How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

[Guest E Pericoloso Sporgersi]

and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?

 

My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.

Microsoft claims that Vista SP1 (32bit) will report the full amount of RAM

present, 4 GB in my case.

But if I understand correctly, Vista SP1 will actually keep on using only 3

GB RAM minus the graphic card's memory.

 

This means that Vista Home Premium SP1 (32bit) on my portable will still use

only 2.5 GB RAM, because the graphic card has its own dedicated 512 MB.

That's 1.5 GB RAM just sitting there idle.

 

The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...

 

1. Can my x86 CPU handle that?

(Packard Bell Easynote

http://support.packardbell.com/global/item...p;pn=pb93q034a7 with an Intel

Core 2 Duo T7700 @ 2.40GHz)

 

2. I have to be able to run two old DOS applications (NOT games), but Vista

64bit does not have NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) and therefore doesn't run

DOS software.

OTOH DOSBox 0.72 does work in Vista 32bit and claims to work in Vista 64bit

too. This might allow me to run my 2 DOS applications in Vista 64bit.

Does anybody have experience with this setup: Vista 64bit + DOSBox + DOS

application software?

 

3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit and

Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2), I'm

almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

 

Before installing (or trying to install) Vista 64bit, I would first like to

make sure it would not be a big waste of time (and money).

 

Thanks for any thoughts.

--

E Pericoloso Sporgersi

"It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]

XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my

desktop!

[Guest S.SubZero]

Re: How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

 

The space below 4GB is used by system resources, address space, etc.

If you are using a 32-bit OS, **ANY** 32-bit OS at all, this occurs.

 

DOSbox should allow you to run your DOS apps.

[Guest R. C. White]

Re: How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

 

Hi, Pericoloso.

> 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit

> and

> Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2), I'm

> almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

 

Yes. It need not even be on separate HDs; separate "volumes" (primary

partitions and/or logical drives in an extended partition) work just fine,

even on a single HD.

 

MANY variations are possible, but the simplest method is just to install one

Vista, either x86 or x64, and then boot from the other DVD to install the

second version. You will need two licenses, of course. The Vista Ultimate

package includes 2 disks - but only a single product key. The PK will work

for either version, but you can't install x64 with that PK until you've

uninstalled x86 - or vice versa.

 

Both installations will use the one System Partition (usually the first

partition on your first HD), but each will install into a separate volume,

which will become the Boot Volume for that installation. Disk Management

will show you which volume is the Boot Volume for the OS currently running.

When you boot from the DVD to install the second Vista, it will assign the

letter C: to its own Boot Volume, even if that volume is on the second HD.

If you want the drive letters to be consistent between the two

installations, then boot into the first installation, use Disk Management to

assign the letters you want, then insert the DVD and run Setup from there.

(I'm not sure if this last sentence will work in your case, since we can't

install 32-bit from 64-bit, or vice versa; I haven't done this in several

months.)

 

Microsoft's dual-boot system works well for WinXP, too, and it's easy to add

Vista to a computer that already has WinXP installed. Just be sure to

follow the Golden Rule for dual-booting and install the NEWEST operating

system LAST. Vista's Setup knows how to handle an existing WinXP, but

WinXP's Setup has no idea what to do about Vista. With Vista, either x86 or

x64 can come last.

 

RC

--

R. C. White, CPA

San Marcos, TX

rc@grandecom.net

Microsoft Windows MVP

(Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

 

"E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <EPericolosoSporgersi@discussions.microsoft.com>

wrote in message news:DAD640E8-A86C-4120-96F9-6FDCC9AB51B9@microsoft.com...

> and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?

>

> My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.

> Microsoft claims that Vista SP1 (32bit) will report the full amount of RAM

> present, 4 GB in my case.

> But if I understand correctly, Vista SP1 will actually keep on using only

> 3

> GB RAM minus the graphic card's memory.

>

> This means that Vista Home Premium SP1 (32bit) on my portable will still

> use

> only 2.5 GB RAM, because the graphic card has its own dedicated 512 MB.

> That's 1.5 GB RAM just sitting there idle.

>

> The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...

>

> 1. Can my x86 CPU handle that?

> (Packard Bell Easynote

> http://support.packardbell.com/global/item...p;pn=pb93q034a7 with an Intel

> Core 2 Duo T7700 @ 2.40GHz)

>

> 2. I have to be able to run two old DOS applications (NOT games), but

> Vista

> 64bit does not have NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) and therefore doesn't

> run

> DOS software.

> OTOH DOSBox 0.72 does work in Vista 32bit and claims to work in Vista

> 64bit

> too. This might allow me to run my 2 DOS applications in Vista 64bit.

> Does anybody have experience with this setup: Vista 64bit + DOSBox + DOS

> application software?

>

> 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit

> and

> Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2), I'm

> almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

>

> Before installing (or trying to install) Vista 64bit, I would first like

> to

> make sure it would not be a big waste of time (and money).

>

> Thanks for any thoughts.

> --

> E Pericoloso Sporgersi

[Guest E Pericoloso Sporgersi]

Re: How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

 

Thanks for the confirmation ArCee.

 

I'll give it a whirl with a second license.

 

Before any important system interventions, I always take images of all

partitions to an external hard disk, with a tested routine. That way I can't

lose anything but time and some money.

 

One more question if you don't mind.

To save a little money, I did a clean install of Vista Business on my

floortop computer (that's a full tower case on wheels) from an Upgrade to

Vista DVD. No problem if you know the trick.

Would the same clean install (in dual boot of course) work on my portable

with a Vista 64bit Upgrade DVD?

--

E Pericoloso Sporgersi

"It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]

XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my

desktop!

 

 

 

"R. C. White" wrote:

> Hi, Pericoloso.

>

> > 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit

> > and

> > Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2), I'm

> > almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

>

> Yes. It need not even be on separate HDs; separate "volumes" (primary

> partitions and/or logical drives in an extended partition) work just fine,

> even on a single HD.

> ...

[Guest Mark]

Re: How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

 

An "upgrade" to Vista x64 from x86 must be a clean install.

As such, if you take the upgrade path, it will require you to select Custom

Install to produce a "clean" install.

There are MS KB articles on this that delineate the valid "upgrade" paths

for x64 from x86.

 

"E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <EPericolosoSporgersi@discussions.microsoft.com>

wrote in message news:D82D69D4-870D-4A95-A82C-6BC2EC4CEEA3@microsoft.com...

> Thanks for the confirmation ArCee.

>

> I'll give it a whirl with a second license.

>

> Before any important system interventions, I always take images of all

> partitions to an external hard disk, with a tested routine. That way I

can't

> lose anything but time and some money.

>

> One more question if you don't mind.

> To save a little money, I did a clean install of Vista Business on my

> floortop computer (that's a full tower case on wheels) from an Upgrade to

> Vista DVD. No problem if you know the trick.

> Would the same clean install (in dual boot of course) work on my portable

> with a Vista 64bit Upgrade DVD?

> --

> E Pericoloso Sporgersi

> "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]

> XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my

> desktop!

>

>

>

> "R. C. White" wrote:

>

> > Hi, Pericoloso.

> >

> > > 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista

32bit

> > > and

> > > Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2),

I'm

> > > almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

> >

> > Yes. It need not even be on separate HDs; separate "volumes" (primary

> > partitions and/or logical drives in an extended partition) work just

fine,

> > even on a single HD.

> > ...

>

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

 

Yes, the upgrade edition workaround will work exactly the same way.

Remember, though, that you still must own a license for Windows 2000 or XP

that is not installed on any computer and may not use that license again.

It may not be the same license you used for the Vista x86 installation.

And, of course, as was pointed out by R.C., you must have a license for each

of the two copies of Vista.

 

"E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <EPericolosoSporgersi@discussions.microsoft.com>

wrote in message news:D82D69D4-870D-4A95-A82C-6BC2EC4CEEA3@microsoft.com...

> Thanks for the confirmation ArCee.

>

> I'll give it a whirl with a second license.

>

> Before any important system interventions, I always take images of all

> partitions to an external hard disk, with a tested routine. That way I

> can't

> lose anything but time and some money.

>

> One more question if you don't mind.

> To save a little money, I did a clean install of Vista Business on my

> floortop computer (that's a full tower case on wheels) from an Upgrade to

> Vista DVD. No problem if you know the trick.

> Would the same clean install (in dual boot of course) work on my portable

> with a Vista 64bit Upgrade DVD?

> --

> E Pericoloso Sporgersi

> "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]

> XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my

> desktop!

>

>

>

> "R. C. White" wrote:

>

>> Hi, Pericoloso.

>>

>> > 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit

>> > and

>> > Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2),

>> > I'm

>> > almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

>>

>> Yes. It need not even be on separate HDs; separate "volumes" (primary

>> partitions and/or logical drives in an extended partition) work just

>> fine,

>> even on a single HD.

>> ...

>

[Guest Gary Mount]

Re: How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

 

Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory. Some of the

extra memory you may get to use with 64 bit is also lost to the larger 64

bit values that are now used instead of using 32 bit values. So not as much

of a memory gain as you might think.

 

 

"E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <EPericolosoSporgersi@discussions.microsoft.com>

wrote in message news:DAD640E8-A86C-4120-96F9-6FDCC9AB51B9@microsoft.com...

> and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?

>

> My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.

> Microsoft claims that Vista SP1 (32bit) will report the full amount of RAM

> present, 4 GB in my case.

> But if I understand correctly, Vista SP1 will actually keep on using only

> 3

> GB RAM minus the graphic card's memory.

>

> This means that Vista Home Premium SP1 (32bit) on my portable will still

> use

> only 2.5 GB RAM, because the graphic card has its own dedicated 512 MB.

> That's 1.5 GB RAM just sitting there idle.

>

> The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...

>

> 1. Can my x86 CPU handle that?

> (Packard Bell Easynote

> http://support.packardbell.com/global/item...p;pn=pb93q034a7 with an Intel

> Core 2 Duo T7700 @ 2.40GHz)

>

> 2. I have to be able to run two old DOS applications (NOT games), but

> Vista

> 64bit does not have NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) and therefore doesn't

> run

> DOS software.

> OTOH DOSBox 0.72 does work in Vista 32bit and claims to work in Vista

> 64bit

> too. This might allow me to run my 2 DOS applications in Vista 64bit.

> Does anybody have experience with this setup: Vista 64bit + DOSBox + DOS

> application software?

>

> 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit

> and

> Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2), I'm

> almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

>

> Before installing (or trying to install) Vista 64bit, I would first like

> to

> make sure it would not be a big waste of time (and money).

>

> Thanks for any thoughts.

> --

> E Pericoloso Sporgersi

> "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]

> XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my

> desktop!

>

[Guest R. C. White]

Re: How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

 

Hi, Pericoloso.

> Thanks for the confirmation ArCee.

 

Heh! My name is Robert Charles but I usually use only the initials, R. C.

(and sometimes just RC). That's a common practice here in Texas and in

Oklahoma, where I was born. Remember J. R. Ewing of "Dallas"?

 

But I've been called worse! ;<)

 

And I don't think I've ever met anybody named Pericoloso.

 

Mark and Colin have answered your question better than I can, so I'll be

quiet about that.

 

RC

--

R. C. White, CPA

San Marcos, TX

rc@grandecom.net

Microsoft Windows MVP

(Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)

 

"E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <EPericolosoSporgersi@discussions.microsoft.com>

wrote in message news:D82D69D4-870D-4A95-A82C-6BC2EC4CEEA3@microsoft.com...

> Thanks for the confirmation ArCee.

>

> I'll give it a whirl with a second license.

>

> Before any important system interventions, I always take images of all

> partitions to an external hard disk, with a tested routine. That way I

> can't

> lose anything but time and some money.

>

> One more question if you don't mind.

> To save a little money, I did a clean install of Vista Business on my

> floortop computer (that's a full tower case on wheels) from an Upgrade to

> Vista DVD. No problem if you know the trick.

> Would the same clean install (in dual boot of course) work on my portable

> with a Vista 64bit Upgrade DVD?

> --

> E Pericoloso Sporgersi

>

>

> "R. C. White" wrote:

>

>> Hi, Pericoloso.

>>

>> > 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit

>> > and

>> > Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2),

>> > I'm

>> > almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

>>

>> Yes. It need not even be on separate HDs; separate "volumes" (primary

>> partitions and/or logical drives in an extended partition) work just

>> fine,

>> even on a single HD.

[Guest E Pericoloso Sporgersi]

Re: How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

 

> Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory.

> ...

> So not as much of a memory gain as you might think.

 

Ouch, I didn't think of the 64 bit overhead. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

So scratch a memory gain justifying the hassle of reinstalling OS, updates,

applications, tweaks and all (40-50 hours concentrated work).

 

Could there be some other advantage making it worthwhile to install 64bit

Vista on a portable?

More speed?

More stability?

 

Or is it all just a dilettante's wishful thinking?

--

E Pericoloso Sporgersi

"It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]

XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my

desktop!

 

"Gary Mount" wrote:

> Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory. Some of the

> extra memory you may get to use with 64 bit is also lost to the larger 64

> bit values that are now used instead of using 32 bit values. So not as much

> of a memory gain as you might think.

>

>

> "E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <EPericolosoSporgersi@discussions.microsoft.com>

> wrote in message news:DAD640E8-A86C-4120-96F9-6FDCC9AB51B9@microsoft.com...

> > and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?

> >

> > My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.

> > ...

> > The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...

> >

[Guest Gary Mount]

Re: How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

 

If a program is written to take advantage of 64 bit values when for example

it had to use two 32 bit values on a 32 bit environment to make up a 64 bit

value, then it potentially could see about a doubling of speed, at least in

that portion of code.

In Microsoft's .NET development environment, there is a 64 bit value that

one can use even if you compile to a 32 bit executable. Compiling to a 64

bit environment would greatly speed up the code that is using those 64 bit

values. On a 32 bit compile, the .NET takes care of the 64 bit values

without the programmer having to do any work, but it will not be as fast.

A programmer can also use much larger bit sizes such as 128 bit or as large

as she likes with the newer .NET versions. Of course it still gets computed

using the physical values of 32 bit or 64 bit on 64 bit environments.

 

 

 

"E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <EPericolosoSporgersi@discussions.microsoft.com>

wrote in message news:3DFA983C-C688-4F78-8012-33EFBECF4935@microsoft.com...

>> Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory.

>> ...

>> So not as much of a memory gain as you might think.

>

> Ouch, I didn't think of the 64 bit overhead. Thanks for pointing that out.

>

> So scratch a memory gain justifying the hassle of reinstalling OS,

> updates,

> applications, tweaks and all (40-50 hours concentrated work).

>

> Could there be some other advantage making it worthwhile to install 64bit

> Vista on a portable?

> More speed?

> More stability?

>

> Or is it all just a dilettante's wishful thinking?

> --

> E Pericoloso Sporgersi

> "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]

> XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my

> desktop!

>

> "Gary Mount" wrote:

>

>> Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory. Some of the

>> extra memory you may get to use with 64 bit is also lost to the larger 64

>> bit values that are now used instead of using 32 bit values. So not as

>> much

>> of a memory gain as you might think.

>>

>>

>> "E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <EPericolosoSporgersi@discussions.microsoft.com>

>> wrote in message

>> news:DAD640E8-A86C-4120-96F9-6FDCC9AB51B9@microsoft.com...

>> > and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?

>> >

>> > My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.

>> > ...

>> > The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...

>> >

>

[Guest Jan Wielemaker]

Re: How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

 

On 2008-02-19, E Pericoloso Sporgersi <EPericolosoSporgersi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>> Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory.

>> ...

>> So not as much of a memory gain as you might think.

>

> Ouch, I didn't think of the 64 bit overhead. Thanks for pointing that out.

>

> So scratch a memory gain justifying the hassle of reinstalling OS, updates,

> applications, tweaks and all (40-50 hours concentrated work).

>

> Could there be some other advantage making it worthwhile to install 64bit

> Vista on a portable?

> More speed?

 

For the typical application not, but there are exceptions.

> More stability?

 

Less, as 64-bit is less tested. `New' in computer land generally

means `less stable'. Of course development must go on, so developers

(like me) are very happy that people want test their new stuff :-)

 

You forget running applications that are hungry for virtual address

space. Typically though these are big database servers that aren't

the typical notebook application, but their are surely exceptions

to this rule.

> Or is it all just a dilettante's wishful thinking?

 

Its a very weird marketing trick. Same for multi-core. It provides

very little for todays Windows environments. Some people say it keeps

the system more responsive if there is a completely cpu-bound task

active, but Unix (Linux) systems remain nicely responsive in this

case, so this is just a matter of different choice by Microsoft (I'm

polity today). I guess a few games use multi-core and it is likely

more and more games start using this.

 

Multi-core 64-bit hardware is now commonplace for the home user, but I

think it will take another 3 years or so before there is enough

software that exploits multi-core and the typical home machine will

have more than 4GB.

 

My 2c

 

--- Jan

[Guest miso@sushi.com]

Re: How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

 

On Feb 19, 6:43 am, Jan Wielemaker <j...@nospam.ct.xs4all.nl> wrote:

> On 2008-02-19, E Pericoloso Sporgersi <EPericolosoSporge...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>

> >> Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory.

> >> ...

> >> So not as much of a memory gain as you might think.

>

> > Ouch, I didn't think of the 64 bit overhead. Thanks for pointing that out.

>

> > So scratch a memory gain justifying the hassle of reinstalling OS, updates,

> > applications, tweaks and all (40-50 hours concentrated work).

>

> > Could there be some other advantage making it worthwhile to install 64bit

> > Vista on a portable?

> > More speed?

>

> For the typical application not, but there are exceptions.

>

> > More stability?

>

> Less, as 64-bit is less tested. `New' in computer land generally

> means `less stable'. Of course development must go on, so developers

> (like me) are very happy that people want test their new stuff :-)

>

> You forget running applications that are hungry for virtual address

> space. Typically though these are big database servers that aren't

> the typical notebook application, but their are surely exceptions

> to this rule.

>

> > Or is it all just a dilettante's wishful thinking?

>

> Its a very weird marketing trick. Same for multi-core. It provides

> very little for todays Windows environments. Some people say it keeps

> the system more responsive if there is a completely cpu-bound task

> active, but Unix (Linux) systems remain nicely responsive in this

> case, so this is just a matter of different choice by Microsoft (I'm

> polity today). I guess a few games use multi-core and it is likely

> more and more games start using this.

>

> Multi-core 64-bit hardware is now commonplace for the home user, but I

> think it will take another 3 years or so before there is enough

> software that exploits multi-core and the typical home machine will

> have more than 4GB.

>

> My 2c

>

> --- Jan

 

A few games use 64 bit code, such as Half Life Remember that the mobo

is pulling 64 bits at a time, so just doing mundane stuff is improved

due to the data bandwidth. I run the Bon Echo 64 bit mozilla software,

but don't see any advantage to 64 bit Firefox due to plug in issues.

 

I find 64 bits more "fun" under linux where you get to compile the

tarballs and thus get more native code.

[Guest Mark]

Re: How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

 

You really cannot compare x86 and x64 directly.

They simply work differently.

 

If you have a 32-bit application and run it on an x86 machine, it's doing as

much as it can in one clock cycle.

If you run the same 32-bit application and run it on an x64 machine, the

processor, if used correctly, could be accessing a second 32-bit application

simultaneously making it twice as productive. But, this is very atypical.

If you try to run a 64-bit application on an x86 machine, it would have to

be "emulated" to break each command into 32-bit strings and process one

command over 2 to 6 clock cycles. Significant loss in production. (This is

the major road block on any platform: Most drivers attempt to talk to 8-bit

or 16-bit peripheral chips and devices causing those wonderful pauses in

operation.)

If you run that 64-bit application on an x64 machine, there may be "wasted

space" as some of the smaller commands tie up registry space unnecessarily,

but the move, copy, math functions, etc can now process larger amounts of

data in one clock cycle.

 

So where is the gain?

Typically, graphics. More data can be pushed around in the same amount of

time.

This means that a graphics-oriented program, compiled in 64-bit code, will

run faster.

A math-oriented program, will not run faster, but will have a higher degree

of precision without additional coding.

A user-interface oriented program (Word), will not run any faster since it

still processes the same set of instructions in the same amount of clock

cycles.

(Unless you do lots of cut and paste.)

 

If graphics are the only real gain, then more memory is warranted so that

you can load more at one time. But, then comes the speed bump. Can the

application assign and access more memory. Usually not. It is usually

limited to a 2 GB window. (There are exceptions!)

 

End result... it's pretty much a wash until programming catches up with the

technology available. But, using x64 pushes them to get better at it.

 

 

"E Pericoloso Sporgersi" <EPericolosoSporgersi@discussions.microsoft.com>

wrote in message news:3DFA983C-C688-4F78-8012-33EFBECF4935@microsoft.com...

> > Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory.

> > ...

> > So not as much of a memory gain as you might think.

>

> Ouch, I didn't think of the 64 bit overhead. Thanks for pointing that out.

>

> So scratch a memory gain justifying the hassle of reinstalling OS,

updates,

> applications, tweaks and all (40-50 hours concentrated work).

>

> Could there be some other advantage making it worthwhile to install 64bit

> Vista on a portable?

> More speed?

> More stability?

>

> Or is it all just a dilettante's wishful thinking?

> --

> E Pericoloso Sporgersi

> "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]

> XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my

> desktop!

>

> "Gary Mount" wrote:

>

> > Keep in mind that running a 64 bit OS also uses more memory. Some of the

> > extra memory you may get to use with 64 bit is also lost to the larger

64

> > bit values that are now used instead of using 32 bit values. So not as

much

> > of a memory gain as you might think.

> >

> >

> > "E Pericoloso Sporgersi"

<EPericolosoSporgersi@discussions.microsoft.com>

> > wrote in message

news:DAD640E8-A86C-4120-96F9-6FDCC9AB51B9@microsoft.com...

> > > and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?

> > >

> > > My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.

> > > ...

> > > The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...

> > >

>

[Guest Sov]

RE: How to achieve actual use of my full 4 GB RAM,

 

I agree with Mark.

 

I just went through this upgrade and it was painful. I am still having

problem with 1394, but here is what I did and it is not the right way.

 

1. The install would BSOD so I had to remove 2 gigs of RAM before installing.

2. After installed Vista 64, ran the patch to fix the BSOD problem.

3. I put the 2 Gigs back in---everything works EXCEPT...

 

4. My product key was only for upgrade so I could NOT activate Vista.

5. I spent quite a bit of time with MS to fix this problem.

 

Now it works, except for 1394.

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

--Sov

 

"E Pericoloso Sporgersi" wrote:

> and not be hornswoggled by Vista SP1 (32bit)?

>

> My Vista Home Premium 32bit reports just 3 GB RAM while I have 4.

> Microsoft claims that Vista SP1 (32bit) will report the full amount of RAM

> present, 4 GB in my case.

> But if I understand correctly, Vista SP1 will actually keep on using only 3

> GB RAM minus the graphic card's memory.

>

> This means that Vista Home Premium SP1 (32bit) on my portable will still use

> only 2.5 GB RAM, because the graphic card has its own dedicated 512 MB.

> That's 1.5 GB RAM just sitting there idle.

>

> The solution would be to install Vista 64bit. But ...

>

> 1. Can my x86 CPU handle that?

> (Packard Bell Easynote

> http://support.packardbell.com/global/item...p;pn=pb93q034a7 with an Intel

> Core 2 Duo T7700 @ 2.40GHz)

>

> 2. I have to be able to run two old DOS applications (NOT games), but Vista

> 64bit does not have NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) and therefore doesn't run

> DOS software.

> OTOH DOSBox 0.72 does work in Vista 32bit and claims to work in Vista 64bit

> too. This might allow me to run my 2 DOS applications in Vista 64bit.

> Does anybody have experience with this setup: Vista 64bit + DOSBox + DOS

> application software?

>

> 3. I might have another option. Is it possible to dual boot Vista 32bit and

> Vista 64bit? If installed on their own separate hard disks (I have 2), I'm

> almost sure it is possible, but I would like confirmation.

>

> Before installing (or trying to install) Vista 64bit, I would first like to

> make sure it would not be a big waste of time (and money).

>

> Thanks for any thoughts.

> --

> E Pericoloso Sporgersi

> "It is dangerous to lean out!" [of Windows]

> XP or Vista? A polyglot''s solution: Vista for my portable and XP for my

> desktop!

>