Windows 2003 32-bit or 64-bit on Quad Xeon 2 GB RAM

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jon-Alfred Smith
  • Start date Start date
J

Jon-Alfred Smith

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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
Back
Top