Vista RAM usage and 32/64 bit differences

[wolluf]

All with Vista Ultimate

I've been avoiding Vista for 6 months or so - I built a machine to run it and installed 64 bit version. Then had so many compatibility issues with software I run that I gave up and stayed with my trusty XP installation. One other issue that bothered me was speed - I've posted specs before, but thought 4600+ dual core with 4GB RAM should do the job.

But it was basically pedestrian - and looking in task manager, over 1GB RAM in use before I start running anything. Installed XP - it flew.

I have a test machine - 2800+ single core with 1GB RAM (64MB shared) - installed 64 bit vista - much better than main machine. Then tried 32 bit - some incompatibilities disappeared (ie, apps from XP machine run on 32 bit that didn't on 64).

Note - foolish on my part - thought Vista would be 64 bit orientated.

After test machine - installed 32 bit on main machine - it flies too.

Some memory facts which leave me confused:-

64 bit on dual core 4GB RAM - over 1GB in use from start
32 bit on dual core 4GB RAM - initially 700+ MB in use, then 350 (don't know why the change - after reboot, shortly after install - no serious apps installed yet).
32 bit on single core 1GB RAM - c. 350.

I really wanted to run 64 bit - but looks like I can now move to 32 bit Vista but not 64 bit - so may finally start becoming familiar with Vista! (btw - tweakui for vista is well overdue).

Not really a question - comments welcome.

Also - side issue - drivers. My test machine had various beta Vistas installed (mainly 64 bit) - and I always managed to get sound/graphics/networks drivers (usually XP 64 bit ones) working. Now its struggling - managed it finally, but much more difficult. Comments?

 

[cpjust]

When you tested 64 vs 32 bit Vista, were both tests on the same machine (i.e. same hardware) or were there any differences like video card, motherboard...?

I was thinking of getting 64-bit Vista whenever I eventually upgrade to a new PC, but after reading this, I may have to think about that a little more.

 

[markdmac]

On my laptop I run 32 bit Vista Ultimate. On my desktop I run x64 Vista Ultimate.

The only problems I have had with drivers were related to a USB scanner (that I paid only $25 for new) and my WebCAM.

Beyond that it has worked fine. There are however some issues with performance that I am unhappy with. Enumerating WMI classes takes up to 1.5 minutes the first time, the classes seem to get stored in cache somewhere because after that initial time it happens quickly. After an hour or so I am back to the 1.5 minutes.

Opening Windows Explorer takes a while. I know Microsoft is working on a number of patches for this and can't wait until SP1 is released.

On my son's desktop I had loaded x64 Ultimate and recently reloaded with x86 because he was having all kinds of problems with his online games at Nickelodeon etc.

The future will be x64, but for now we are stuck in the transition point where there are few x64 applications. Personally, I am going to stick it out so I will learn more about the differences.

I hope you find this post helpful.

Regards,

Mark

Check out my scripting solutions at

http://www.thespidersparlor.com/vbscript

Work SMARTER not HARDER. The Spider's Parlor's Admin Script Pack is a collection of Administrative scripts designed to make IT Administration easier! Save time, get more work done, get the Admin Script Pack.

 

[wolluf]

Another issue - this time with the 32 bit - is the non-recognition of the full 4GB RAM. This kb article refers to it:-

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929580/en-us

and gives what I thought was a solution - PAE mode. But it makes no difference! Anybody encountered/fixed this problem?

I also doubt the imminence of the 64 bit future - as 32 bit has become the de facto standard on new machines (or my customer's machines - which I'm assuming are representative).

 

[markdmac]

Well Wolluf, Exchange 2007 only runs on x64, so from that standpoint anyone wanting to upgrade will be moving to x64.

I hope you find this post helpful.

Regards,

Mark

Check out my scripting solutions at

http://www.thespidersparlor.com/vbscript

Work SMARTER not HARDER. The Spider's Parlor's Admin Script Pack is a collection of Administrative scripts designed to make IT Administration easier! Save time, get more work done, get the Admin Script Pack.

 

[cdogg]

wolluf,
Although RAM is important no doubt, the video card plays an important role too, especially when you have the new Aero feature enabled. Aero Glass specifies a 64MB video card as a minimum, but really needs 128MB. Even if you have that, integrated video on the mobo typically doesn't pack enough punch that you get from a standalone PCI-Express card.

Also, as you've discovered, the main advantage to 64-bit will be the amount of RAM that Windows can utilize. Right now, most of us are fine with 2GB in a 32-bit OS. But we were saying the same thing about 256MB when XP first came out! It's just a matter of time before the software catches up, and we start to see more 64-bit optimization in programs and better driver stability.

As for the 64-bit version using more RAM at startup, that's normal. Many virtual address (not all) are now 64 bits wide instead of 32, and comparing the memory usage to the 32-bit version is like comparing apples to oranges. You're not going to see many similarities.

I haven't toyed with 64-bit Vista yet, but can't say I've noticed any real performance issues using the 32-bit version. I have it on a E6400 Core 2 Duo box running with 2GB of RAM, so that might be the difference!

The following short articles are worth a look when you have time:

http://64-bit-computers.com/windows-vista-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmark.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOW64

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[Nelviticus]

Another issue - this time with the 32 bit - is the non-recognition of the full 4GB RAM.

This is a limit of 32-bit OS's in general. They can only 'talk to' 2^32 (i.e. 4GB) memory addresses, but some of those addresses are reserved for hardware. If you want to read more about it check out this link, although it's pretty tech-y:

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/08/22/218527.aspx

Regards

Nelviticus

 

[cdogg]

There seems to be a lot of questions/concerns about the 4GB limit lately in Windows.

This link explains a lot about PAE straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx

This part will be of some significance as to why some versions of 32-bit Windows have been capped at 4GB (even when the PAE switch is used):

Typically, device drivers must be modified in a number of small ways. Although the actual code changes may be small, they can be difficult. This is because when not using PAE memory addressing, it is possible for a device driver to assume that physical addresses and 32-bit virtual address limits are identical. PAE memory makes this assumption untrue...

...PAE mode can be enabled on Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 SP1 and later versions of Windows to support hardware-enforced DEP. However, many device drivers designed for these systems may not have been tested on system configurations with PAE enabled. In order to limit the impact to device driver compatibility, changes to the hardware abstraction layer (HAL) were made to Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 Standard Edition to limit physical address space to 4 GB...

Of course other 32-bit version of Windows such as 2000 Advanced Server, 2003 Datacenter, and 2003 Enterprise are able to access up to 64GB using PAE. Microsoft educates system administrators to test hardware and application compatibility extensively when this is used. In their eyes, the level of complexity introduced by PAE made is too unstable and unnecessary for typical end-user configurations, which is why you don't see the support in 2000/XP and 32-bit versions of Vista.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[wolluf]

Thanks for replies.

Must admit I'm not one to plough through lots of technical data any more - too old - brain already full! I'll ignore the 512MB RAM the 32 bit version loses (unless I stumble upon a fix that works) - even running several virtual machines - which I do, I'm ok at the moment with 3.5GB RAM

Still confused about the 'speed' though, especially as on older test machine (2800+, 1GB RAM), both 32 and 64 bit perform well, and similarly - to the naked eye (and that has onboard graphics with 64MB shared RAM). So why on higher spec machine (4600+ dual core, 4GB RAM, 256MB dedicated graphics card) does the 32 bit outperform the 64 (or rather, the 64 bit seems to have a number of 'pauses' built into it, where it just sits for a while after you've tried to open and app/web page etc).

Also the RAM usage. I was aware the 64 bit uses more - but in my case it uses more more on the higher spec machine (c. 1GB on higher spec, c. 600MB on lower after boot) - wondered if possibly a function of there being more? And the 32 bit install seems to vary between 350-700 after boot! I've noticed customer machines I've seen seem to average about 400 after boot - all 32 bit. My main interest in this is in what to recommend for customers looking at new machines or upgrades. Cdogg mentioned XP - when that came out lots of machines were being sold with 128MB RAM. Even minimal use really needs 256 & should really have at least 512 for what I consider 'normal' (not gaming) use. Vista is being sold on 512MB machines - which I think is similar to XP on 128 - 2GB or at least 1.5 would seem best recommendation for 'normal' use.

Back to trying to get this PC 'usable' as main machine.

 

[Nelviticus]

The 'pauses' you describe for the 64-bit version sound like a service isn't running properly or a driver isn't responding as it should. Have you checked your event log to see whether there are any recurrent faults?

Nelviticus

 

[cdogg]

..why on higher spec machine (4600+ dual core, 4GB RAM, 256MB dedicated graphics card) does the 32 bit outperform the 64 (or rather, the 64 bit seems to have a number of 'pauses' built into it, where it just sits for a while after you've tried to open and app/web page etc).

This is the same thing that was talked about a lot when we moved away from the old 16-bit/32-bit Windows 3.1 into a more robust and dedicated 32-bit OS environment that Windows 95 gave us. It was shown that a lot of 16-bit code modified for 32-bit ran slower in 95. There's no difference here.

The problem is that the 64-bit environments that we're using now aren't completely dedicated to 64-bit. They run on a processor that has the ability to run in either mode, a hybrid processor if you will. These processors are the "stepping stone" to help bridge the transition to true 64-bit. Someday you will see better 64-bit integration that doesn't have to worry about being backwards compatible with 32-bit.

I suspect that there are also some components, processes, and applications in today's systems that aren't tweaked appropriately and might be causing problems like "pausing" in the background.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884