Click View - Resources by Type. Expand the memory selection. You should see all the memory-mapped devices in your system, and what they claim.

If you have a 4GB limit, your system needs to make all of the devices, and your RAM fit. That's why you see less RAM. If it didn't allocate enough address space for your hardware, the device wouldn't work (which would be really bad). So, it does the safe thing, and give you less ram in the process.

Remeber that most PCI devices are 32-bit only, so they have to live at an address below 0xFFFFFFFF. There are also 64-bit PCI devices that can be mapped to addresses above 4GB, but that's another story.

[GrofLuigi]

"4Gb ought to be enough for everyone."

Again?!

:)

GL

[cluberti]

No, 4GB is the limit for x86 because 2 to the 32nd power is 4GB, and that's thus the max addressible range for RAM on x86 (x86 processors us a two-level page translation scheme, thus the 2). Intel introduced the PAE extensions to the PPro line of CPUs to bridge the gap between x86 and 64bit, but it took a bit longer than they had initially hoped to get to 64bit computing . One fun sidenote on that is that the 400MHz bus Pentium M processors do NOT have PAE support, which is very odd and interesting.

[Polarman]

Vista runs slower with PAE Mode enabled because of the new page-translation system. By default Vista uses 2 cycles to address memory, and it will use 3 when Physical Address Extension is enabled.