32 to 64 bit windows

Printable View

12-24-2008, 08:30 PM
ShitFace

32 to 64 bit windows

So I have 32 bit at the moment and I'm going to upgrade to 64 bit soon so I can get more than 2gb ram.
I was just looking for your guys opinions on how much effort it is.
I have lots of games installed at the moment and several programs I would like to keep.
My housemate tells me it would be reletively easy and I would just have to copy over the profile I have for windows at the moment, but I'm not sure.

What would I have to reinstall, would I lose my save games for the games I have installed, and what other shit would I need to do?

Thanks.
12-25-2008, 01:12 AM
MrTroy

32/64 bit Vista? Or XP? (to and from)

Well, you would need to format your hard drive, so you would need to reinstall literally everything. And it is so you can have more than 4GB of RAM (the max the 32bit Windows OS will recognize, actually 3 point something, but I am too lazy to look up the exact number). You would lose your save games unless you are able to copy the physical save game file from the game. You would need to look online for each game to see if it is possible to manually make a backup of a save game. With some games it is possible, with some it is not.

Be aware that in 64bit all drivers must be WHQL digitally signed to be able to install them, aka, the driver must have been submitted to Microsoft and Microsoft have signed off on it. So if you have 3rd party hardware, check the manufacturers website to see if they have a 64bit driver for it!!! Printers, scanners, cameras, everything.

Make sure you backup all of your data, and make sure you have the install disc or executable and all required license keys for all software that you want to put on the machine afterwords. Also be aware that some programs will not run in 64bit. I have had programs literally pop-up a box after the OS detection part of the install and tell me that their company does not support 64bit Windows, and I can not install. Some older programs that still have 16bit code in them will not run either.

Other than that, it is not too much different than a regular Windows install. Just be prepared for potential pains in the ass until the rest of the world catches up to 64bit OS'.
12-25-2008, 08:11 PM
ShitFace

lol vista.
See, I know for a fact that I wouldn't have to format my computer to do this, since my housemate has done this recently and he didn't format it.
Anyone else who knows what they're talking about got an opinion on this?
12-26-2008, 01:18 AM
coldfyre

I highly recommend formatting simply because you're going to want to install the 64-bit version of everything anyways.
12-26-2008, 07:02 AM
ShitFace

Yeah I thought that, but I really can't be fucked...
The main reason I want it is so that the extra ram can be added and works.
Not too fussed about 64 bit version of programs, as long as the memory works.

edit: I think I came off a little rude on my second post in this thread, and I feel I should apologise. Sorry, I was wasted :P
12-26-2008, 11:12 PM
MrTroy

I know for a FACT that the limit for 32 bit Windows XP is 4 Gigs of ram, it recognizes a little bit less. The 64bit version of XP (And Vista) has a limit of 128GB of ram, but that's irrelevant, since you are never going to find a end user PC motherboard that supports that amount. 64bit XP is a bit more fussy than 64bit Vista in general, and there is less support on 64bit XP than there is 64bit Vista.

Now if this is a laptop, that particular model's physical RAM limit may have already been met.

And no, you can NOT run an "upgrade install" of XP 64 bit over XP 32 bit, you must do a CLEAN install (format and install), according to various MICROSOFT sources:

Quote:

Q. Can I upgrade from 32-bit Windows XP Professional to Windows XP Professional x64 Edition?
A. No, you can't upgrade. You can use the Technology Advancement Program until the end of July, 2005, to exchange your copy of Windows XP Professional for the x64 Edition of Windows XP Professional, but doing so replaces your existing license with the new license. The actual installation of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is a fresh install, not an upgrade. All your programs will have to be reinstalled, and if you have data on the same drive as your operating system, it will be wiped out. Make a thorough backup of your important files before doing the installation.

Source: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...el_x64faq.mspx

Quote:

The Ferrari 4000 ships with a 100 gigabyte hard drive, partitioned and formatted into two equal logical drives of around 45 gigabytes each and a small hidden "factory restore" partition. The factory installed applications were all on Drive C and I installed additional applications on Drive C as well. Drive D was still empty. Two options were available to me to install Windows XP Pro x64:

1. I could format Drive C and clean install x64.

2. I could set up a dual boot and have both 32 bit and 64 bit Windows XP on the same machine on different partitions.

A dual boot option seemed like the safest option, given the lack of vendor supplied 64 bit drivers at that time. I also was not certain if all my 32-bit applications would run on 64 bit windows. I knew that with a dual boot system, I'd be able to use the pre-installed 32-bit Windows XP Pro operating system if I failed to find needed drivers or had application issues.

Source: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...n_05nov07.mspx

Quote:

Installing a 64-bit version of Windows Vista on a computer that is running a 32-bit version of Windows XP or of Windows 2000
Most Windows XP and Windows 2000 users have the 32-bit version of these operating systems. For example, Windows 2000, Windows XP Home, Windows Tablet Edition and Windows Media Center Edition only come in 32-bit versions. For these operating systems, there is no upgrade installation path available when you upgrade from a 32-bit operating system to a 64-bit operating system. However, you can perform a custom installation...

Source: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932795

Check your facts before you insult someone who does this for a living.
12-27-2008, 07:58 AM
ShitFace

Heh maybe I worded it wrong. I know you can't do a straight upgrade, you would have to do a fresh install.
I was just saying you don't have to format it thats all. I have lots of files I don't want to get rid of, and save games.

Also I know about the memory limits of 32 and 64 bit, but I don't really want to risk buying memory and then have it not show up because of the memory address allocation problems.

And FYI my housemate also does this for a job, and I study computing extensively. I have my facts right thanks.
12-27-2008, 11:41 AM
MrTroy

I don't wont to get into a little internet fight here, but there are only 2 types of Windows installs in the basic sense of the word. An UPGRADE install, where you are putting another version or instance of Windows over a previous one (Installing Vista over XP without formatting etc...), and a CLEAN (aka: FRESH) install, which means installing Windows on a partition that that is clean and has no previous data or Operating System on it, basically a formatted drive and/or partition.

A fresh install means removing the old Windows operating system via formatting the drive. Now if you have a separate OS partition and data partition than that is a different story, you can leave your data partition untouched and just overwrite the OS partition, maybe that is what he did. A fresh install means a clean formatted drive or partition. If you do a fresh install of ANY operating system, you will need to reinstall all programs. Only in an "UPGRADE" install will programs remain installed. A fresh install by it's very definition will require re-installing of any programs. Even if you back up all your data and save game files, the programs themselves will need to be re-installed.

Quote:

There are five methods for installing Windows XP. Review the following methods and select the method that is appropriate for your installation.

Method 1: Perform a clean install of Windows XP
Use this method for a clean installation of Windows XP. A clean installation removes all data from your hard disk by repartitioning and reformatting your hard disk and reinstalling the operating system and programs to an empty (clean) hard disk.

Method 2: Upgrade to Windows XP
Use this method if you are upgrading to Windows XP from Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition, or Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional.

Method 3: Install Windows XP to a new hard disk
Use this method to install Windows XP to a new hard disk. This is typically done when a new hard disk is installed on your computer.

Method 4: Install Windows XP to a new folder (parallel installation)
Use this method to install Windows XP to a new folder (parallel installation) to either run two operating systems, or to access, repair, or retrieve data from a damaged disk.

Method 5: Perform a multiple boot operation
Use this method to install Windows XP as a separate operating system on your computer. This lets you install more than one operating system on your computer and select which operating system that you want to use every time that you start your computer.

Source: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316941

IN CONCLUSION:

1. A CLEAN (FRESH) install is formatting drive and loading desired OS.
2. A UPGRADE install is installing Windows over a previous version without formatting or losing data. (Win 2000 to XP, or XP to Vista etc).
3. According to Microsoft, a UPGRADE install is not possible from XP 32bit to XP 64bit, a CLEAN install is required.
4. See item 1 for definition of a CLEAN INSTALL.
12-27-2008, 01:20 PM
hedgerow

Shitface, how much ram are you thinking of upgrading to? Because if you're only going up to 4gb, the additional memory support that 64bit offers is pretty much negated by the increased ram use. I'm fairly sure that 32 will acknowledge 3.6GB, whereas 64 will see the full 4GB, but will use an additional 500mb at startup. Skipping the upgrade obviously isn't an ideal solution, but if you're only going to be using 4gb, upgrading your OS to compensate may actually decrease the amount of available ram.

If you're upgrading to anything more than 4gb this obviously becomes a moot point.
12-27-2008, 02:11 PM
ShitFace

Heh mrtroy, I don't want to get an internet fight either. The only reason I sounded hostile was because I was wasted when I posted, so y'know, I was thinking a bit more...aggressively.
You are right about the 2 different types of install I know this, but I was just thinking I'd be able to reinstall windows and keep the data by moving the profile over. Like I said my friend has done this recently with no problems. I know I'd have to reinstall the programs for them to take advantage of 64 bit, but thats not why I'd be upgrading. I'm purely doing it for more memory.

Also, lol talk about dragging out a simple discussion of a few minor points.
Sorry if I caused a problem.

hydro, really??? 64 bit takes 500mb more memory than 32???? I was planning to upgrade from the 2gb I have now, to 4gb. I was considering 8gb, but I would have to buy 4 2gb sticks instead of just another 2 1gb sticks like I have now. Depends how much memory is now really.
This is pretty funny though, cos it would mean my housemate wasted his money since he upgraded for the same reason.
12-27-2008, 03:11 PM
hedgerow

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShitFace

hydro, really??? 64 bit takes 500mb more memory than 32????

It has on both occasions when I've witnessed an upgrade. I've read similar reports online, too. Although it may not always be the case.
12-27-2008, 03:46 PM
Mach 5

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShitFace

And FYI my housemate also does this for a job, and I study computing extensively. I have my facts right thanks.

If this is so, then why are you even bothering to ask us on here Mr. Smartass?
12-27-2008, 04:56 PM
ShitFace

Maybe if you read the thread I was asking how much effort is it actually to do, not how to do it.
12-27-2008, 05:27 PM
lolturnip

I'm not even going to pretend I read the thread fully but:

Quote:

Originally Posted by hydro

It has on both occasions when I've witnessed an upgrade. I've read similar reports online, too. Although it may not always be the case.

Was that from XP to Vista cus Vista handles memory differently (it caches [programs?] memory or something similar so programs load quicker.)

64bit is beneficial but I've had loads of driver problems on "supported" 64bit hardware on xp and vista, however this may have been to bad installs.

Effort wise? You will have to re-install the OS, then transfer any data you want to the new install. I cannot comment about the game profiles, sorry.
12-27-2008, 05:46 PM
hedgerow

Quote:

Originally Posted by lolturnip

Was that from XP to Vista cus Vista handles memory differently (it caches [programs?] memory or something similar so programs load quicker.)

Vista 32 to Vista 64. Although, now you mention it, the memory difference between XP and Vista is even more unbelievable. Even with superfetch turned off.
12-27-2008, 05:53 PM
lolturnip

Quote:

Originally Posted by hydro

Vista 32 to Vista 64. Although, now you mention it, the memory difference between XP and Vista is even more unbelievable. Even with superfetch turned off.

Hah. My standard 32bit Vista is using 882mb / 2gb ram with just pidgin and firefox open.

(I'm not saying this is a bad thing [I am actually pretty pleased with vista sp1], but as drunk as I am, I cannot remember how [well?] vista handles memory!!)
12-30-2008, 10:35 AM
ephekt

Quote:

Originally Posted by hydro

Vista 32 to Vista 64. Although, now you mention it, the memory difference between XP and Vista is even more unbelievable. Even with superfetch turned off.

It's "unbelievable" that an OS actually uses the resources available to it, rather than allowing them to sit there useless?

What's unbelievable is that "computer guys" still evaluate an OS's efficacy this way in 2008. Unused RAM is utterly useless. It is not a mark of efficacy.
12-30-2008, 10:37 AM
hedgerow

Quote:

Originally Posted by ephekt

It's "unbelievable" that an OS actually uses the resources available to it, rather than allowing them to sit there useless?

What's unbelievable is that "computer guys" still evaluate an OS's efficacy this way in 2008. Unused RAM is utterly useless. It is not a mark of efficacy.

Cry more. I'm not complaining about it. I both use and prefer Vista. It's just a huge difference that does surprise a lot of people.
12-30-2008, 11:01 AM
ephekt

Quote:

Originally Posted by hydro

Cry more. I'm not complaining about it. I both use and prefer Vista.

I didn't saying anything about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hydro

It's just a huge difference that does surprise a lot of people.

Yes, because a lot of people apparently don't understand what RAM is for.
12-30-2008, 12:13 PM
hedgerow

Quote:

Originally Posted by ephekt

I didn't saying anything about this.

Yes, because a lot of people apparently don't understand what RAM is for.

On the subject of things we didn't say I didn't say there was anything wrong with the way Vista manages resources. So please stop assuming I did so we can get this thread back on track.
12-30-2008, 12:41 PM
ephekt

You said "the memory difference between XP and Vista is even more unbelievable. Even with superfetch turned off" (which implies that it's less than OK, but whatever).

All I did was ask why it was "unbelievable" and point out that unused RAM is useless.

</derail>
12-30-2008, 01:16 PM
ShitFace

By unbelievable he meant that the different between xp and vista is a large one, memory wise.
He wasn't complaining or anything like that, simply saying the difference is significant.

Also just because the OS isn't using it doesn't make it unused ram. The less the OS uses, the more there is for other programs to use.
12-30-2008, 03:33 PM
ephekt

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShitFace

By unbelievable he meant that the different between xp and vista is a large one, memory wise. He wasn't complaining or anything like that, simply saying the difference is significant.

Fair enough. Perhaps I read that wrong. My argument wasn't really with him but with the people who see smart (compared to previous MS OSes) memory usage and see it as an inefficacy.

Quote:

Also just because the OS isn't using it doesn't make it unused ram. The less the OS uses, the more there is for other programs to use.

I don't think you really understand how memory allocation works. Programs will request RAM as they need it and the OS will release it - that hasn't been an issue for a long long time - the point is that the OS can and should be able to put unused RAM to use somehow, even if it's only caching frequently used programs. Programs do not get more RAM or get it any faster simply because it's sitting around unallocated (and yes, that means it's unused).
12-30-2008, 03:42 PM
wanabedriver

I don't think anyone mentioned it, but I heard getting drivers for XP 64 is a bitch. However, Vista 64 driver's aren't too bad compared to the Vista 32 drivers.

Just a minor thought since it seems OP wants to upgrade to XP 64...
12-30-2008, 03:56 PM
ephekt

I've not had a single driver issue with Vista 64. The only things I've come across that wouldn't work were the Cisco VPN client and a 15 yr old Novell app for mapping drives to an FTP.

XP 64 never really caught on so nobody wrote drivers for it.
12-30-2008, 05:05 PM
ShitFace

Quote:

Originally Posted by wanabedriver

I don't think anyone mentioned it, but I heard getting drivers for XP 64 is a bitch. However, Vista 64 driver's aren't too bad compared to the Vista 32 drivers.

Just a minor thought since it seems OP wants to upgrade to XP 64...

No, I want to upgrade to vista 64 from vista 32.

And yeah ephekt you're right.
I feel pretty stupid for not remembering that and thinking about that lol, I'm studying computing and have had a unit on computer architecture which covered memory allocation hah.
Damn.
12-30-2008, 05:08 PM
wanabedriver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShitFace

lol vista.

Reading comprehension fail. :(
12-30-2008, 05:45 PM
MrTroy

Yea, I took "lol vista" to mean, "lol, why the hell would I use vista?". My bad.
01-03-2009, 12:51 AM
hobitopia

Quick question to throw on top of this. Right now I've got windows 32 bit on my laptop. If I switch to 64 bit vista, how big of a difference is it going to make? Am I going to be able to notice it? Also, how many programs now-a-days are supporting 64 bit processors?
01-03-2009, 05:08 AM
wanabedriver

AFAIK, the biggest (or only) reason people upgrade from 32 to 64 is to use 4GB+ of ram.

I don't think many programs utilize any other parts of the 64 bit process.
01-03-2009, 11:16 AM
ShitFace

Yeah, that's correct as far as I can tell.
Some programs and games do, GTA4 is meant to, or so says it on the box.

But the main reason is to extend memory capacity.
01-03-2009, 02:36 PM
ephekt

Some apps are written for 64b, but they don't actually take advantage of anything but higher individual memory 'pools' (this is not the correct term but I'm lazy). 32b still has a hard 2GB per app limit, even with PAE.