32 bit or 64 bit Vista?

C

Chacranajxy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
257
Apparently, you can only get one or the other when buying the OEM version of Windows Vista. It seems like 64-bit is definitely the better choice since I have a 64 bit processor now and I can't imagine going to a 32 bit processor at any point, but is there any reason for me to opt for the 32 bit instead?
 
From all the RC1 and Betas of Vista the 64bit version was worthless because nothing worked with it, even if you had a 64bit cpu. It doesn't matter if you have a 64bit cpu and 64bit OS if the drivers and software are not compatible. And even if they are made to work, they are not always done to take advantage of 64bit.

Unless this has changed with the retail release?
 
TimothyB said:
From all the RC1 and Betas of Vista the 64bit version was worthless because nothing worked with it, even if you had a 64bit cpu. It doesn't matter if you have a 64bit cpu and 64bit OS if the drivers and software are not compatible. And even if they are made to work, they are not always done to take advantage of 64bit.

Unless this has changed with the retail release?
Click to expand...

Care to define "nothing?"
 
I would go 64bit, i used it, everything worked fine for me. Not only that, it is leaps and bounds more secure than the 32bit version. It has nothing to do with the technology, its the fact that they can implement a system that may break certain things. That guy above probably had 1 or 2 programs that didn't work for him, so thats what he is judging it from. I use it as my primary OS and everything has worked perfectly.

"One of the primary benefits of using an x64-based version of Windows Vista is that these versions provide dramatically improved security features when compared to their 32-bit counterparts. Most dramatically, the Windows Vista x64 versions include a new secret security feature that will virtually eliminate remote system attacks for the first time on the Windows platform." ~Paul Thurott

I suggest you red this article.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x64.asp
 
Sounds like the 64 bit version is only worth it if one needs the extra performance. For most of us it makes little sense to use the 64 Bit Vista. Their are just too many compatibility issues at this time. Maybe in a few years 64 bit will replace the 32bit but until them I am staying with 32bit.
 
TimothyB said:
From all the RC1 and Betas of Vista the 64bit version was worthless because nothing worked with it, even if you had a 64bit cpu. It doesn't matter if you have a 64bit cpu and 64bit OS if the drivers and software are not compatible. And even if they are made to work, they are not always done to take advantage of 64bit.

Unless this has changed with the retail release?
Click to expand...

Funny, I've been using 64bit versions of both the first beta when they made the change from Longhorn to Vista and the RC1 on my v2000z laptop, so I'd say about 6 months (or two college semesters). I had no problems but one. The sound card had drivers, but they weren't signed, which 64bit requires. This was easily bypassed though. Only software I found that wouldn't run was temperature software due to no drivers. However, I believe Speedfan now has 64 bit drivers.
 
I ran 64-bit version of Vista RC2 as well on my Athlon 64 system before my upgrade, and, while it worked fine except for the lack of audio drivers for my Audigy 2 ZS and my Linksys wireless card, it work alright, though I did notice it used more CPU power to do the exact same things as the 32-bit version did. In the end, I didn't think it was worth it.
 
My two main issues:

1) Vista 64 REQUIRES drivers to he WHQL certified. It won't even let you install non-certified drivers at all... it doesn't have the XP "warning" box about uncertified drivers; it just ignores them.

2) Vista 64 gives each app it's own 32 bit memory space, which is good because it means if you're running a program it's never going to fight with another program (read: swap) for available memory. The downside? It GOBBLES memory because of this. Each worthwhile reviewer (my fav is Lloyd Case) has recommended 4 gigs of ram... 4 gigs of ram that I don't have.

I'll stick with XP until the initial issues are worked out then grab an oem version. I know it's got added limitations but I don't upgrade that often.
 
neeyo said:
1) Vista 64 REQUIRES drivers to he WHQL certified. It won't even let you install non-certified drivers at all... it doesn't have the XP "warning" box about uncertified drivers; it just ignores them.
Click to expand...

Wrong. x64 can still use drivers that aren't WHQL. And it WILL give you the same warning box.
 
neeyo said:
My two main issues:

1) Vista 64 REQUIRES drivers to he WHQL certified. It won't even let you install non-certified drivers at all... it doesn't have the XP "warning" box about uncertified drivers; it just ignores them.

2) Vista 64 gives each app it's own 32 bit memory space, which is good because it means if you're running a program it's never going to fight with another program (read: swap) for available memory. The downside? It GOBBLES memory because of this. Each worthwhile reviewer (my fav is Lloyd Case) has recommended 4 gigs of ram... 4 gigs of ram that I don't have.

I'll stick with XP until the initial issues are worked out then grab an oem version. I know it's got added limitations but I don't upgrade that often.
Click to expand...

1. This simply is not true. The Nvidia drivers caused a confirmation dialog just as before. I am using Home Premium, so I'm beginning to wonder if this is different in Business and higher versions. Edit: Only because I see people keep repeating this. It might be based on something, but who knows?

2. I'm not having any trouble with 2 gigs, but I haven't really pushed it yet. Most of the hard drive thrashing you hear is probably indexing or superfetch.
 
Well, I can tell you my experience with the x64 version of Vista Ultimate.

Driver issue:
I don't believe the 32 bit version would be any better. It just seems like a lot of companies have decided not to support Vista. So your pretty much dead in the water. (This was the case for my dlink wireless pci card)

Performance:
MAN it is NOT TO GOOD :( I have the latest drivers for my video card. Nvidia doesn't have any motherboard drivers for the nForce 3 (other then sound and network, which I don't need).

When I resize windows, like iTunes for example, it comes to a crawl, using 100% of my cpu!!!! and runs very sluggish. While resizing windows media player, it still uses 100% of my cpu but is less jerky then iTunes.

All in all, I haven't even attempted gaming on this BEAST! I doubt I am going to like the results :( I don't know about the 32 bit users, but if the performance is better (which I couldn't imagine it could be worse :() then I would probably do 32 bit if I could do it all over again.

I know I am rambling, but its late and I am beat :(

I wish you all luck whom orderd vista.

On a side note...its PRETTY! :D but in the end....it's still windows :(
 
My experience with Vista x64 Ultimate:

- Slightly more reponsive than x86, everything just loads slightly faster
- nVidia 100.54 drivers suck, and so did the 97s
- ATi 7.1 broke one of my games
- iTunes is crap on Vista xANY... scratch that, sucks on XP too
- Games are crap because drivers are crap, can't even get proper antialiasing
- After rebooting a dozen times, superfetch kicked in and everything I normally use loads in an instant after I see my desktop eg. Firefox
- Acrobat 8 Professional loads in 4 seconds (OMG)
- Nothing has crashed in a week (am I using Windows?)

So far, so good.
 
Here was something I noticed with the 32 bit and 64 bit versions, you might be able to duplicate it, I have no idea, but it impressed the hell outta me.

After installing the 32 bit version of Vista Ultimate a few weeks back on a Core 2 Duo 1.66 laptop with 2GB and a 160GB 5400 rpm SATA drive, I did the following:

I copied over about 3K songs (mp3 files, all minimum of 192Kbps) to a second partition on the drive (the system partition was 30GB). I then fired up WMP11 and when it asked if I wanted to scan for files on my drive, I said no, and then went to do that manually.

I pointed it to the directory where all those files were and let it catalog the meta tags, aka the ID3 tags, in the files. The process took about 6 mins and some odd seconds, which seemed entirely normal to me.

A few days later I installed the 64 bit version of Ultimate and after the install I thought, "Let's do that test again and see if anything is different."

Same files, same partition, just the 64 bit version of Ultimate instead of 32.

The entire process was finished in under 1.5 mins. Now, I can't say that the 64 bit version was faster since this isn't truly scientific in terms of testing. All I can say is that it was a helluva lot faster, right after a clean install, on the exact same hardware, and only the OS was different.

As I said, it impressed me and after that I knew the 64 bit version was the way to go, especially since I had full hardware support out of the box, so to speak.

YMMV, as always.
 
I just want to know...Am I the only one who is experiencing horrible slow down while resizing media player etc...?

Thanks
 
I was not sure about the 32bit version ad 64 bit version too. I saw that Crysis will come with 64bit version so i decided to get vista 64bit to get better performance and quality. I installed it yesterday and so far , no major problem. I have 1gb ram ddr2 800 and a geforce 7300gs ( crap until geforce 8800 drop a bit ). All is running fine, nvidia driver 64 work very well, x-fi driver work 100% ( even better then xp because i had a recording issue in xp ). For gaming there we go, with my video card im limited to play bf2 and css really, i heard steam installed the game in 64bit version if you have a 64 bit os. Well believe it or not but i gain fps in css, about 10-20 fps, same graphic setting has xp. BF2 is different scenario; loading is 2x, 3x faster, but when i enter the game there is like a 1-2 min of lag, then it stop and its the same fps as XP, i guess with a better graphic card it will fix this issue. But there software like to see my cpu temp, Core temp, cpu-z dont work on vista 64bit. Before getting it, make sure you check your software you are using like ( important one ) if they are compatible with 64bit version. But you know its a matter of time before most software will be 100% compatible 64bit ( the evolution )
 
treepop said:
I just want to know...Am I the only one who is experiencing horrible slow down while resizing media player etc...?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Yes i had slow down while resizing but since i did the windows update this morning , my comp is a bit faster and no slow down. But i rather still use winamp.
 
After doing some research, it seems painfully obvious that there is no 64-bit upgrade for Vista.

Anyone know where I can get a 64-bit Vista Home Premium? Not OEM, I'm looking for a retail version.
 
Can any one of you here tell me what you expect to be better in your 64bit version of vista?

Seriously.
 
ScYcS said:
Can any one of you here tell me what you expect to be better in your 64bit version of vista?

Seriously.
Click to expand...

Yup - run multiple VMWARE sessions in more than 4 GB of RAM. I would also expect that at some point 2 GB isn't going to be enough, and I want that 4 GB line erased. It's truly nasty. But for now - I want to be able to run lots of VMWARE sessions at once.
 
clicker666 said:
Yup - run multiple VMWARE sessions in more than 4 GB of RAM. I would also expect that at some point 2 GB isn't going to be enough, and I want that 4 GB line erased. It's truly nasty. But for now - I want to be able to run lots of VMWARE sessions at once.
Click to expand...


YOU will probably in fact see an improvement when going to 64 bit.

Sorry to all others. ;)

And no, i won't provide sources. I'm not the one buying the 64bit version and trying to convince myself that it's faster. You better research the advantages and disadvantages of going 64bit and then make an educated decision. And if you do your research right, then, most likely, you'll notice that 64bit is not any faster than 32 bit vista.
 
SuperSubZero said:
Applies to XP64, and kinda old, but.. http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY1
(I trust this particular source)

The stuff at the end is still relevant. For your 64-bit OS to give a real performance boost, you need 64-bit apps, otherwise you're not taking advantage of anything.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And you know what? You can be 3 years old to count on your fingers the 64bit applications you most likely have / use. As a matter of fact, you probably could be 3 years old with one hand amputated and still be able to count them all. And out of all those fingers, two hurt too much from picking your nose, so the 3 apps left compiled to 64 bits are probably STILL slower because the drivers in 64bit are so much inferior to their 32bit counterparts that any advantages that could've developed by going 64bit are completely gone by now.

Have a nice day.

PS: do what clicker666 does. See what you really want to do with your 64bit machine and then see if you need 64 bit OS for that. Most likely you don't. As a matter of fact, pretty sure you don't. And because it says 64bit on the box, doesn't mean it twice as fast (or even faster in first place) than 32bit. A famous musician once said "11 is better, because it's one louder than 10". You don't wanna be that musician.
 
ScYcS said:
YOU will probably in fact see an improvement when going to 64 bit.

Sorry to all others. ;)

And no, i won't provide sources. I'm not the one buying the 64bit version and trying to convince myself that it's faster. You better research the advantages and disadvantages of going 64bit and then make an educated decision. And if you do your research right, then, most likely, you'll notice that 64bit is not any faster than 32 bit vista.
Click to expand...

Hah, fine. You seem to know what's going on, so I was hoping that you had something for me to look at. In the mean time, I'll have to wait to get off work before I do my google research.
 
I really didn't wanna come over as a snob without helping you in this matter. It's just that there are so many questions wether to go 64bit or stay 32bit and what the advantages/disadvantages are and some claims that are simply wrong that i prefer people to educated themselves a little more before i simply make a claim and others make counter claims and in the end the person who wants to know knows nothing because he got 2 opinions and neither of them is completely right.

Research and especially make sure you research based on your needs.
 
The way I have been thinking about it lately, is that a person may be able to happily answer the question of 32 vs 64 based on the intended lifespan of the computer Vista is going to be on. If a computer is only going to be used for 3 years or less, then go with 32 bit and save yourself the trouble of dealing with 64 bit. If the computer is going to be used for longer than that, then you may as well switch to 64 bit and get used to it, as it is the future.
 
ScYcS said:
I really didn't wanna come over as a snob without helping you in this matter. It's just that there are so many questions wether to go 64bit or stay 32bit and what the advantages/disadvantages are and some claims that are simply wrong that i prefer people to educated themselves a little more before i simply make a claim and others make counter claims and in the end the person who wants to know knows nothing because he got 2 opinions and neither of them is completely right.

Research and especially make sure you research based on your needs.
Click to expand...

Thanks, appreciate the guidance. I'll admit, I'm almost completely ignorant, just walking into Vista without knowing much about it. Looking forward to just playing with it rather than making it a primary OS.

There was the whole matter of finding out which version to go with. Basic, Premium, Business, Ultimate? Do I want an upgrade? Don't want OEM. 32-bit vs. 64-bit? AH!
 
Langford said:
The way I have been thinking about it lately, is that a person may be able to happily answer the question of 32 vs 64 based on the intended lifespan of the computer Vista is going to be on. If a computer is only going to be used for 3 years or less, then go with 32 bit and save yourself the trouble of dealing with 64 bit. If the computer is going to be used for longer than that, then you may as well switch to 64 bit and get used to it, as it is the future.
Click to expand...

And even then i doubt it'll be worth it. Let's not be dreamers. We're not the driving force that makes 64bit mainstream. It's the professional industry and the businesses that run windows applications that are the driving force. And that industry is not nearly ready for 64bit. There are still tons of businesses out there still on Windows 2000. They won't go to Vista and then on top 64 bit.
As far as 3 years or more....is it worth to live with snotty driver support the next couple years just to be 64bit in the future? I think not.

The only (!!) thing that 64bit vista has going for it is the ram limitation of 4 gb in the 32bit version. End even that is not a problem for most people. Honestly.
 
Like hell I might not wanna be Pete Townshend, please. He might be nearly stone cold deaf at this point in his life, but what the hell, the memories alone are probably worth it.

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the millennium, or is it just me? Good lord man, stop taking this stuff so damned personally.

The reason people should choose to run a 64 bit version of Vista is because they can. If everyone goes for the 32 bit version just because everything should work just fine with it, what does that mean for the 64 bit CPUs and the future of computing? Just because you and your brethren might feel like hanging out by the wayside, nursing a lemonade in your rocker at the truckstop while all the cool cats come zooming by in their Ferraris doesn't mean "don't do it, sonny, you'll be sorry."

It's like telling people that overclock their CPU (I note in your sig that you do some overclocking yourself there, bub) don't do it, it's bad. Or like telling people that do case modding "Why bother, it's stupid." They do it because they can, and that's the only reason that matters.

If you've got a 64 bit CPU, and you've got Vista in a 64 bit version, GO FOR IT, with all possible haste. Put it on, find out what works and what doesn't, and if you find something that doesn't work, go out and find the hardware support it needs or start writing email after email to the manufacturer demanding they support it or you'll never buy another product from them again.

This is ridiculous telling people not to use Vista in 64 bit versions. Get real. It's out, it's there, it's perfectly acceptable, and people should start using it if their hardware is supported it AND if their hardware isn't then it's time to start that proverbial letter/email writing campaign and let the hardware makers know we're all completely serious about 64 bit computing.

If you want to sit by the wayside sipping that lemonade, that's fine, but don't get all self-righteous around here and TELL other people they shouldn't run it. Then you have the nerve to say you won't provide sources... good lord.

Have a nice day, indeed...

If you've got a 64 bit ready machine, there's no reason not to use a 64 bit OS on it as long as you get the hardware support you need. Considering the fact that this is the first widespread release of a 64 bit operating system of any kind for personal computers, I'd think that telling people not to get on board with it and take it for a spin is three steps past ludicrous and rapidly approaching insanity.

We ARE the driving force, because we're the customers that make things happen; believing otherwise just takes you closer to that insanity.
 
I'm telling him to do his research and then decide on his own.

You have your personal opinion about it and i have mine. By him doing his own research he won't have his head spun around by our personal opinions. Not that you gave him any sources that helped him much either.

Btw, stay away from the personal attacks. It's getting tiresome, you almost seem like a stalker.

PS: Pete Townshend? It was Nigel Tufnel....you know? The guy that wrote "Lick my Lovepump".
 
bentley said:
if you have 64bit use it if you dont use the 32bit end of story :D
Click to expand...

True but its a question of time until most of the best apps, game will be 64bit, Crysis that coming soon will be able to use 64bit mode, i bet that there is going to have a noticable difference between 32 and 64bit version, i have myselft installed 64bit version Vista preminum and Ive tested CSS, loading is much faster and in the stress test video, same setting has XP, i gained 13 fps, and in game i can reach 100fps wich in xp it was 60fps the max i got. So yeah check your application you want to use if they are 64bit, or even 32bit will work, life BF2 is 32bit and i notice the loading is 2x faster but in game its slower then on XP, but i have a crappy video card and 1GB ram. So if you got 2gb and a good video card then i would suggest you going 64bit for the future. Overrall 64bit is slower with 32 bit apps, but when it come to 64bits, you gain speed.
 
until 64bit office is released, folks (companies) won't install vista.

hell I am running office 2000 at home & have the 2007 dvd remaining unopened & uninstalled[/not yet installed?].


it was the same situation with 16bit office & 32bit windows..
 
SPARTAN VI said:
After doing some research, it seems painfully obvious that there is no 64-bit upgrade for Vista.

Anyone know where I can get a 64-bit Vista Home Premium? Not OEM, I'm looking for a retail version.
Click to expand...
Question hasn't been answered yet amidst the banter. 32-bit Vista Home Premium retail entitles you to BOTH the 32-bit and 64-bit installs. The 32-bit DVD comes in the box, and the package contains a leaflet giving you details of how to order the 64-bit DVD. Ordering it entails payment of a shipping charge.

Vista Ultimate is the only retail version to include both disks in the box. All other retail versions ship with the 32-bit and entitle you to order the 64-bit disk, and this is true irrespective of whether it is a full install or upgrade package.

OEM Vista does not include the leaflet in the package. However, some people here have reported that they've purchased 32-bit OEM Vista and then successfully used the same online ordering system ( www.windowsvista.com/1033/ordermedia ) to obtain the 64-bit DVD. Their OEM install key was accepted in the process. Sorta blows away the contention that OEM entitles you to only one of the installs ;)

ScYcS said:
Can any one of you here tell me what you expect to be better in your 64bit version of vista?

Seriously.
Click to expand...
Overall system responsiveness, but you can also expect it to be only a marginal improvement. Almost all of any performance improvement you'll see relates to device drivers, considering that for most people those will be about the only 64-bit software (apart from the OS itself) running on the system. When using the 64-bit OS and software additional CPU registers come into play, which are unused for the 32-bit OS and software. Because of this you get better performance, but because most of your software applications themselves will be 32-bit software any performance improvements at present will be minimal.


Device driver support is good. If a 32-bit Vista is available for a component there'll also almost certainly be a 64-bit Vista driver available. Applications software compatibility is good. Compatible system tools and utility software is appearing now at more than just a trickle. As others have said - you've got it so why not try it? Both 32-bit and 64-bit installs can be put in place, side by side as a dual-boot, and people can determine for themselves whether their needs are met better by one or the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top