Vista ultimate 64-bit for gaming?

[knobbicus]

It turns out I can get Vista Ultimate 64 from my university for $89. Is there any reason not to do this for a gaming system? I'm running XP Pro 32 now, but am building a new box and would like to put Vista on it. The other Vista flavors I can get from the university are Ultimate x32 and Business x32. Is there any reason NOT to get Ultimate x64? I'm hoping to put 4gig RAM in the new box, so it would be nice to go with the x64 version..


Thanks,
knobbicus

[SpoonMaN-EQ]

*waits for the "NO!!!! it will melt yur system"*
i see no reason not to go vista x64 iv been running it for about 10 months now and its been awesome

[AMD_Gamer]

i use vista 64, on new hardware it works very well and for gaming

[Dan_D]

I've been using it almost since release for gaming and it works fine for everything I do. All my machines would be Vista if it weren't for a few applications that didn't work correctly with it.

[DeaconFrost]

Is there any reason NOT to get Ultimate x64?
Well, you'll miss out on all "Oh my, Vista sucks donkey balls" parties, but aside from that, no, unless you use some very specific software that isn't compatible. If you take a look around here, the vast majority of people who have gone to Vista x64, have stared there, satisfied.

[knobbicus]

Great. Thanks for the replies, everyone. Looks like it's going to be Vista Ultimate 64!

[XBarbarian]

yep. concur.

originally went Vista 32, not sure why. Finally, a few months ago I guess, went 64. not looking back. dont know why I didnt go 64 from the get go. everything runs well, I really think 64 is the only version to use, unless your hardware is no good.

[Mithent]

I was a little nervous to get a 64-bit OS, but everything works fine on it provided you have fairly new hardware and software.

[Volcanon]

Well as long as you have an 8800 or better or a 3850 or better, you'll probably not notice that huge of a performance impact in terms of framerate loss from the xp ---> vista switch.

What you WILL notice is the huge performance increase from additional memory. Vista's memory manager is quite smart and takes advantage of every meg you put in to cache things you often use. With 4 gigs and Vista I've noticed a healthy load speed increase and much less chugging when alt tabbing, loading, and quitting games.

If you're gonna go Vista, might as well go 64 bit.

[Danny Bui]

All my machines would be Vista if it weren't for a few applications that didn't work correctly with it.

What applications won't work with Vista 64bit?

[Dan_D]

What applications won't work with Vista 64bit?

Mostly it is work related software. Things for my day job that are internal that do not work with Vista.

[knobbicus]

hey Dan and Danny- I'm going to post my new system build specs in the General Hardware forum- I'd appreciate it if you both could have a look and comment. Been following the forums and Newegg pretty closely on this for the past few weeks, and have tried to incorporate comments that you both routinely make regarding choices for parts.

Thanks for the replies to the topic.

-knobbicus

[yossarian]

I converted to Vista from XP fulltime last summer. I had a lot of hardware that wasn't Vista compatible that I had to change out: printer, TV card, scanner, Joysticks (USB versions for the gameport versions...Vista dumps gameports). Software, especially anti-virus may need to be replaced. Be careful, some, like ZoneAlarm, list Vista compatibility but NOT Vista 64 compatibility. I've been using Vista 32, but I'm testing 64 on a new build. So far, most things are working. Some older games (I have a lot of old wargames) don't like Vista, and some won't work on 64 that do on 32. Some I play in MS Virtual PC 2007 (free download) that I installed XP Pro in. Works very well there without dual boot inconveniences.

[lodingi]

I've been running Vista 64 for almost one year. I haven't had a single hiccup. Make the change.

[Vorg]

I'm glad I went with vista 64. Not a problem for about 6 months

[l3ender]

Another positive vote for Vista x64.

[Ndel]

bump for vista x64

[Ur_Mom]

There is no reason not to. I use it on several gaming systems, and have never been happier. I am a big Vista supported, though, so I am a bit biased. :) I've never had a problem, and love it! All of my software is supported, I think I've had one or two that didn't work, but I was able to download a 64 bit alternative.

Go for it.

[griffinhart]

What applications won't work with Vista 64bit?

Mostly some specialty stuff that most people don't use anyway. That and old 16bit software that became irrelevant after windows 95 was released.

[euphy]

It turns out I can get Vista Ultimate 64 from my university for $89. Is there any reason not to do this for a gaming system? I'm running XP Pro 32 now, but am building a new box and would like to put Vista on it. The other Vista flavors I can get from the university are Ultimate x32 and Business x32. Is there any reason NOT to get Ultimate x64? I'm hoping to put 4gig RAM in the new box, so it would be nice to go with the x64 version..


Thanks,
knobbicus

Do not go to Vista 64 bit just yet. Drivers have to be signed or will not work. Get WinXP 64 if you can, it's alot more compatible with the software of today. Vista 64 was a huge headache for me.

[Kyle_Bennett]

Been on Vista 64 for about year now too, and since the SP1 patch, it has been a lot easier on my day to day. Feels a lot more like XP. But it still comes down to this. Unless you are worried about being able to get into a full 4GB+ of RAM, there is still not much reason to go to 64-bit on a desktop. If you are primarily gaming, I would suggest 32-bit.

[Xenomaniac]

Yah I've been wanting to make the switch from XP to Vista 64 since I last used Vista Ultimate on my last temporary computer. With my new computer, I can finally run it (look in signature). I want to know though, can I just buy the upgrade seeing that I have XP already or should I buy the full install? I would like to buy it but I want to find cheaper alternatives because $300 for an operating system just seems waaaaaaaaaaaaay to pricey.

[Sycraft]

No real reason not to use 64-bit Vista. The only problem you'll run in to over 32-bit Vista is 16-bit apps. 64-bit Windows (XP or Vista) can't run 16-bit code. So any old DOS or Windows 3.1 game will not run, and need to be run under an emulator (DOSBox, VMWare or VirtualPC work nicely). You also sometimes run in to a 32-bit game that happens to have an old 16-bit installer, Fallout Tactics would be an example. So while it can run, you can't install it, you have to install it in an emulator and then copy it over.

In terms of modern games, you aren't likely to have many problems. I'm sure you'll run in to one once and awhile but for the most part they are things that have Vista problems. Rarely does something run in 32-bit Vista, not in 64-bit.

Now this assumes that you have drivers for 64-bit Vista, so check on that first. Most major hardware does, even a lot of minor hardware, but check first because there's no using XP drivers in 64-bit Vista. Companies I know that do have drivers are:

Intel
nVidia
ATi
Creative Labs
Saitek
Logitech
Microsoft
Edirol (Roland)
Colorvision (Datacolor)

That is by no means a complete list of people who do, just companies that I have hardware from that I've gotten 64-bit Vista drivers for.

So long as there's 64-bit drivers for your hardware, you should be fine.

[TheRapture]

Been on Vista 64 for about year now too, and since the SP1 patch, it has been a lot easier on my day to day. Feels a lot more like XP. But it still comes down to this. Unless you are worried about being able to get into a full 4GB+ of RAM, there is still not much reason to go to 64-bit on a desktop. If you are primarily gaming, I would suggest 32-bit.


I have to agree with this. I installed 32 bit Vista as soon as I got it, and like it. A friend of mine just went 64 bit, and what with the somewhat debatable signed driver thingy and lack of drivers for his fairly new printer, he wishes he had gone 32 bit, and I tried to tell him to NOT run 64bit unless he had compelling reason. I did get his printer going with a workaround, but he only has 2gb of ram and it seems Vista64 wants more.

I will be going the 64bit route soon, but that won't happen until I do another install later this year. As in, when I get a new mobo and cpu :p

[surya]

My 2 cents. make sure that you purchase the version that has SP1 already in it....then you can vLite away without having to worry about slipstreaming service packs and all that :)

[capreppy]

The only software that I've found that does NOT work on Vista x64 is Cisco VPN clients. Apparently Cisco isn't making one.

I tried the Cisco AnyConnect (what was recommended by others) and it didn't work worth a crap.

But other than that, I LOVE Vista x64. Stable and I've not had any issues with it.

[sumofatguy]

I just installed vista x64 and it works fine. the only thing is I suffered a major framerate drop in team fortress 2. in xp, it was running everything on high, 8x MSAA and wouldn't drop below 60fps. now I turned it all down and to 4x AA and it goes down to about 20fps in some situations. I don't really know if its a driver issue or what... other than that, it seems alright :)

[xxEIEIOxx]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/
An interesting article that says there is no real benefit to 64 bit unless you go 8 GB of RAM. Feel free to make your own choice, but I have been more pleased with the 32 version of Vista. 32 bit software still has the same limitations on a 64 bit OS, and there is still little 64 bit software out there. I look forward to the day when everything is 64 bit, but for now 32 bit is a better choice for me.

[Ndel]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/
An interesting article that says there is no real benefit to 64 bit unless you go 8 GB of RAM. Feel free to make your own choice, but I have been more pleased with the 32 version of Vista. 32 bit software still has the same limitations on a 64 bit OS, and there is still little 64 bit software out there. I look forward to the day when everything is 64 bit, but for now 32 bit is a better choice for me.

thanks for the article, good read

[ShoNuff]

I agree that was a good read. 8 GB of GOOD memory can be had on the cheap now. I went to buy another 2 x 1GB set of Ballistix Tracers and happened upon the PC2 8000 G.Skills at the egg and decided to give 8 GB a shot. Provided my memory controller can handle the load I think 8 Gigs and Vista 64 bit will provide for a nice OS.

[mang]

I was using vista 64bit ultimate for gaming for a while. It ended up crashing hard, and some really odd things started happening. Went back to 64 bit xp and all was fine. I was quick to pass judgment blaming the Os, but it turned out my vid card would cause drivers in Vista 64 to become corrupt.
with a new GTS, I been looking to go back now.

For the few days it worked I enjoyed it the first time around.

[Cold_B]

Another Vista 64 here. I've got 6GB of ram in there, so that helps alot.

With all the ram, vista keeps almost all my programs I run all the time cached in ram, so opening a new internet explorer is as fast as Alt-Tabing into a running one, and COD4 loads instantly, just to name a few.

Ram is cheap so load up on as much as you can. Vista never seems to have to wait on the hard drive to do anything, which makes it very very snappy.

[zeejay]

Vista 64 rocks, I still dual boot XP cause i have plenty of space for the extra OS but i end up using vista more and more.

[AmongTheChosenX]

What applications won't work with Vista 64bit?

the only program I've used that didn't work with vista was my old school program, but then again it didn't run so well with XP so i have to give vista a break.

other than that, older ATI tool doesn't run with vista, thats about it (its the driver signing thing that stops it). the new beta ATI tool works fine though.

PS: Vista Ultimate X64 here. My uncle has 32 bit vista, but his PC is much slower than mine hardware wise, so i can't compare.

[grayprint]

If you watch vids with DivX web player (stage6.com) then the post processing won't work. At least not for me. This results in videos looking pixelated and jaggy outside of their original size. This makes me want to go back to XP because I do watch a lot of videos using the DivX web player and they look horrible right now.

[Blackforge]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/
An interesting article that says there is no real benefit to 64 bit unless you go 8 GB of RAM. Feel free to make your own choice, but I have been more pleased with the 32 version of Vista. 32 bit software still has the same limitations on a 64 bit OS, and there is still little 64 bit software out there. I look forward to the day when everything is 64 bit, but for now 32 bit is a better choice for me.

The WOW64 part is kind of inaccurate. The WOW64 part is not really an emulator on an x64 processor, but a way to tell the processor to run the specific process as 32-bit code. This is because the x64 processors support a special compatibility mode when it needs to run 32-bit code. However, on other processors such as the IA64, WOW64 is an emulator as it has to translate the 32-bit code into something the IA64 understands. This is why there is little performance difference between 32-bit apps on 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista. WOW64 on Windows XP 64-bit should be the same.

[Sycraft]

Blackforge is correct. There's not really any "emulation" that goes on any more than there was when you'd run 16-code in a 32-bit OS, or when you run a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit processor for that matter.

What happens is with x86, it is designed so that everything is fully backward compatible. New modes simply extent and encompass old modes. For example the general purpose registers on the x86 processors are done in such a way that the larger ones encompass the smaller ones. So in long mode (64-bit mode) the general purpose registers are RAX, RBX and so on. Each stores a 64-bit number. However you can still address the 32-bit versions, EAX, EBX and such. They are just the lower half of the 64-bit version, and code that references it works fine. In fact you can access the 16-bit AX, BX, etc and the 8-bit AL, BL, etc.

The net effect is that the older code works just fine on the new processors, even in the new modes. So what WOW64 does is handles interfacing with the 64-bit OS. It does things like map calls to the kernel, and such. It isn't a processor emulator as such a thing isn't needed. It just switches the processor to what's called "compatibility mode" when it executed a 32-bit thread, and then back.

The performance penalty is extremely minimal. I certainly don't notice anything being slower on a 64-bit OS. There is a little bit of overhead associated with switching processor modes and the other mapping that takes place, but it isn't much. A couple percent at most.

Basically, all your 32-bit stuff just runs on 64-bit, and you don't really notice the difference between app types unless you look at task manager or something to see which is which. The hardware and software are both designed to support running 64-bit and 32-bit at the same time in an extremely transparent manner.

[Gabriel]

I am going to upgrade to the 32 bit version of vista because I won't get more than the 2GB RAM and my hardware isn't so modern.

[Stoly]

I am going to upgrade to the 32 bit version of vista because I won't get more than the 2GB RAM and my hardware isn't so modern.

I'd recommend against it, I had a similar setup as you and I felt vista was much slower than XP, but on my core2 duo vista64 runs pretty fast even with 2gb. Then again YMMV.

[Mithent]

I wouldn't personally upgrade an XP machine to a Vista machine unless there are specific things in Vista that you want. Although Vista certainly has more features than XP, most of them aren't essential, and I'd be more inclined to save the money unless you have a particular reason to upgrade.

[knobbicus]

thanks for the comments everyone-

my interest in vista is a for a completely new build. I'll be putting 4GB in it, and that was one reason to go with 64bit. i'd like to move to vista, since I have the money to spend on vista now, and it will certainly be the de facto standard in a couple years. it sounds like the comments are generally split between 64 and 32-bit. i may simply go with 32bit now, with the understanding that i'll only be seeing ~3.5GB of my RAM, and during the coming months perhaps 64bit drivers will mature. i'd rather suffer a loss of ram and save what sounds like some potential massive headaches.

any additional comments are welcome.
thanks!
knobbicus

[kaiweiler]

The only driver issues I've had with Vista 64bit is with older peripherals such as scanners and webcams and such. If your peripherals are fairly new then Vista 64 is awesome! I've had no troubles whatsoever except for an old scanner which wouldn't recognize (but it was free anyway so whatever).

[knobbicus]

I've been thinking that since this is a new build, all the parts will be new, but now I remember that I will be putting a printer on it that's from about 5 years ago. it's an HP, so it ought to have good driver support, but i think that's enough to tip the balance in favor of 32-bit. my university will still have 64 bit for sale in the future if i want to upgrade, but for now, i think it's going to be 32. and since this box is built to serve my gaming needs, i'm inclinded to follow Kyle's advice.

knobbicus

[GrimR]

Okay, so I'll be making the plunge into Vista 64 with the new PC but wondered what the difference was between Premium and Ultimate? Is it worth the $80 difference between the two on the 'egg right now?

[Dan_D]

Okay, so I'll be making the plunge into Vista 64 with the new PC but wondered what the difference was between Premium and Ultimate? Is it worth the $80 difference between the two on the 'egg right now?

Not really. The main difference is that Premium can't be connected (mounted) to a domain. Some other things are missing too, (I think RDP?) but not much.

[xxEIEIOxx]

Okay, so I'll be making the plunge into Vista 64 with the new PC but wondered what the difference was between Premium and Ultimate? Is it worth the $80 difference between the two on the 'egg right now?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx Check that and decide what you need.

[GrimR]

Cool, thanks to you both.

[LateraLex]

I'd suggest going straight to Vista 64. I read that article on Tom's hardware, but to me, it didn't say you needed 8gb or ram. Only that there are gains to be had.

Also, if your 5 year old printer doesn't work - how much is that thing worth anyways? If it's just a cheap desktop printer, get a new one. I don't think you will run into problems, but you save yourself the hassle of upgrading OS later, and the upgrade itself isn't free.
Really liking Vista 64 with 4gb of ram. A few bug fixes further and it will be great.

[knobbicus]

lateralex-

i hear you about the two-stage upgrade idea, but i'm not willing to just get rid of a printer that works fine. i've got a couple more weeks at least until i have to build the new box, so i'll keep thinking about it. there seem to be compelling arguemnts on both sides.

-k

[ThreeDee]

well what are you going to do with your "old" computer once you get your new one built?

If your older HP printer doesn't work in 64bit Vista .. and you are not going to decommission your current setup ..leave it up and running, network it to your Vista box and create a shared folder to drop in anything that you need printed from your Vista machine .. or install linux on your current box and make it into a file server , or game server , email server ....whatever and create a samba share to do the same thing with dropping stuff you need printed from your Vista box in it so you can print them out on your current box whether it has windows or linux installed on it .. and maybe use RDP or VNC to control your current box from your Vista box to print those shared files so you don't have to ever get on your "old" box to print stuff out or whatever

..perhaps a bit of a pain the bottom .. but an idea none the less I suppose...


http://www.hardfolding.com/ftag1.php/mem/533.png (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=38&id=533&tm=33)
[F]old|[H]ard

[ordovician]

In my opinion, there is no reason to have Vista 32 over Windows XP, unless you want a performance hit. I'm running Vista 64, and I have yet to run into driver conflicts. I have an ANCIENT scanner that doesn't work, but its like 8 years old. I had to force the use of WinXP 64 drivers for an old webcam too, but it works. Other than that, there have been no problems. SP1 is out too, so that helps.

[knobbicus]

ThreeDee-

Yeah, I've tried to run print servers and file servers in the past for fun, and frankly, my opinion was that it wasn't worth it to keep a computer up and drawing power all the time for that purpose, and to turn it on and off just to print makes the whole thing too time consuming. I ran debian for a while with the same idea in mind and found the same results- not worth it to keep it up 24/7, but too big a pain to turn it on and off when needed. I don't do any music streaming or anything, so it doesn't make sense from that perspective.

ordovician- here's the real answer: i need to just go to the HP site and see if they have drivers for my printer. don't know why i didn't do that before. duh.

-k

edit- so, the drivers are preinstalled with vista 64bit, so that's that.

[feek]

I lost about 20fps+ in TF2 compared to Vistax32 :( I don't know what the deal is

[sumofatguy]

I lost about 20fps+ in TF2 compared to Vistax32 :( I don't know what the deal is

ya me too, at least 20. I think it may be an issue with tf2 though because I haven't noticed the same thing in other games. Have you?

[feek]

Well, I actually haven't tried any other games yet, I just installed it a few days ago.

I did try 3dmark, though, and the score is exactly the same as before. So I do assume it is TF2/source only. It seems to be about 20fps lower in general, and it can dip really low when there's a lot of particle effects going on.

[ordovician]

People with 8800's get 60-100fps in TF2 regardless, so a 20fps hit isn't noticeable.

[ASIA911]

$89? Buy it while you can get it for cheap. Doesn't mean you have to install it now. Even though XP video drivers are much better for certain games, I wouldn't want to go back to XP. Vista been very very stable for me.

[knobbicus]

thanks for the comments everyone. interesting to hear about tf2- after the new build is done, one of the first things i'm going to do is get the orange box. my current system, just fyi, is a P4 3.06 on a 533MHz bus, 1 gig ram, 4x AGP with an all-in-wonder X800XT. i've been waiting for the new build to try portal, tf2, and crysis among others. i figure i'd rather get those when i can run them in all their glory rather than limp along at 1024x768 with no effects (shader model 2??? no HDR???? ouch)


so, anyway, the 20fps hit shouldn't be noticeable, since i'll be going with an 8800 GTS 512MB, and a Q6600 but it's still relevant info.

the only thing that sucks is that the $89 vista options that i have access to are upgrade versions, not fresh install versions. but it's still good to be able to get vista for that price. :cool:

-knobbicus

[Zardoz]

Here is my take. I been on Vista x64 for little over a year now, Drivers and support have come a long way. with SP1 my system seems a lot more smooth and stable. As for the whole 4GB plus memory that would be the primary reason to go with 64 bit (and that was mine.) but ask yourself this, if you plan on upping your memory to 4GB or more soon. I would go with the 64bit no questions asked.

The fact is we are going to see more and more system starting to utilize over 2GB of memory. I have started to see more enthusiast / power users getting 8GB in a system, and the high end starting to push beyond that 2GB and move to 4GB.

I know here at the [H] I am going to see more and more threads about how to upgrade 32bit to 64bit just because of memory things. So I say do it now and not later.

[Proxy]

Do not go to Vista 64 bit just yet. Drivers have to be signed or will not work. Get WinXP 64 if you can, it's alot more compatible with the software of today. Vista 64 was a huge headache for me.

You do know that driver signing can be turned off right?

[jellyhead]

If you're serious about gaming then XP is worthy of consideration, IMHO. I've used XP, Vista 32 & 64. I've got another 2GB on order to see if it'll improve my V64 experience, but with just 2GB I've been quite underwhelmed thus far. Simple truth is that I don't get as many frames with Vista as with XP – YMMV depending on what you choose to play; however I play FPS (UT3 mostly) & Vista (32 or 64) doesn't deliver what I need. What I require is high & consistent frames, good IQ & a generally snappy response. I very much look forward to V64 delivering on all counts. :)

[Kluden]

I have not faced any problems running vista 64 and gaming. So +1 for that.

[RadXge]

Vista 64 runs well but Direct X 10 does not deliver the merchandise yet!

[MrGuvernment]

Well as long as you have an 8800 or better or a 3850 or better, you'll probably not notice that huge of a performance impact in terms of framerate loss from the xp ---> vista switch.

What you WILL notice is the huge performance increase from additional memory. Vista's memory manager is quite smart and takes advantage of every meg you put in to cache things you often use. With 4 gigs and Vista I've noticed a healthy load speed increase and much less chugging when alt tabbing, loading, and quitting games.

If you're gonna go Vista, might as well go 64 bit.


the FPS story is so last year, because of better drivers the loss in FPS from vista to XP is minimal in most all games now you likely wont even notice unless all you play is 3Dmark.

[ordovician]

If you're serious about gaming then XP is worthy of consideration, IMHO. I've used XP, Vista 32 & 64. I've got another 2GB on order to see if it'll improve my V64 experience, but with just 2GB I've been quite underwhelmed thus far. Simple truth is that I don't get as many frames with Vista as with XP – YMMV depending on what you choose to play; however I play FPS (UT3 mostly) & Vista (32 or 64) doesn't deliver what I need. What I require is high & consistent frames, good IQ & a generally snappy response. I very much look forward to V64 delivering on all counts. :)

The difference in Vista 64 between 2gb and 4gb is night and day.

[Sparkyy]

Yes, 4gb of ram is definitely needed if you want to do anything in vista, even multi task programs! I haven't noticed much of a hit in any of the games I play on Vista x64 ultimate, in fact; Crysis to me looks a lot better!

Though when installing Vista from scratch, you can only use 2gb of ram to install everything then make sure you have all the required updates, because you need to specific KB updates in order for Vista to boot with more then 2gb. Something they fixed in SP1 supposedly but just a forewarning before you wonder why it just restarts continuously.

[dyesan]

Has anyone faced issues with their X-Fi and 64-bit Vista? I got cracking and popping when I first installed it, but haven't experienced it after a restart.

[carnag3]

Put it this way, I just did a new build, not that different from yours, and all I had with 64-bit vista was problems when mixed with gaming, and tbh, I am thinking of swapping back to xp, even though i have vista 32 ultimate.

[jellyhead]

The difference in Vista 64 between 2gb and 4gb is night and day.

Yes, 4gb of ram is definitely needed if you want to do anything in vista, even multi task programs! I haven't noticed much of a hit in any of the games I play on Vista x64 ultimate, in fact; Crysis to me looks a lot better!

Though when installing Vista from scratch, you can only use 2gb of ram to install everything then make sure you have all the required updates, because you need to specific KB updates in order for Vista to boot with more then 2gb. Something they fixed in SP1 supposedly but just a forewarning before you wonder why it just restarts continuously.

Thanks chaps. I remember there being some malarkey with installing & 4GB, but couldn't remember exactly what the fuss was. Kind of a f******* stupid issue, huh? :)

[Canadian in Berlin]

I just threw in another 2 GB on the weekend, and it truly was like night and day. A hundred times better.

The tests continue!

[LateraLex]

Yes, 4gb of ram is definitely needed if you want to do anything in vista, even multi task programs! I haven't noticed much of a hit in any of the games I play on Vista x64 ultimate, in fact; Crysis to me looks a lot better!

Though when installing Vista from scratch, you can only use 2gb of ram to install everything then make sure you have all the required updates, because you need to specific KB updates in order for Vista to boot with more then 2gb. Something they fixed in SP1 supposedly but just a forewarning before you wonder why it just restarts continuously.

This is the first I've heard of this "issue", because I booted Vista 64, with 4gb of ram from the start, and didn't run into any issues at all. So I'm not sure what this is all about...

[DeaconFrost]

Though when installing Vista from scratch, you can only use 2gb of ram to install everything then make sure you have all the required updates, because you need to specific KB updates in order for Vista to boot with more then 2gb.
This is a good thing to mention, but it needs to be mention in full. This is not an issue with Vista on every system with 4 GB of memory. You do not need to remove 2 GB on every single system. It seems to affect Nvidia chipsets the most. There's no harm in trying your specific system. If you get a BSoD, then pull 2 GB and start the install process over. So far, on 4 systems with Intel chipsets, I haven't encountered the issue, but on one Nvidia chipset board, I did. This is all out of about 15 reinstalls total. The KB in question even specifically mentiones Nvidia chipsets.

[Kluden]

Probably should have mentioned that as well. I had 4gb installed in the 975x mobo during install and faced none of the issue reported about having 4 sticks of ram occupying all 4 slots during install. I'm not sure if it is the amount more so than filling both channels on some mobos. But either way, my install went fine with 4 x 1gb sticks installed.

[AmongTheChosenX]

yeah same here, 4 OCZ platinum sticks for 4 GB's total in all four slots of my P35 moptherboard and no issue installing.


although the sticks refused to overclock for some reason. the BIOS would post, but windows would say that a file ahs been corrupt, reset the memory settings and it'd boot fine... strange

[onetwenty8k]

I have a machine with 4GB of RAM so I naturally installed Vista x64. In general, it was pretty good, didn't have any driver issues, no BSODs and it boot up fairly quickly. However, what really killed me was the networking. The new networking control panel was absolute shit and I wasn't getting an IP from my router or even directly connected. This is what made me go back to XP 32bit and I've been pretty happy since. I'll have to give vista another few months in the oven before I go back to it.

[knobbicus]

ok- more data is good. it's really sounding like vista 64 is winning. and that the new sp is helping significantly, and that 4GB or more is required. so for my build, i should be in good shape. plus the fact that the OS gets burned on-the-fly by the IT dept, so I am hoping it will come with sp1 already included. these comments are really helping me make my decision, because rebuilding the OS is not something i like to do for fun. so i want to choose wisely from the start.

thanks everyone!
-knobbicus

[jfuze]

im going with Vista 64 personally but im wondering what the difference from 4gb to 8gb is going to be

[Volcanon]

Here's my experience with the XP-32 to Vista-64

I had a pretty solid system to start, 8800 GTS 640, C2D OC'd to 3 GHz, 2x1GB Corsair XMS memory and a 680i mobo. I decided to spring for an extra 2 gigs of XMS, for a total of 4 sticks of memory. I did in fact get a bluescreen when installing Vista and had to remove 2 sticks of memory, finish installing, apply a hotfix, and then slapped my extra 2 back in for a total of 4. This has been mentioned earlier and it is likely due to the nVidia motherboard chipset with certain kinds of ram, but this was a relatively painless fix and worked great. No issues since.

My original attempt to install vista back when it was first released was horrible(32 bit nonethless). I had a much weaker system back then but I am happy to report that everything is working great. Most applications run in 32 bit mode if they have to and they run fine like that.

The only problem I've had so far, is with nVidia's System monitor! Believe it or not their control panel just doesn't work properly under 64 bit Vista. This isn't much of an issue because fan control and OC features still work and other 3rd party software can keep track of voltages and temps just fine.

I would have to say that overall my system is faster. The increased memory and smarter vista memory manager works great and you'd see a benefit from going from 4 to 8 gigs, but only if you use software that takes vast quantities of ram and you'd see a load speed increase with those, but generally the vista memory manager does a good job of keeping things cached.

[Sparkyy]

I would agree that Vista does make the best use of all this ram that people are just throwing in to their computers, when encoding a video and running a virtual pc with 1gb of ram set aside. Those 4 gb disappear rather quickly though! :D
I have noticed though that when I quit a game; in this case Call of Duty 4; when you open Task Manager and then click on 'Resource Monitor' then 'Disk'. I can see the map and the different graphic files used by Call of Duty 4 still being either written or read from the hard drive, sometimes a good 3 minutes after I quit.
Kinda odd if you ask me, anyone else experience or even notice this? :confused::confused:

[feek]

Has anyone faced issues with their X-Fi and 64-bit Vista? I got cracking and popping when I first installed it, but haven't experienced it after a restart.

I get crackling after it resumes from sleep sometimes, but that happened in 32bit, too. I don't know what the deal is. It's really annoying, but restarting the Windows Audio service fixes it.

[Dan_D]

I get crackling after it resumes from sleep sometimes, but that happened in 32bit, too. I don't know what the deal is. It's really annoying, but restarting the Windows Audio service fixes it.

I used to get crackling and popping when I'd log into Windows XP when using Creative sound cards. I have never seen the problem in Vista.

[ThreeDee]

I get crackling and popping every time I walk into my house ..and that's been since Win98se ... :p

http://www.hardfolding.com/ftag1.php/mem/533.png (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=38&id=533&tm=33)

[XBarbarian]

think I had posted to this thread already, but I truly am loving vista 64 with 8gb ram. I can be mid battle in cod4, and use the nifty aero app changer thing ( that scrolling alt-tab cool looking file cabinet looking thing, ..without a miss.. no driver issues to speak of.. just plain solid

[Sparkyy]

XBarbarian; I have to agree with you, vista 64 but sadly right now just 4gb of ram running, thinking of going 8gb but it is a solid OS. My 32 xp pro could minimize and it was just 1gb but man I could make a huge sandwich by the tab I tried to tab back INTO the damn game. :rolleyes:

[knobbicus]

Well, this all sounds good to me. Hell, with DDR2 ram being so cheap right now, I wonder if I should just throw the entire 8GB into the box from the get-go. I mean, it's only another $100. :D

Thanks everyone!
-knobbicus

[PyroHoltz]

I have a dual boot w/ XP SP2 x86 and Vista x64 on my main system in my Sig. Personally I don't see any performance increase at all from XP to Vista, if anything there is ~ 10% drop in performance. This is real world testing in game as well as synthetic benching. If the games you play don't actually have x64 versions you'll likely be in the same boat as me.

Only my two cents. :rolleyes:

[Dan_D]

Actually Vista's drop in performance has nothing to do with running 32bit software. It has everything to do with the fact that drivers are no longer in kernel memory. They did this to enhance overall system stability.

[PyroHoltz]

Actually Vista's drop in performance has nothing to do with running 32bit software. It has everything to do with the fact that drivers are no longer in kernel memory. They did this to enhance overall system stability.

Agreed, my only comparison when it comes to gaming is between XP x86 and Vista x64 though. I will say this though, when it comes to games written for x64 you'll tend to gain that ~10% loss if not more due to x64's ability to process more data at a time.

[Sovereign]

I've been using it for 6 months now. I don't have any complaints at this time. Surely, frames are lost due to Vista's overhead, but it's not that big a deal and honestly I'll never go back to Windows XP now.

[feek]

Actually Vista's drop in performance has nothing to do with running 32bit software. It has everything to do with the fact that drivers are no longer in kernel memory. They did this to enhance overall system stability.

You mean it's different between Vista32 and Vista64?

[Volcanon]

You mean it's different between Vista32 and Vista64?

Neg, that's how Vista is built across the board.

[knobbicus]

thanks everyone, I will now hijack my own thread:

I'm looking at getting 8GB ram right off the bat, and wondered, since many people here already have Vista 64 installed, whether there is any consensus on whether there is an improvement in having 8GB over 4GB. It would save me ~$100, which is not nothing.... but then again, for only $100, I could just go to 8GB and be done with it. Don't want to throw money away on something irrelevant, but it would be nice to get it if it will be beneficial.

btw- this is going to be primarily a gaming box.

thanks
-knobbicus

[xxEIEIOxx]

thanks everyone, I will now hijack my own thread:

I'm looking at getting 8GB ram right off the bat, and wondered, since many people here already have Vista 64 installed, whether there is any consensus on whether there is an improvement in having 8GB over 4GB. It would save me ~$100, which is not nothing.... but then again, for only $100, I could just go to 8GB and be done with it. Don't want to throw money away on something irrelevant, but it would be nice to get it if it will be beneficial.

btw- this is going to be primarily a gaming box.

thanks
-knobbicus

Read this acticle: http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/

[Gott]

I'm going with Vista Business 64 bit myself and after talking to a few friends who have Ultimate 64 bit edition, they haven't had any problems with 32 bit software being incompatible.

Only one exception was with Star Wars Galaxies - they have to run it in Administrator mode to get it to work.

If you have the system that can support Vista, I'd say go and upgrade to it.

[JonnyBlazexx]

Been using vista 64 since its public debut. I love it and always have. While there has been a hickup or two along the way, all of the positives completely eclipse the negatives in my experience. Gaming works great! Although I cannot currently reference against a xp pro install since my hardware change.

[Dan_D]

I'm going with Vista Business 64 bit myself and after talking to a few friends who have Ultimate 64 bit edition, they haven't had any problems with 32 bit software being incompatible.

Only one exception was with Star Wars Galaxies - they have to run it in Administrator mode to get it to work.

If you have the system that can support Vista, I'd say go and upgrade to it.

Wait? You actually play that trainwreck of a game? :eek:

[Gott]

Wait? You actually play that trainwreck of a game? :eek:
I did since beta and was also a Community Senator.

Not anymore though.