My pc configuration is
Motherboard:ga-945pl-s3
Processor :INTEL PENTIUM D 945/3.40Ghz/2x2MB
Ram :1 GB
If i wasnt to install Windows Vista 64 Bit edition,is my pc configuration good enough to work properly?

Graphics card GeForce GS 7600

Go to Microsoft Vista page and download the "Vista Ready" tool....

Well Windows 64bit runs at best preformance with 4gb of ram or more.

I'd say you at least need 2gb of ram with Vista in generel let alone with Vista X64.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Cobra_R:

What you're saying implies that it takes more to run 64-bit Vista than 32-bit Vista. That is not the case.

If anything, 64-bit Vista would be more efficient than 32-bit Vista with less RAM.

While I agree that it's questionable to go to 64-bit with that little RAM, the reason is one of the main benefits of 64-bit is it supports a larger amount of memory, but all the benefits of 64-bit come with the price of heavily reduced compatibility in both hardware and software, and sometimes reduced performance due to immature drivers currently available.

In fact, drivers pose a major issue for Vista 64-bit, as all drivers are required to be digitally signed, which some vendors and independent programmers aren't bothering to write because they refuse to purchase a certificate just to do this.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

Even Senior Editor Loyd Chase over at extreme tech reccommends 4gb or more of ram on Vista 64bit for optimal preformance.

But here i'll let you decide for yourself.

http://zdpub.vo.llnwd.net/o2/ziffda...

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

I'm setting up 64-bit and a 32-bit versions of Windows Vista virtualized. Both will run with 1GB of RAM allocated. I'll run through some apps with both and post back.

Not sure why prior posts were removed, Microsoft does not have a higher minimum system requirement for 64-bit compared to 32-bit Windows.
TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

Here is another article if you want to check out that states you should run Vista 32bit with 2gb of ram for optimal preformance.

http://channel.tomshardware.com/200...

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

We're agreeing that Vista runs better with 2GB of RAM. That was never in dispute. I'm disagreeing with you that 64-bit needs more than 32-bit.

As I've stated several times, the performance issues with him running 64-bit Vista on 1GB of RAM are the exact same for 32-bit.

I tried to watch the video, but I'm not gonna waste 40 minutes to hear what they say about 64-bit Vista and how much RAM you should run.

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

All you have to do is click on the sub window where it shows loyd Chase and watch the 3 minute clip.

Well there is counter-statments regarding Vista 64 running with 1gb of ram vs Vista 32 and that all ties into the 32bit address mapping in Vista 64 like what Loyd Case stated in the video into why you should run Vista 64 with 4gb of ram for optimal settings as opposed to Vista 32bit with 2gb of ram for optimal settings.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Yet another article...

http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/...

"To reap the benefits of a 64-bit operating system such as Windows Vista x64 Edition, you should invest in a large amount of RAM (4 GB or more) and a compatible motherboard."

Doesn't that sound very similar to this?

"While I agree that it's questionable to go to 64-bit with that little RAM, the reason is one of the main benefits of 64-bit is it supports a larger amount of memory, but all the benefits of 64-bit come with the price of heavily reduced compatibility in both hardware and software, and sometimes reduced performance due to immature drivers currently available."

And notice, the article doesn't say you NEED more RAM for 64-bit, it's simply saying you aren't going to gain much in performance over 32-bit unless you do.

By contrast, you stated this:

"Well Windows 64bit runs at best preformance with 4gb of ram or more.

I'd say you at least need 2gb of ram with Vista in generel let alone with Vista X64."

That implies 32-bit needs 2GB's, and x64 NEEDS more. It doesn't.

There's a big difference.

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

"To reap the benefits of a 64-bit operating system such as Windows Vista x64 Edition, you should invest in a large amount of RAM (4 GB or more) and a compatible motherboard."

Hense as what I have been saying the whole time in terms of optimal preformance.

My whole basis was around optimal preformance and not that you "need" that much in generel. Like I said due to the address mapping there is a reason why 32bit and 64bit both have diff optimal prefrences. What i'm saying is exactly what Loyd Case is saying with 4gb or more with Vista 64 in terms of optimal preformance.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

So for the record you didn't mean this?

"I'd say you at least need 2gb of ram with Vista in generel let alone with Vista X64."

And again, I want to point something out.

"Well there is counter-statments regarding Vista 64 running with 1gb of ram vs Vista 32 and that all ties into the 32bit address mapping in Vista 64 like what Loyd Case stated in the video into why you should run Vista 64 with 4gb of ram for optimal settings as opposed to Vista 32bit with 2gb of ram for optimal settings."

There are no counter-statements. I never said 64-bit would not run better with 4GB of RAM; in fact, I said the ability to run 4GB + of RAM is one of the main reasons to go to 64-bit. I said you don't need it anymore than you need 3GB of RAM for 32-bit.

I understand NOW that you used the term "need" loosely, but that's not my fault. The reality is that you don't NEED more RAM for 64-bit Vista than you do 32-bit. You CAN utilize more RAM in 64-bit than 32-bit, which I never questioned. There's a big difference between what you can take advantage of and what you need. When you use the word "need", I interpretted it as the word "need", as I should have.

The reason this disagreement is important is if someone may for example want to run 64-bit Vista for other reasons, such as security or for application development work. If they only have 2GB of RAM, they shouldn't feel that they can't run 64-bit Vista well. That's absolutely not the case. Even if they only have 1GB of RAM, the performance of 64-bit will be no different than 32-bit unless it's because of immature hardware drivers, which again has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of RAM.

In other words, if they would be happy with Vista 32-bit with 1GB of RAM, they'll be happy with Vista 64-bit with 1GB of RAM, or if they were unhappy, it wouldn't be because of lack of RAM.

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

The "need" in Vista 32bit was refering to the statement above in conjunction with Vista 64 best settings statement. Loosely to you accurate within conjunction to me.

Well considering I never said you "can't" run windows Vista it would have been kind of hard to read it that way.

I didn't say they can't run Vista good I said for best preformance purposes.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Answer this question:

Will 64-bit Vista run worse than 32-bit Vista with 1 or 2GB's of RAM BECAUSE of a lack of RAM?

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

No, it just wouldn't run at optimal performance with anything less then 4 GB of ram. In which my thesis was based upon in the first place.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

I have had the opportunity to run the 32-bit & 64-bit versions extensively with 768MB of RAM & the experience have been fluid AFAICT.

You're messing with the wrong guy

"No, it just wouldn't run at optimal performance with anything less then 4 GB of ram. In which my thesis was based upon in the first place."

Then you certainly weren't clear about that, and I'm not sure why you argued with me in the first place. LOL...

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

"Well Windows 64bit runs at best preformance with 4gb of ram or more."

Sounds pretty clear to me in reference to best preformance.

LOL, That's because you're the one that started this debate.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Dumbasses. There has never been worthwhile comments about Vista 64bit PERFORMANCE in regards to its memory usage.

The oft quoted comment is "To reap the BENEFIT of 64bit Vista, you need more than 4GB of memory". Which ties in to this other oft quoted comment: "The benefit of 64bit CPU\OS, is that it can manage more memory than 32bit CPU\OS".

It's just referring to the fact that 64bit being CAPABLE of managing more memory than 32bit due to its addressing. NOT FASTER.
As to the PERFORMANCE between 64 vs 32 bit, w/ the current state of things (majority 32 bit apps, drivers, etc), there shouldn't be any critical difference.