If I am using 32 bit Vista Ultimate, is that means 4 GB RAM is not better
than 2 GB?
No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. Two points.
1. All 32-bit versions of Windows, even though they have a 4GB address
space, can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM. That's because some of that
space is used by hardware and not available to the operating system
and applications. The amount you can use varies, depending on what
hardware you have installed, but is usually around 3.1GB. But I've
seen numbers as high as 3.7GB.
2. That means that 3.1 *may* be an improvement over 2GB. If 3.1GB is
better than 2GB, then 4GB is also better than 2GB (but not better than
3.1GB, or however much of the 4GB your computer can use).
Note that I say "*may* be an improvement." Despite what many people
think, more RAM is *not* always better. It's true only up to a point.
You get good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you from
using the page file, and that depends on what apps you run. Once you
stop using the page file, adding more RAM does almost nothing for you.
That's true, not only in Vista, but in all versions of Windows.
Most people running Windows Vista, unless they perform particularly
memory-hungry tasks like video or large photo-editing, will see little
or no improvement past 2GB.
Is 4 GB RAM only perform better in 64 bit than 32 bit Vista?
64-bit Windows will let you use the full 4GB--and more. Whether that
translates into better performance, again depends on what apps you
run. For most people, as I said above, that much RAM is overkill, and
simply a waste of money.