I've got an app that doesn't run in Vista64. There are these one-off reasons.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
64 bit or 32
- Thread starter agrindinger
- Start date
swatbat
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 13,052
For your average end user right now I'm not sure if 64 bit windows is the way to go. The only reason I say this is comparability with older software that many will have. Same with things like printers although that area has gotten a lot better. Many end users will be happy with 2 gigs of ram so the memory advantage is not their yet. Really the issue comes in with people that buy a new machine and want to use their old card games, greeting card software etc. Some issues can come up with them.
That being said the more future proof option is 64 bit. Really for a lot of the end users this release will not matter which they go with. Their next machine on the other hand will probability warranty going with the 64 bit os. If possible it would be the way to go.
That's why we have virtual machine software nowadays for those old bastards (and young ones too) that simply can't move on past those old 16 bit apps.
VirtualBox is free, VirtualPC 2007 is free (but for older versions of Windows, the one for Windows 7 only works if your CPU has VT-x support), or VMWare too, and are alternatives that will let you run entire OSes to handle that old code.
If it's a game of some kind, DOSBox might be able to help depending on the situation.
Yeah, I'm only 22...it was actually a program called Sigma, which is used for discrete event simulation. I ended up just running it on my laptop since I didn't have a spare 32 bit license.
Its going to be rare that 64bit Windows will be a problem these days for even the average user. Back when Vista launched I might have agreed with you due to the printer/scanner thing, but beyond that I couldn't.
Contrary to popular belief Windows Vista x64 doesn't need 4GB of RAM or more to run well. You can do it with 2GB of RAM the same as you can with the 32bit version. However, this also depends on the applications you run on it. I just don't buy this "Vista 32bit is better for the average user stuff." I've yet to see any reason to go along with that. Even if there are a few reasons out there, they'll only apply to the minority. Why would you want to hold the majority back for a few people?
swatbat
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 13,052
I'm not saying it can't run on 2 gigs. I'm saying it doesn't matter like it does if you want to push 4 gigs or higher.
Generally I would agree that the 64bit version is better for future proofing. I would also say that for your average end user it doesn't matter which they go with right now. It will probability matter for their next computer.
At this point I personally have no reason for 32 bit on my desktop with 8GB of RAM. And I wouldn't go back to less. I have no choice on the laptop, no 64 bit drivers for some devices. If you can go 64 bit do so, if you can't then you can't. ALL of the software that held me back for a while has finally been updated. I'll probably buy a new laptop when Windows 7 goes final. Unless I can find drivers for this thing. I am disappointed they are even doing 7 in 32 bit.
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,812
32bit is as stable as 64bit, anything said otherwise is BS, same bandwagon people jumped on saying vista sucks (where %99.99999 of those people never even used it) Problem is seems and even from MS rep's is they are spreading FUD, total, based on nothing FUD.
Last edited:
dark_reign
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 2,314
Well, I used both, so I can tell you I had BSODs with Vista 32-bit on a few occasions. One was USB related and the other was with my SB Audigy 2. You could blame some of this on Creative, but under Vista x64 I never had a problem. The USB problem went away and I've yet to see a BSOD since moving to Vista x64.
The bottom line is I find Vista x64 to be MORE stable. Oh, and Vista did suck pre-SP1.
Agreed, I never had stability problems with either. Anyone that does is running a bad driver.
So far I've had better stability and performance from 32bit Win 7 and 32bit recognizes all 4gb of RAM. I personally see no reason to use 64bit until my bigger and power hungry apps are written to be 64bit native. Performance increase from everyday apps will be negligible and anecdotal at best.
QwertyJuan
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2000
- Messages
- 11,285
32bit will NOT use all 4GB of ram no matter what.
That's not true. The RAM is getting used. It's just not all being used for applications.
Since Vista SP1, Windows reports installed RAM rather than usable RAM. Since a 2^32 bit address space = 4GB, and the video card and other hardware need address space too, usable RAM will always be less than 4GB. Although PAE supports a 2^36 bit = 64GB address space, consumer versions of Windows don't use this feature because of compatibility issues with third-party drivers and the 36-bit address space.
It's being used; just not for applications.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
no way... on a few occasions (after a system rebuild, or format), i've run a completely RTM, unpatched Vista installation on different configurations, and it ran pretty damn well...
the problem with vista pre-SP1 was that the drivers that were initially put out for it *sucked*. for even more anecdotal evidence: my sister has a laptop that came out when vista first came out, and it was horrible... and HP (the manufacturer), *never* released decent, upgraded drivers for it, and even today, running a fully patched SP1, it still sucks....
dark_reign
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 2,314
Vista had more problems pre-SP1, but wasn't the nightmare many people made it out to be. I saw more issues with HP and Dell boxes and laptops rather than my own PC. It's no wonder Dell kept selling XP for as long as it did.
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
No 64 bit drivers for the hardware in an Alienware laptop? That seems a bit odd...
As for 32 bit, Microsoft won't drop 32 bit support for probably 2 more major OS revisions, or at least 1 more for certain. It's just too entrenched, folks. With the emergence of the Netbook class of portables, 32 bit code will be around for some time to come, years more.
Not at all. If the laptop you own is no longer in production, then you are dead to them. I can't even buy parts, they claim they are reserving them for potential warranty replacements. I did not buy the extended warranty. All of the Vista drivers on their site for this thing are from late 2006, and aren't getting updated. If I can identify the hardware and get updates somewhere else maybe... I may try the Windows 7 RC to see if Microsoft has added any drivers for it. Last I heard there were no 64 bit drivers for the sound, webcam, or TV tuner. That was last year, I'm not expecting much.
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,088
64-bit for sure. 32-bit is so twentieth century. 
nigerian_businessman
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,535
Twinhan DVB-S card drivers don't work very good in x64, and not at all unless I hit F8 to allow unsigned drivers. Also, CoLinux does not run in x64. So while everyone here says that everything works just fine with x64, there are some things that don't. Mind you, neither of these issues are the fault of Microsoft, except for maybe the unsigned driver annoyance (There should be a way to enable unsigned drivers permanently).
So for me, I'm using 32-bit, at least until these issues are sorted out. If you have nothing stopping you from running x64 then I'd recommend it if only because you can use 4gb or more, and 32 bit is on its way out. Don't be surprised to see companies drop support for 32 bit in the near future on professional apps. It's going to happen, and if I were a betting man I'd say next year will be the beginning of the end for 32-bit. All software companies would love to see x64 completely replace 32 bit if only to cut down on end-user confusion and added costs of supporting both.
So for me, I'm using 32-bit, at least until these issues are sorted out. If you have nothing stopping you from running x64 then I'd recommend it if only because you can use 4gb or more, and 32 bit is on its way out. Don't be surprised to see companies drop support for 32 bit in the near future on professional apps. It's going to happen, and if I were a betting man I'd say next year will be the beginning of the end for 32-bit. All software companies would love to see x64 completely replace 32 bit if only to cut down on end-user confusion and added costs of supporting both.
This is a RAM vs address space issue. The full 4GB address space is used, but not all of it points to your RAM. So if there is 3GB of usable address space and you install 4GB RAM, 1GB will not be used.
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
If you can't locate stuff, let me know. I'm pretty good at finding the so-called impossible to find drivers. As long as you know how to get the PCI Vendor and Device IDs using Device Manager, there's a damned good chance that drivers are out there. Give Windows 7 x64 a shot, definitely, it just might surprise you.
I'd check with Dell also - find a laptop with similar hardware and more than likely they'll be the same drivers. You can still use XP Pro x64 drivers also for hardware, they work just fine depending on the device.