The advanced performance would make a difference if the harddrive wasn't
already operating at optimum rates with the 32bit OS. For small amounts of
data you couldn't detect the difference in transfer speeds anyway. Reading
from a larger cache might be nanoseconds faster but refilling the cache will
always take the same amount of time so there's one bottleneck. Writing to
the drive wouldn't be any faster and reading large amounts of data (say when
moving megabytes or gigabytes) wouldn't be faster either. Data transfer
rates from the internet or lan wouldn't be increased, nor would reading data
from CD/DVD or flash RAM devices (USB drives, camera memory cards).
As far as memory usage Windows will use whatever amount it needs for the
tasks that are running.There's no point filling up the remaining RAM with
unusable data. Actually that second link in my other message exactly
addresses the lack of speed difference between 32bit and 64bit Vista on the
same machine, based on other users' experience, so I'll just tack it in here
Speed differences between 32-bit and 64-bit Vista?
"Xgun" <Xgun.firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> ::responding to ::There are potential bottlenecks in the system hardware
> that wouldn't be affected by the OS, like drive data transfer rates
> I could go along with this POTENTIAL bottleneck, but vista has an
> enable advance performance for the hard drive which I would guess would
> be a larger cache, reducing a bottleneck there. There is 2gig ram in
> this laptop and according to ms gauges it has never taken over 60% of it
> to use, except for a few spikes to near 70%. At time's I have had many
> things running. I would say thats a good size chunk setting idly.
> Maybe there's a tweak to make it eat more RAM? and maybe run the way you
> think it should...64bit I would at least expect around at least a 25%
> improvement over a 32bit OS on the same processor; don't see that here.