Why does Dell put a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit machine?

[Perryg114]

I have bought a couple refurbished Dell laptops lately and for some reason they have 32 win 7 Pro. Is there a cost advantage to doing this? It hobbles the machine to some extent. I have noticed that the CPU mark test is lower than it should be by about 15% when running 32bit. I have not noticed any speed differences. In fact the 32 bit machines seem to run faster than the 64 bit ones from the standpoint of surfing the net which is getting to be the highest stress thing you can do with all the scripts running in the background. Even a fast machine is bogged down by these crappy web pages.

Perry

 

[Elixer]

There isn't a price difference IIRC, more of a software thing for older machines, since lots of drivers were only 32bit for the hardware they stuck in it.
Also, because of the RAM limit for 32bit OS, they could get away with only having 2GB on board.

 

[mikeymikec]

What's the max supported RAM of the laptops? If I had the choice and the laptop only supports 4GB RAM or less, I'd go 32-bit.

 

[Perryg114]

RAM capacity is more than 4G. I expect they might be doing it so they only have to have one license since the 32 bit OS will run on anything. Might make drive imaging easier. Just about everything made in the last 10yrs though will run 64bit.


Perry

 

[mikeymikec]

Windows licences work on 32 or 64-bit versions just fine (don't know about XP though). A licence isn't tied to one architecture or the other.

In the early days of Win7 it was more common to see 32-bit versions. I'm guessing those laptops aren't from that era though with 8GB RAM support. Maybe just lazy driver developers?

 

[Perryg114]

This current laptop is a Precision M4700.

Perry

 

[mikeymikec]

Lazy refurbers? They probably only have a 32-bit Win7 disc

 

[whm1974]

What's the max supported RAM of the laptops? If I had the choice and the laptop only supports 4GB RAM or less, I'd go 32-bit.

Actually if you have 4 GB of memory, you will be wasting half of it by using 32-bit Windows.

 

[Perryg114]

According to MS 4G is all that 32 bit will use. On XP I think it was 2G MAX for 32 bit.

Perry

 

[mikeymikec]

Actually if you have 4 GB of memory, you will be wasting half of it by using 32-bit Windows.

3.x is not half of 4. And if you use up all your RAM, your computer runs slowly. 32-bit Windows uses less RAM than the 64-bit version, so therefore more system resources are at your disposal.

 

[whm1974]

3.x is not half of 4. And if you use up all your RAM, your computer runs slowly. 32-bit Windows uses less RAM than the 64-bit version, so therefore more system resources are at your disposal.

With memory as cheap as it is, why would you use less then 8 GB of it?

 

[mikeymikec]

With memory as cheap as it is, why would you use less then 8 GB of it?

I'm confused. You originally responded to a post of mine where I recommended what to do with a system that supports a maximum of 4GB RAM.

 

[Ketchup]

Hmm, a refurbished machine that has 4 GB of RAM with an OS that they can no longer get from MS. Since it is "refurbished" for a new sale, they probably need a new license, so what better way to get rid of unused OS licenses that to slap them on the refurbished models!

 

[whm1974]

I'm confused. You originally responded to a post of mine where I recommended what to do with a system that supports a maximum of 4GB RAM.

Sorry I've been posting to several forums recently quite a bit lately. I need to reread my posts.

 

[lxskllr]

With memory as cheap as it is, why would you use less then 8 GB of it?

Some people don't need loads of ram. A machine that comes with 4g may be perfectly satisfactory, or at least not worth tnrowing tens of dollars into, but the user still wants to maximize what they have.

 

[whm1974]

Hmm, a refurbished machine that has 4 GB of RAM with an OS that they can no longer get from MS. Since it is "refurbished" for a new sale, they probably need a new license, so what better way to get rid of unused OS licenses that to slap them on the refurbished models!

In which case I would prefer they sell them sans OS and let install the OS of my choice.

 

[Ketchup]

In which case I would prefer they sell them sans OS and let install the OS of my choice.

Yeah. what percentage of their audience is going to buy a system like that?

 

[whm1974]

Some people don't need loads of ram. A machine that comes with 4g may be perfectly satisfactory, or at least not worth tnrowing tens of dollars into, but the user still wants to maximize what they have.

In which case a suitable Linux distro will be a better choice.

 

[lxskllr]

In which case a suitable Linux distro will be a better choice.

Maybe. That's what I use, but a lot of people would consider a windowsless computer a doorstop.

 

[tcsenter]

If it's a refurb, Dell probably didn't do it, the refurbisher chose it. The "authorized" refurbishers have to use a new copy of Windows for refurbished PCs.

 

[pcgeek11]

Bill said: "640K ought to be enough for anybody."

 

[whm1974]

Bill said: "640K ought to be enough for anybody."

That was a rather shortsighted thing to say, even back in 1981.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yes it was. That is why he denies it now.

 

[whm1974]

Yes it was. That is why he denies it now.

The guy who invented CP/M said said the same thing Bill Gate did about the 8086 CPU after Intel released it. He also offer CP/M to Intel after he wrote it, but Intel refused.

I wonder how many other poor-sighted decisions were made due to thinking "nobody will ever need that" when designing hardware, operating systems, and platforms?

 

[pcgeek11]

The guy who invented CP/M said said the same thing Bill Gate did about the 8086 CPU after Intel released it. He also offer CP/M to Intel after he wrote it, but Intel refused.

I wonder how many other poor-sighted decisions were made due to thinking "nobody will ever need that" when designing hardware, operating systems, and platforms?

Lots I am sure. And they are probably still kicking themselves in some cases.