For 1 GB of RAM old PC, any problem on running Windows 7 at 32 bit? Or should he take a chance on 64 bit?

Happy Hopping

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,837
so the sys. requirement on win 7 32 bit is 1GB of RAM, and for 64 bit is 2 GB. Any harm on a person running an old PC w/ 1 GB of RAM using 32 bit? Or should he take a chance and run Win 7 64 bit at 1 GB of RAM?

as someone wrote this:

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-64-bit-operating-system-be-installed-on-an-old-PC-with-1-GB-of-RAM

If the computer can handle 64bit (i.e. its processor works with 64bit instructions) then it can definitely be installed.

The amount of RAM is not directly related to 32bit or 64bit. Rather it might be that a 64bit OS is designed to make use of more RAM than a 32bit would. E.g. a 32bit would try to restrict itself from using too much, since it can only handle up to 4GB - thus allowing space for programs means it needs to refrain from taking too much for itself.

A 64bit OS can handle much more RAM. So the incentive of the programmers who wrote it is much less to restrict it from using more RAM for itself. Thus you find that many 64bit OSs may use a big portion (if not all) of that 1GB of RAM.

But this varies between OSs, and even depending on the exact variants and/or additives on that OS. E.g. installing something like the lightweight Lubuntu may work absolutely perfectly with 1GB of RAM, while installing the exact same version number Ubuntu would likely use up so much that you cannot run any more programs. But installing something like a headless Debian onto it would be screamingly fast.

I’d say that most (if not all) 64bit Windows versions would struggle in the extreme to work on that. I’ve even found that W10 hardly works on 2GB, let alone 1GB.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I would put 64-bit on there, mainly just because 64-bit has been mainstream for 15+ years now and you can't always count on being able to find 32-bit versions of programs any more. So if the goal is for this to be a functional computer, then 64-bit.

Another huge variable is going to be the hard drive. When you run out of RAM your system will lean heavily on virtual memory, aka the pagefile on your hard drive. If you have an SSD this works out a lot better than a mechanical hard drive. When you run out of RAM with the pagefile on the SSD, things tend to get very slow but still work to some extent. When you run out of RAM with the pagefile on a mechanical hard drive, the computer pretty much locks up and is not usable at all.
 
that's my plan, use a SSD for this friend of mine, I hope paging is not going to be too slow
 
I think GotNotRice is probably right about 64-bit being mainstream, but it's also true that 64-bit versions will uss more ram; not just because 64-bit systems often have more, but because when you're in 64-bit mode, your pointers are 64-bit instead of 32-bit and that adds up.
 
64 bit code runs a bit bigger because every pointer is twice the size.

However, that is mostly the application you are running. You can install the 64 bit OS and run applications' 32 bit versions if it helps.
 
I’m afraid to know what CPU you’re running with only 1GB of RAM.

I feel like you might as well run 64bit so you can at least have a better chance of application support on your EOL/unsupported operating system.

Better max out that SATA bandwidth because you’ll spend most of your time swapping.

Have you considered a lighter weight non-Windows OS?
 
Definitely 32 bit. But I would look at running XP if you had to use an older/unsecured OS just becuase the OS footprint would be significantly lower.
 
bigdogchris said:
Definitely 32 bit. But I would look at running XP if you had to use an older/unsecured OS just becuase the OS footprint would be significantly lower.
Click to expand...

Modern browsers don't even support XP anymore. Assuming that the OP is still following this thread, maybe the best thing would be for him to tell us what his friend is actually going to use this PC for.
 
Vista minimum RAM recommendation was 1GB...... remember how dog slow and painful that was til you added another 1GB?
I would see if you can get another 1GB, even for Win7.
 
The Mad Atheist said:
Vista minimum RAM recommendation was 1GB...... remember how dog slow and painful that was til you added another 1GB?
I would see if you can get another 1GB, even for Win7.
Click to expand...

Vista was also released during an era where the fastest hard drives were still mechanical (10k RPM Raptor drives, 15k RPM SCSI drives, etc). It wasn't until a couple of years later that the first consumer SSDs really started to appear on the market. As mentioned before, hard drive performance makes a huge difference when you have a system that is relying heavily on the page file.
 
The lowest end system I ever ran Windows 7 on was an old Intel Atom N280 NetBook with 2GB of RAM, and it was pretty dreadful.

I spent a TON of time micro optimizing the damn thing to squeeze every last bit of memory out of it, and it would still easily run into swap with a browser and a few tabs open. I’m sure the experience would be a bit better with an SSD now, but the limited RAM will still kill you.
 
GotNoRice said:
Vista was also released during an era where the fastest hard drives were still mechanical (10k RPM Raptor drives, 15k RPM SCSI drives, etc). It wasn't until a couple of years later that the first consumer SSDs really started to appear on the market. As mentioned before, hard drive performance makes a huge difference when you have a system that is relying heavily on the page file.
Click to expand...
Ya, I remember Ready Boost, I think I used a 4GB drive for it on my desktop that I built with 4GB RAM, then upped it to 8. Not sure if I even saw a performance difference with it. I think I also limited the page file too back then.
I still can't believe MS thought 1GB was a good idea even because of the sky high RAM prices around that time.

I never used Win7 below 4GB and 8 was the max I had it.
 
I'm late to the party, but one aspect of 64-bit Windows is that it runs both 32-bit and 64-bit software, and each requires its own set of DLLs to load into memory. So typically your RAM use will be higher.
Happy Hopping said:
Any harm on a person running an old PC w/ 1 GB of RAM using 32 bit?
Click to expand...
GotNoRice said:
Modern browsers don't even support XP anymore.
Click to expand...
Connecting a Windows 7 PC to the Internet is a bad idea.

If the person just needs a browser, see if the 32-bit version of Windows 10 or some Linux distro work for them.
 
Stugots said:
The lowest end system I ever ran Windows 7 on was an old Intel Atom N280 NetBook with 2GB of RAM, and it was pretty dreadful.

I spent a TON of time micro optimizing the damn thing to squeeze every last bit of memory out of it, and it would still easily run into swap with a browser and a few tabs open. I’m sure the experience would be a bit better with an SSD now, but the limited RAM will still kill you.
Click to expand...
I would chalk that mostly up to the CPU IMO.
I had a 1.7ghz turion 64 x2 tl-53 in my 1st laptop with 1GB that was painful til I added another 1GB which ran smooth after. Had a nvidia 6100 or 6150 Go sharing 100 or 200MB of the DDR2. Played CNC Renegade nice. This even with a 5200rpm spinner.
 
1GB is doable on 32bit win7, 64bit would be painful, if it ran. You'd have to disable as many desktop effects as possible and you usually wouldn't want more than one program running at a time, especially alongside a web browser or office suite.

2GB would be better, much better, if you can swing it.
 
Nobu said:
1GB is doable on 32bit win7, 64bit would be painful, if it ran. You'd have to disable as many desktop effects as possible and you usually wouldn't want more than one program running at a time, especially alongside a web browser or office suite.

2GB would be better, much better, if you can swing it.
Click to expand...
GoldenTiger said:
Buy him this for $80...

https://hardforum.com/threads/80-la...-book-11-6-laptop-computer-dark-grey.2019112/

You'll save on the headache alone and he won't be hacked instantly into a zombie on a botnet.
Click to expand...
Hard time to not swing that...
 
I have Windows 7 64-bit on computers with 8GB RAM. They run well with CPUs with 4 cores. However, Windows 7 32-bit is a challenge with old single core CPUs with 2GB RAM. They are slow and only tolerable if I limit them to one program at a time.

I expect a computer with only 1GB RAM will be slow even if the CPU is much better than the ones I have below. The two computers shown below use 700-800MB RAM when idle. If I only had 1GB RAM then running a browser could push the usage over 1GB causing the computer to really slow down.

My oldest computers with Windows 7:

Type: desktop (2002)
CPU: Athlon XP 2800+
RAM: 2GB DDR
Tech: SSE
O/S: Windows 7 Home
Browsers: Firefox 48.0.2, Internet Explorer 11.0, Chrome 33.0

Type: laptop (2004)
CPU: Athlon64 3400+
RAM: 2GB DDR
Tech: SSE, SSE2, AMD64
O/S: Windows 7 Home
Browsers: Firefox 100.0, Internet Explorer 11.0, Chrome 88.0, Edge 101.0

Windows 7 ran OK on both of them until a couple years ago. The reason is because Windows 7 updates started requiring SSE2. Windows 7 updates on the old desktop without SSE2 are failing now because the updates don't check for SSE2 support.

You can see the difference in what browsers are supported. The laptop supports much newer versions of web browsers.
 
Anecdotal data, but Win10 LTSB 2015 32-bit with some services tweaking runs far better and uses less memory then Windows 7 Starter on my Dell Latitude 2120 netbook that I use for browsing in bed/couch. This is a very weak 1.5GHz dual-core Atom N550 with 2GB of memory running on a whopping 16GB SSD, where I still have plenty of room for updates to install/etc. I have tried this same OS on single core Atom N270 netbook with 1GB of memory and an 80GB 7200rpm hard drive, where it still provided a usable experience.

Windows 7 Starter on these same systems even with tweaks to free up memory was borderline unusable......

I have also tried LTSB 2015 64-bit on a 3.4GHz Pentium D 950 (dual Pentium 4 LOL) system with 4GB of memory, a Radeon R5 240 video card, and a 128GB SSD where it provides a usable experience (friend uses this machine everyday still to surf the internet)!
 
Is it because it is maxed out at 4x256MB sticks? It might be doable with the SSD but I would manually set the pagefile to a set size of say 4MB and not let it auto configure size to save wear. Also as many have said just install a distro that is known to work well with 1GB and enjoy life.
 
I recently picked up one of these gems:

https://www.microcenter.com/product/646649/evolve-iii-maestro-e-book-116-laptop-computer-dark-grey

Windows 10 Pro is usable on this thing...sorta. There is surprisingly little extra software loaded on it, and it's using about 1/2 of total RAM just sitting there with no apps open.

I remember running Windows 7 on systems with Pentium D systems. I don't remember it being that bad as long as you could get enough RAM and disk speed on the system. Pretty sure I had systems with 4GB of RAM and SATA 2 connected drives that were pretty usable considering their age. I am very fond of the old NetBurst Pentium 4 days. :) I had some amazing overclocked CPU back then, some of the last good days of CPU overclocking IMO.
 
Last edited:
Stugots said:
I recently picked up one of these gems:

https://www.microcenter.com/product/646649/evolve-iii-maestro-e-book-116-laptop-computer-dark-grey

Windows 10 Pro is usable on this thing...sorta. There is surprisingly little extra software loaded on it, and it's using about 1/2 of total RAM just sitting there with no apps open.

I remember running Windows 7 on systems with Pentium D systems. I don't remember it being that bad as long as you could get enough RAM and disk speed on the system. Pretty sure I had systems with 4GB of RAM and SATA 2 connected drives that were pretty usable considering their age. I am very fond of the old NetBurst Pentium 4 days. :) I had some amazing overclocked CPU back then, some of the last good days of CPU overclocking IMO.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's the deal I linked to before. Solid pick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top