Guest Jon-Alfred Smith Posted August 15, 2007 Posted August 15, 2007 Will mainly be used for investigating / learning / upgrading certifications to Windows 2008 with AD and SQL Server 2005 / 2008 on my home network. Should I go for 64-bit or 32-bit? Have no experience with 64-bit. Does it require the double of RAM for nearly all operations? Will upgrade to 4 GB RAM by Christmas. Thanks in advance! jas
Guest Jabez Gan [MVP] Posted August 15, 2007 Posted August 15, 2007 Re: 32-bit or 64-bit on Quad Xeon 2 GB RAM Go with 32bit if you are comfortable with it. But if you are expecting to expand the server for other tasks, then go wtih 64bit (as it supports >4GB RAM). -- Jabez Gan [MVP] Microsoft MVP: Windows Server http://www.blizhosting.com MSBLOG: http://www.msblog.org "Jon-Alfred Smith" <jas@nomail.no> wrote in message news:07l5c3dq4tqi6vfvuu1giru68h6vu1p72b@4ax.com... > Will mainly be used for investigating / learning / upgrading > certifications to Windows 2008 with AD and SQL Server 2005 / 2008 on > my home network. > > Should I go for 64-bit or 32-bit? > > Have no experience with 64-bit. Does it require the double of RAM for > nearly all operations? > > Will upgrade to 4 GB RAM by Christmas. > > Thanks in advance! > > jas
Guest Jabez Gan [MVP] Posted August 15, 2007 Posted August 15, 2007 Re: 32-bit or 64-bit on Quad Xeon 2 GB RAM Also, you can install 64bit OS even on 512MB RAM. -- Jabez Gan [MVP] Microsoft MVP: Windows Server http://www.blizhosting.com MSBLOG: http://www.msblog.org "Jon-Alfred Smith" <jas@nomail.no> wrote in message news:07l5c3dq4tqi6vfvuu1giru68h6vu1p72b@4ax.com... > Will mainly be used for investigating / learning / upgrading > certifications to Windows 2008 with AD and SQL Server 2005 / 2008 on > my home network. > > Should I go for 64-bit or 32-bit? > > Have no experience with 64-bit. Does it require the double of RAM for > nearly all operations? > > Will upgrade to 4 GB RAM by Christmas. > > Thanks in advance! > > jas
Guest Jon-Alfred Smith Posted August 15, 2007 Posted August 15, 2007 Re: 32-bit or 64-bit on Quad Xeon 2 GB RAM On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:43:10 +0800, "Jabez Gan [MVP]" <mingteikg@blizNOSPAMhosting.com> wrote: >Also, you can install 64bit OS even on 512MB RAM. So, they don't require more RAM for each single operation, as was the case with the transition from 16-bit to 32-bit? jas
Guest Andrew Sword [MVP] Posted August 15, 2007 Posted August 15, 2007 Re: 32-bit or 64-bit on Quad Xeon 2 GB RAM I would go 64-bit. 32-bit is on it's way out and the new products will run on 64-bit. "Jon-Alfred Smith" <jas@nomail.no> wrote in message news:07l5c3dq4tqi6vfvuu1giru68h6vu1p72b@4ax.com... > Will mainly be used for investigating / learning / upgrading > certifications to Windows 2008 with AD and SQL Server 2005 / 2008 on > my home network. > > Should I go for 64-bit or 32-bit? > > Have no experience with 64-bit. Does it require the double of RAM for > nearly all operations? > > Will upgrade to 4 GB RAM by Christmas. > > Thanks in advance! > > jas
Guest Jon-Alfred Smith Posted August 15, 2007 Posted August 15, 2007 Re: 32-bit or 64-bit on Quad Xeon 2 GB RAM On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:44:43 +1000, "Andrew Sword [MVP]" <exchange.mvp@nos.optushome.com.au> wrote: >I would go 64-bit. 32-bit is on it's way out and the new products will run >on 64-bit. That's what I'm thinking myself. But I'm unsure abut the RAM requirements and speed. Is there an analogy to the transition from 16-bit to 32-bit? For instance: 16-bit OS/2 1.3 was extremely fast, while 32-bit OS/2 2.x and upwards slow and memory hogs. Win 95, which mostly was hybrid 32-bits for upwards compatibility -- and not hybrid 16-bits for backwards compatibility -- did not require much, compared to NT 3.51 and 4. jas
Guest Jabez Gan [MVP] Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: 32-bit or 64-bit on Quad Xeon 2 GB RAM It doesn't require more RAM to run 64 bit. -- Jabez Gan [MVP] Microsoft MVP: Windows Server http://www.blizhosting.com MSBLOG: http://www.msblog.org "Jon-Alfred Smith" <jas@nomail.no> wrote in message news:5bn5c3dpgm3v6299l07ca72tp8q7j8lvbm@4ax.com... > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:43:10 +0800, "Jabez Gan [MVP]" > <mingteikg@blizNOSPAMhosting.com> wrote: > >>Also, you can install 64bit OS even on 512MB RAM. > > So, they don't require more RAM for each single operation, as was the > case with the transition from 16-bit to 32-bit? > > jas
Guest Jon-Alfred Smith Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: 32-bit or 64-bit on Quad Xeon 2 GB RAM On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:02:56 +0800, "Jabez Gan [MVP]" <mingteikg@blizNOSPAMhosting.com> wrote: >It doesn't require more RAM to run 64 bit. Then I'll give 64 bit a try. Thanks a lot! jas
Guest Andrew Sword [MVP] Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: 32-bit or 64-bit on Quad Xeon 2 GB RAM The answer is no. 2GB of RAM on 32-bit is similar to 2Gb on 64-bit. The OS's you quoted had greater memory requirements as time passed by. We are talking talking within 2003 not NT4 to 2003 or say Windows 98 to XP. "Jon-Alfred Smith" <jas@nomail.no> wrote in message news:5su5c3lt6c8a6iad9kulsc7jgrqa5m2og4@4ax.com... > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:44:43 +1000, "Andrew Sword [MVP]" > <exchange.mvp@nos.optushome.com.au> wrote: > >>I would go 64-bit. 32-bit is on it's way out and the new products will run >>on 64-bit. > > That's what I'm thinking myself. But I'm unsure abut the RAM > requirements and speed. Is there an analogy to the transition from > 16-bit to 32-bit? > > For instance: 16-bit OS/2 1.3 was extremely fast, while 32-bit OS/2 > 2.x and upwards slow and memory hogs. > > Win 95, which mostly was hybrid 32-bits for upwards compatibility -- > and not hybrid 16-bits for backwards compatibility -- did not require > much, compared to NT 3.51 and 4. > > jas
Guest Jon-Alfred Smith Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: 32-bit or 64-bit on Quad Xeon 2 GB RAM On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:07:38 +1000, "Andrew Sword [MVP]" <exchange.mvp@nos.optushome.com.au> wrote: >The answer is no. 2GB of RAM on 32-bit is similar to 2Gb on 64-bit. The OS's >you quoted had greater memory requirements as time passed by. We are talking >talking within 2003 not NT4 to 2003 or say Windows 98 to XP. Thanks for the clarification. Was thinking the binaries are twice as large and memory requirements twice as huge, image loading times twice as ... and so on. Seems there's going to be a lot new to investigate and learn. jas
Recommended Posts