Why Vista 64 bit?

Finn said:
Rofl! There's not a single thing in that post that is true if you count the memory and secure out. And with memory it doubles your memory needs so you end up paying for nothing.

XP32 is still THE only OS to even consider.
Click to expand...


As rhexis noted above, that post has so much....wrong...about it.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
Since 99% of most software is still 32 bit, I see no point.
Click to expand...
Because, while x64 does not give you an advantage running x32 software, for the small amounts of x64 software that does exist (As well as the fact x64 WILL become mainstream at some point), there isn't much of a reason not to...

The only requirement is that your hardware works. If your hardware is x64 compliant and has drivers for it... you're good. Because x64 can run x32 software.

xxEIEIOxx said:
True, but keep in mind Vista x64 is not general usage either. When I talk to our customers, most of them don't even know what OS they are working with all day.
Click to expand...
This is also true.
But I think there is a middle tier in there as well...
Advanced (Programmers, Engineers, etc)
Moderate (Enthusists, [H], etc)
Low (General consumers)

The OP asking is probably moderate: enough to be savvy about x64. But being he isn't writing the actual programs or anything, can care less about the different challenges maintaining two Program Files directories, make sense?



Bottom line for me...
If your hardware supports it- no reason not to. You don't take a performance hit, and you do take a performance INCREASE on the software that will support it (it gives you more options).

As for speediness... I'd say there isn't a huge increase. Overall it "feels" a bit more polished and snappy than the x32 variation, but nothing exceptional.
 
TechieSooner said:
Because, while x64 does not give you an advantage running x32 software, for the small amounts of x64 software that does exist (As well as the fact x64 WILL become mainstream at some point), there isn't much of a reason not to...

The only requirement is that your hardware works. If your hardware is x64 compliant and has drivers for it... you're good. Because x64 can run x32 software.


This is also true.
But I think there is a middle tier in there as well...
Advanced (Programmers, Engineers, etc)
Moderate (Enthusists, [H], etc)
Low (General consumers)

The OP asking is probably moderate: enough to be savvy about x64. But being he isn't writing the actual programs or anything, can care less about the different challenges maintaining two Program Files directories, make sense?



Bottom line for me...
If your hardware supports it- no reason not to. You don't take a performance hit, and you do take a performance INCREASE on the software that will support it (it gives you more options).

As for speediness... I'd say there isn't a huge increase. Overall it "feels" a bit more polished and snappy than the x32 variation, but nothing exceptional.
Click to expand...

I truly have no argument that 64 bit software is a nice improvement over, would be nice if the software companies would start making some. I'm sure the OP could handle 64 bit just fine, but as he had 2Gb RAM listed in his sig, I don't expect to see him get a performance increase if he goes with it. If he wishes to use it, his choice, either way. I was just sharing my experiences, YMMV.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
I truly have no argument that 64 bit software is a nice improvement over, would be nice if the software companies would start making some. I'm sure the OP could handle 64 bit just fine, but as he had 2Gb RAM listed in his sig, I don't expect to see him get a performance increase if he goes with it. If he wishes to use it, his choice, either way. I was just sharing my experiences, YMMV.
Click to expand...

So why wouldn't you?
*IF* he upgrades to 4GB, he'll be able to use it in the future.
*IF* an application he uses can be had an a 64 bit version, he can enjoy the increased performances...

64 bit offers no performance hit or anything (Again- other than having to have compatible hardware), if at all, a performance INCREASE, so I continue to wonder why the big anti-64 argument here.
 
64 bit offers no performance hit or anything (Again- other than having to have compatible hardware), if at all, a performance INCREASE, so I continue to wonder why the big anti-64 argument here.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's odd that someone would actually say "yeah that new PC, you don't want a 64-bit OS on that."

64-bit isn't some sort of fad that will just go away. It's inevitable. Anyone buying a new PC now should go 64-bit, get it over with, enjoy the benefits, and not look back.
 
TechieSooner said:
I continue to wonder why the big anti-64 argument here.
Click to expand...

I didn't expect it would be perceived as an argument. Or that I was anti 64. The OP asked if there would be any advantages, and in his case, I didn't see any. Sure, there will be at some point, but on a machine with 2GB of RAM, I was just stating that it may not be worthwhile to have to format and reinstall everything, to get something that isn't going to function noticeably differently than it had. Coupled with the fact that if he does have issues, he may have to format and switch back. 64 bit corrupts all of the files on my 500 GB external drive. So I went back to 32. Where it works fine. Most likely a driver issue. If the OP wishes to give 64 bit a try, I wish him luck, and hope it works for him. Some machines like it, some don't. You run what works for you.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
I didn't expect it would be perceived as an argument. Or that I was anti 64. The OP asked if there would be any advantages, and in his case, I didn't see any. Sure, there will be at some point, but on a machine with 2GB of RAM, I was just stating that it may not be worthwhile to have to format and reinstall everything, to get something that isn't going to function noticeably differently than it had. Coupled with the fact that if he does have issues, he may have to format and switch back. 64 bit corrupts all of the files on my 500 GB external drive. So I went back to 32. Where it works fine. Most likely a driver issue. If the OP wishes to give 64 bit a try, I wish him luck, and hope it works for him. Some machines like it, some don't. You run what works for you.
Click to expand...

Wait... what?

Is that external drive USB, eSata, or other?

I have two external USB drives: (1) 500GB External Drive and (1) 60GB external drive for backups and I have never had corruption problems with Vista 64-bit. I have been using it for about a year now. Can you expand on that?
 
I missed that as well. I have two external USB drives that I've been using, both in Vantec cases, and neither has given me a problem across three Vista x64 computers.
 
TechieSooner said:
So why wouldn't you?
*IF* he upgrades to 4GB, he'll be able to use it in the future.
*IF* an application he uses can be had an a 64 bit version, he can enjoy the increased performances...

64 bit offers no performance hit or anything (Again- other than having to have compatible hardware), if at all, a performance INCREASE, so I continue to wonder why the big anti-64 argument here.
Click to expand...

*IF* he actually needs 4Gb sometime he can *THEN* go 64-bit. As for now there's no need. Like the extra 512mb is going to make any difference when running 32-bit apps..
*IF* there actually comes an application that requires 64-bit *THEN* he should upgrade.

64 bit offers no performance gain (Again other than requiring you to double your hardware specs to survive) but a huge potential for driver problems.

One has absolutely no plausible reason to do 64-bit at this time outside of being curious.
 
Finn said:
*IF* he actually needs 4Gb sometime he can *THEN* go 64-bit. As for now there's no need. Like the extra 512mb is going to make any difference when running 32-bit apps..
*IF* there actually comes an application that requires 64-bit *THEN* he should upgrade.

64 bit offers no performance gain (Again other than requiring you to double your hardware specs to survive) but a huge potential for driver problems.

One has absolutely no plausible reason to do 64-bit at this time outside of being curious.
Click to expand...

Do you breathe the same air we do?
64-bit processing does NOT require anyone to double their hardware specs to "survive".

Drivers have been infinitely better since the release of Vista 64-bit, so the only way he or she can know if there will be driver problems is to go to the manufacturer's website.
 
Lepard said:
64-bit processing does NOT require anyone to double their hardware specs to "survive".
Click to expand...
Sure it does. Don't you know that? You have to double 32 bits to get to 64. Duh.

Sometimes, the misinformation being posted isn't just grossly incorrect....it's downright hilarious! Well, and scary at the same time....scary that people post things without even giving the comments a thought to if they are correct, or even logical for that matter. :rolleyes:
 
silent-circuit said:
XP X64 is hell to get drivers for when compared with any other modern flavor of Windows. No, it's not worth it at all.
Click to expand...

That's such a load of crap unless you have some extremely old or off-the-wall hardware. Hell I've got a D-link wireless card from 2004 and it works in XP x64 just fine... got the driver from Windows Update of all places! I'm not going to claim that driver availability is on parity with XP32, but it's definitely good enough that you should have no trouble finding drivers for any DIY parts.

devil22 said:
Once you go 64-bit you never go back. ;)
Click to expand...

+1... I haven't installed a 32-bit OS on my system since I upgraded to 4 gigs last year, and I've never even touched Vista 32-bit (which should never have existed IMO... if your CPU doesn't support 64-bit, you probably don't have any business running Vista anyway)
 
Finn said:
*IF* he actually needs 4Gb sometime he can *THEN* go 64-bit. As for now there's no need. Like the extra 512mb is going to make any difference when running 32-bit apps..
*IF* there actually comes an application that requires 64-bit *THEN* he should upgrade.
Click to expand...
There already are apps that are 64 bit... which is why (AGAIN!!!) I continue to wonder why you don't want the advantage it offers.

And we are talking about 4GB AND BEYOND. It's not just "If you want 512 more".



Finn said:
64 bit offers no performance gain (Again other than requiring you to double your hardware specs to survive) but a huge potential for driver problems.
Click to expand...
I'm seriously speachless... I mean... how ignorant can a single person be?????



And FYI, in case you missed the memo over the past couple years- almost all hardware nowadays is 64 bit compliant.
 
You guys should do some actual research before you start helping people answer the wrong question:

"Windows Vista Starter edition is the least demanding of the operating system's versions, and the 32-bit variant delivers support for a maximum of 1 GB RAM."

"The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise and Ultimate, all support a maximum of 4 GB of RAM."

"On a system running x64 Vista Home Basic, you can add as much as 8 GB of RAM."

"x64 Vista Home Premium supports as far as 16 GB of RAM."

"But it will take no less than 128 GB of RAM in order to satiate x64 Vista Business, Enterprise and Ultimate."

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-Vista-Maximum-Supported-RAM-44487.shtml
 
It's a limitation of 32 bits memory addressing, if I got the terminology right.

http://blogs.msdn.com/hiltonl/archive/2007/04/13/the-3gb-not-4gb-ram-problem.aspx

You can use up to about 3GB, the rest just can't be accessed by the OS.

Did I respond to the wrong thread or something, I could have sworn I was responding to a question here.
Damnit, I'm getting old.

Dreamer got to what I was trying to say before.
Although, looking at that blog, you can do a switch in boot.ini to get more allocated memory for apps, but only if they are designed to use it, which I don't think applies to desktop apps.
 
Gutspiller said:
You guys should do some actual research before you start helping people answer the wrong question:

"Windows Vista Starter edition is the least demanding of the operating system's versions, and the 32-bit variant delivers support for a maximum of 1 GB RAM."

"The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise and Ultimate, all support a maximum of 4 GB of RAM."

"On a system running x64 Vista Home Basic, you can add as much as 8 GB of RAM."

"x64 Vista Home Premium supports as far as 16 GB of RAM."

"But it will take no less than 128 GB of RAM in order to satiate x64 Vista Business, Enterprise and Ultimate."

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-Vista-Maximum-Supported-RAM-44487.shtml
Click to expand...

The reason people are saying 3gb is because of "other" sources that eat of the memory which cause it to be less under a 32bit OS. Hence why people recommend a 64bit OS.
 
Lepard said:
Wait... what?

Is that external drive USB, eSata, or other?

I have two external USB drives: (1) 500GB External Drive and (1) 60GB external drive for backups and I have never had corruption problems with Vista 64-bit. I have been using it for about a year now. Can you expand on that?
Click to expand...

I have a Seagate FreeAgent Pro connected by eSATA. Loaded 64 bit, seemed great at first. Then I noticed that my graphic file on this drives started to lose data, and had black spots in them from the missing data. Executable files would no longer run. By the time I discovered it, everything on the drive was pretty much hosed. Good thing I had backups on DVD. I ran every kind of drive test and memory test I could find, everything came back without errors. Went back to 32 bit, no issues. Another reason why I say you may or may not be happy with 64 or 32 bit, you have to run what works. I could ditch the 500 GB drive and run 64 bit, but it is not worth that tradeoff to me. Seagate was of course worthless in this situation. I even loaded the updated firmware for the drive in an attempt to fix it, no luck.
 
That's odd- and it works fine in 32 bit?

What happened if you formatted it in 64 bit and tried again?

I really don't think it is 32 vs. 64 issue but rather something else.
 
Seagate FreeAgent Pros have known issues with performance and data corruption through their eSATA interfaces. There was some discussion on it recently in the [H]ot|Deals section when a thread was posted advertising that the 750GB model was on clearance at Best Buy for $56.
 
TechieSooner said:
That's odd- and it works fine in 32 bit?

What happened if you formatted it in 64 bit and tried again?

I really don't think it is 32 vs. 64 issue but rather something else.
Click to expand...

Did that. I formatted it many times and restored known good data from DVD's with the same end result. After 3 days of messing with it, I went back to 32 bit. Haven't had a problem since. I'm sure it's not a 32 vs 64 bit issue, but more likely a driver issue or something else. I am also aware that these drives have issues (after buying it, of course), but I'm doing what works for the time being.
 
FYI, I had two deal-breaking issues which caused me to return to 32-bit Vista from 64-bit Vista

1. Could not install COD4 patch 1.5 (looks for COD4 in "Program Files" not "Program Files (x86)")
2. Windows NT Backup Restore Utility reported errors

There were also some major bugs with Pidgin and OpenOffice.org in Vista x64 SP1 , although not deal breakers and probably attributable to the software (not the OS), still annoying. Also could not run a host of hardware utilities that worked under 32-bit such as the firmware update utilities for my card reader, DVD drive, and some monitoring programs.
 
Stellar said:
FYI, I had two deal-breaking issues which caused me to return to 32-bit Vista from 64-bit Vista

1. Could not install COD4 patch 1.5 (looks for COD4 in "Program Files" not "Program Files (x86)")
2. Windows NT Backup Restore Utility reported errors

There were also some major bugs with Pidgin and OpenOffice.org in Vista x64 SP1 , although not deal breakers and probably attributable to the software (not the OS), still annoying. Also could not run a host of hardware utilities that worked under 32-bit such as the firmware update utilities for my card reader, DVD drive, and some monitoring programs.
Click to expand...

All software problems ;)
 
Stellar said:
FYI, I had two deal-breaking issues which caused me to return to 32-bit Vista from 64-bit Vista

1. Could not install COD4 patch 1.5 (looks for COD4 in "Program Files" not "Program Files (x86)")
2. Windows NT Backup Restore Utility reported errors

There were also some major bugs with Pidgin and OpenOffice.org in Vista x64 SP1 , although not deal breakers and probably attributable to the software (not the OS), still annoying. Also could not run a host of hardware utilities that worked under 32-bit such as the firmware update utilities for my card reader, DVD drive, and some monitoring programs.
Click to expand...

You have to press F8 at startup and disable driver signing enforcement for some flashers and similar to work properly under Vista 64bit. What monitoring programs were you trying to use? Pretty much everything is compatible anymore. CoreTemp, Everest, RivaTuner, ATITool... what else do you need?

The COD4 issue is an annoyance but hardly a dealbreaker. You could have easily reinstalled in C:\Program Files instead, and no more issue. That, or (if there's a next time) try copying the patch utility in to the installation folder before running it. That's what I had to do to get the Guitar Hero 3 PC 1.1 patch to work properly.
 
Stellar said:
FYI, I had two deal-breaking issues which caused me to return to 32-bit Vista from 64-bit Vista

1. Could not install COD4 patch 1.5 (looks for COD4 in "Program Files" not "Program Files (x86)")
.
Click to expand...


Software troubles, easily fixed, NOT vista's fault.....patch 1.5 installed fine here on V64, of course, I do not use the default install directory for my games, they have their own drive partition.....
 
silent-circuit said:
You have to press F8 at startup and disable driver signing enforcement for some flashers and similar to work properly under Vista 64bit. What monitoring programs were you trying to use? Pretty much everything is compatible anymore. CoreTemp, Everest, RivaTuner, ATITool... what else do you need?

The COD4 issue is an annoyance but hardly a dealbreaker. You could have easily reinstalled in C:\Program Files instead.
Click to expand...

The COD4 issue is definitely a deal breaker. I play COD4 5v5 ladders in TWL and CAL. I tried uninstalling and then reinstalling (Custom) to the Program Files by typing in the path manually. It installed fine, but after that the game would not launch at all. I received an error related to iw3.mp.
 
TheRapture said:
Software troubles, easily fixed, NOT vista's fault.....patch 1.5 installed fine here on V64, of course, I do not use the default install directory for my games, they have their own drive partition.....
Click to expand...

I fault no one because it matters not to me on which developer or development team the fault lies. It only matters to me that the programs I need work properly.
 
Stellar said:
I fault no one because it matters not to me on which developer or development team the fault lies. It only matters to me that the programs I need work properly.
Click to expand...
I think he's faulting *you*, since the patch worked for him.

I can't speak for COD4, but Pidgin works fine here as well.
 
Stellar said:
. It installed fine, but after that the game would not launch at all. I received an error related to iw3.mp.
Click to expand...

Another easy fix. Install DX9c latest build directly from Microsoft....problem solved. Also be sure and use SP1 for Vista....me and my son's CoD4 work perfectly, me under Vista 64 and him under Vista 32 Ultimate.
 
Stellar said:
There were also some major bugs with Pidgin
Click to expand...
Sounds more like a problem with your system that shouldn't be made into a generalization. Pidgin works just fine on Vista x64 SP1. As for some of the monitoring programs, that would have been known before you loaded Vista x64 that some of them may not work...but there are plenty of other free alternatives available.

I'm also going on something else being wrong with your system because you mentioned errors with the Backup and Restore Utility....that's built into the OS. If that had issues, that's your first clue something might not be right.
 
Stellar said:
Problems nonetheless. The OS is only as good as the software and hardware that I can use with it.
Click to expand...

Thank you. The point I have been trying to make all along. I have not been bashing 64 bit, though it appears that is the way I have been perceived. I was very intent on the idea that I was going to be running it. It didn't work as I had hoped. Most of the issues are probably not the fault of Vista x64, but are issues nonetheless. I had even purchased a new printer and scanner so I would be entirely Vista x64 hardware compatible, so this hasn't been a "Vista x64 sucks, I don't want to use it" situation. It just didn't work for me. I wish it had. I was even going to get 8GB of RAM. Mostly for bragging rights. I'm sure I would never use it all. But what works, works, so I will use what I have until the next build, and try again. For me personally, the limitations of what I am running are less than the limitations of switching. I'm sure we all thank everyone for their feedback, and respect everyone's opinion. My advise to anyone stands as originally. Test both, pick the best for you. :cool:
 
DeaconFrost said:
Sounds more like a problem with your system that shouldn't be made into a generalization. Pidgin works just fine on Vista x64 SP1. As for some of the monitoring programs, that would have been known before you loaded Vista x64 that some of them may not work...but there are plenty of other free alternatives available.

I'm also going on something else being wrong with your system because you mentioned errors with the Backup and Restore Utility....that's built into the OS. If that had issues, that's your first clue something might not be right.
Click to expand...

The Windows NT Backup Restore Utility is not built into Vista.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...e2-8b69-4c65-afa3-2a53107d54a7&displaylang=en

I can only confidently claim the issues were with Vista x64 now because I have installed Vista x86 and have none of the same issues. COD4 runs perfectly, and I was able to restore my backups without issue. In regards to Pidgin, it did work on Vista x64, but it threw up a .DLL error each time it was launched. Not that I would ever consider a Pidgin bug a show-stopper, rather just one that I mentioned out of quick memory.

I'm sure I'll give x64 a try again 6 months from now, when drivers and software have advanced just a bit more.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
I think he's faulting *you*, since the patch worked for him.

I can't speak for COD4, but Pidgin works fine here as well.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it works for you it doesn't for him. And since there is no reason to use 64-bits today or for years from now, it would be plain dumb from him to stick to it for nothing but trouble.
 
64-bit is the future. Don't cripple the industry by not upgrading now.

Its rather funny to see people in a hardware enthusiast's forum spend all this time and money overclocking 64-bit quad-core chips and tweaking the timings on their memory yet claim a 32-bit OS w/ 3.3GB RAM is "good enough". LOL!
 
DeaconFrost said:
What would be the point of restoring a backup from a previous OS to one on a newer, far different OS?
Click to expand...

...to migrate my data to Vista; which existed in nightly backups I made using XP's built-in backup utility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top