• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

32-bit vs 64-bit Vista

C

CRLane

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
204
I am building a new system and I am having trouble deciding on 32-bit vista or 64-bit. I just wanted to know the pro and cons to each and which one would be better for me to use. I am primarily going to be gaming, watching movies, and writing papers/internet surfing.
 
The main benefit I can think of for 64-bit is removal of the 3gb limit for available ram (you can install more but the OS only sees 3gb). I don't remember if drivers are unified for vista or there are seperate 64bit drivers. I think they are unified.
Con: 16bit software doesn't work. 32bit software runs though.
 
64-bit:
+ Can make full use of 4GB or more of RAM
+ Can use 64-bit programs; a few games are starting to be released in 64-bit versions, such as Crysis, and can use more memory and theoretically run faster
+ Additional security features enabled, such as Kernel Patch Protection
- 64-bit drivers may be difficult to find for particularly old/obscure hardware
- Doesn't run very old 16-bit programs (for Windows 3.1 or MS-DOS) at all, but can use a VM if needed

32-bit:
+ More compatible with old hardware/software
- Cannot run 64-bit programs, although most software is 32-bit still anyway
- Cannot make full use of 4GB RAM (usually under 3.5GB available, depending on graphics card)

I've been running 64-bit Vista on this machine for almost a year now and have no compatibility problems with anything. Since 64-bit Windows is perfectly capable of running 32-bit programs (the vast majority of programs and games, especially any released within the last 10 years) and can make full use of the 4GB+ of RAM you really ought to be including in a new machine, it's the best option.
 
For a new computer build 64-bit allows you to use more ram. That is the only difference for a new computer build.
 
drew630 said:
For a new computer build 64-bit allows you to use more ram. That is the only difference for a new computer build.
Click to expand...

No, drew630, read the post one post above yours. Everything said there is correct. It's just that the memory is arguably the biggest difference (although another would be the ability to run 64-bit programs which can make use of your CPU's 64-bit registers and 64-bit instruction set in order to enhance performance). 7zip 64-bit, for example, is supposed to be much faster.
 
I was in a boat similar to yours a year ago. I read a lot of horror stories about XP 64 and was really scared of Vista x64. I was able to get a copy for free through my schools MSAA program so I figured I would give it a try. I was happy to find out that I could find drivers for the few things I use and that all my games worked just fine. Vista x64 is designed to run 32 bit programs, so everything should work.

Keep in mind that Microsoft requires that if a hardware manufacturer wants the "Windows Logo" for their products, they are required to make 32 and 64 bit drivers. Hardware developers want that logo because it insures customers that the software is compatible and that the hardware is compatible, so they make both 32 and 64 bit drivers. That's why it's much easier to find them now. Microsoft didn't do that with XP. And considering that Windows 7 will be the last 32 bit OS they release, companies will jump on the 64 bit platform fully, rather shortly.

Vista x64 is awesome.
 
drew630 said:
For a new computer build 64-bit allows you to use more ram. That is the only difference for a new computer build.
Click to expand...

Why is better performance and better stability because of signed drivers never considered in the 32 bit vs 64 bit comparison? I wish I knew why no one ever seems to look at the difference from the performance perspective.

Bleh... this shit gets old.
 
Joe Average said:
Why is better performance and better stability because of signed drivers never considered in the 32 bit vs 64 bit comparison? I wish I knew why no one ever seems to look at the difference from the performance perspective.

Bleh... this shit gets old.
Click to expand...

Because Microsofts signed drivers are a farking joke in reality. Its nothing more then "We paid MS this amount of $ to say that our drivers are gaurrenteed to work!"
 
Freezebyte said:
Because Microsofts signed drivers are a farking joke in reality. Its nothing more then "We paid MS this amount of $ to say that our drivers are gaurrenteed to work!"
Click to expand...

If you look at it from the limited ignorant point of view that you seem to be looking at it from, sure. But there's a lot more involved with it than that surface - and ignorant - perspective.
 
Mithent said:
64-bit:
*snip*
- Doesn't run very old 16-bit programs (for Windows 3.1 or MS-DOS) at all, but can use a VM if needed
*snip*
Click to expand...

More like "Doesn't run any 16-bit programs or 32-bit programs with 16-bit counterparts (think Windows 95 era games with 16-bit installers)". And yes, this little problem is easily solved with a VM (for Win9x/ME era software) or DOSBox (for DOS and even Windows 3.x era software).

Joe Average said:
If you look at it from the limited ignorant point of view that you seem to be looking at it from, sure. But there's a lot more involved with it than that surface - and ignorant - perspective.
Click to expand...

He's saying, "Google 'Vista x64 unsigned drivers' and you'll find many guides on how to disable this 'feature' from Microsoft. Be forewarned, though, that you risk losing system stability with this method." :D


And OP, LOOK HERE, LOOK HERE!
 
I went from Vista 32-bit to Vista 64-bit and the 64-bit version is much faster and much more stable. By now you shouldn't have any trouble getting 64-bit drivers for all your hardware. For games you shouldn''t have any problems unless they are really old. But even then, really old games will probably work fine unless they have 16-bit installers. You can always run VM software if you really need to run such old games.

I'd only suggest 32-bit Vista if you have hardware that won't work under 64-bit or some critical software program that will not run. Otherwise, get 4GB RAM or more and use Vista 64-bit. In the long run you will be much happier.
 
I tried 64 bit Vista back in February, but went back to 32 bit XP - Mostly because some of my music keyboards did not have drivers. (M-Audio STILL have not produced them)

Vista (64) was also slower all round - just doing the basics - opening start menus etc. It may have improved with the SP, but I'm not sure.

Regarding unlocking above 3GB RAM, my Vista 64 NEVER used above the 3 GB anyway, even with multiple apps open it just seems to use the pagefile all the time.

From what I remember the Vista search was very handy, and the side bar was nice. Some cool graphics like playing video clips in the preview and switching windows. Otherwise I couldn't see the vast improvement vs XP.
Apparently it's safer - I never had security problems anyway. DirectX 10 for games? - get the microscope out to see the differences.

In reality an OS only does so much - it's the applications you use that make your system.
Think ahead, if you're upgrading to the next Windows, it should be easier and cheaper to go from Vista.
 
Freezebyte said:
Because Microsofts signed drivers are a farking joke in reality. Its nothing more then "We paid MS this amount of $ to say that our drivers are gaurrenteed to work!"
Click to expand...

Well yes, but on the other hand, you have to supply a name and address when you pay for the signing, because you pay with a valid credit card. This provides a way to find the author of the driver if their driver causes a problem, they can be notified, and malware authors tend not to want to give out things like names and addresses when doing their thing. No it's not fullproof, but it offers some protection and utility.

And to the guy that said XP was faster, I say nuts! On a relative's XP system, when I have to go over to fix it, the start menu takes a long time to open, accessing the hard drive etc. Vista's start menu always flies open, and most of my programs are kept in superfetch so everything opens in < 1 second, but between 5-10 seconds in XP. Frame rates are faster on Vista or the same for most things btw, this has been posted many times here. Things have changed since Vista RTM when all the drivers sucked, people need to get over the performance issue already since it has been solved since SP1.
 
For a new computer, I don't see any point using 32bit OS unless you use a program that only works in 32bit.
 
My move to 64-bit Vista wasn't a very smooth one.

I experienced:

1.Data corruption and data loss
2.No more sleep mode (computer locks up when resuming)
3.Some strange AHCI driver bug that caused my harddrives to magically and periodically write protect themselves causing apps to crash and making it impossible to move or copy data on them for a while.
4. No 64-bit driver available for my audio card

#1 and 2 are because of my crappy motherboard. Reviewers praised the mobo for its stability and reliability without realizing that with certain configurations, running Vista x64 and putting the computer into S3 sleep mode causes severe corruption of the harddrives. It's a known issue even though Asus won't acknowledge it officially. S1 sleep mode does not corrupt the harddrive, but the computer crashes on resume 75% of the time.

#3 I solved by installing build 2.5.1540.48 of the AMD SB600 AHCI driver. Asus only have outdated drivers available but MSI had a more recent build on their K9A2 downloads page.

#4 is because M-Audio are a bunch of incompetent idiots. I eventually found a leaked private beta driver on the net.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1358554

If you're going with more than 3GB of RAM, Vista x64 makes much more sense since the 32-bit OS can only see the first 3GB. Just make sure all your hardware and software is compatible *before* you install the OS so you don't have to go through what I did.
 
Catweazle said:
Good grief!

You're the bloke who started [H]ard, aren't you? Then why the hell you blathering crap that's oft?
Click to expand...


I usually go on that way to expose the pricks that post on our boards. See how well it works? ;)
 
heh heh....

Nice exercise in politics :D



Seriously, though, what the OP 'needs' depends upon what 'Gaming' represents to him or her. That's the only acvtivity amongst those listed which might warrant a more heavy-duty rig. If the intended 'gaming' os gonna be the latest releases, played on big monitors with alls their bells and whistles enabled, that means a really hefty rig and vid card(s) with lots of video RAM, accompanied by heaps of system RAM and a 64-bit OS to draw best benefit from the hardware. If the 'gaming' is gonna be less demanding than that (and for a lot of people it is) then the choice doesn't really matter all that much.

And if the rig has 2Gb or less system RAM installed then using the 64-bit OS version can effectively be a step backwards, performance-wise, anyways.


Was I building a new 'gaming' rig nowadays it'd be built around quad-core, 4Gb to 8Gb RAM, and kick-arse display capability. And then I'd install 64-bit Windows, and sit there looking at the thing feeling kinda pissed-off, because I've hardly seen a game released in the past 3 years which really sparks my interest. (My grandkids agree, by the way. All the 'fun' games go to console instead.)


Point is that just because a person mentions 'gaming' it doesn't necessarily follow that that's gonna be 'Crysis version 3'.
 
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA what an absolutely perfect picture to demonstrate the point... hehehehe Classic...
 
Seriously, though, what the OP 'needs' depends upon what 'Gaming' represents to him or her. That's the only acvtivity amongst those listed which might warrant a more heavy-duty rig. If the intended 'gaming' os gonna be the latest releases, played on big monitors with alls their bells and whistles enabled, that means a really hefty rig and vid card(s) with lots of video RAM, accompanied by heaps of system RAM and a 64-bit OS to draw best benefit from the hardware. If the 'gaming' is gonna be less demanding than that (and for a lot of people it is) then the choice doesn't really matter all that much.
Click to expand...

Building a new gaming system today means using a 1GB video card which makes even less memory available for use. I had about 3.3GB usable with a 512MB card, so I guess with a 1GB card you only get 2.8GB worst case.

2GB of RAM is not enough for more recent games. Warhead stuttered like crazy when running the benchmark and wasn't much better during actual gameplay. With 3.3GB (32-bit Vista with 4GB of RAM), it was smooth. Having 2.8GB or 3.3GB will be enough for some time but eventually you'll want more. With 3.3GB available, I got some pauses and heavy disk thrashing in Oblivion with texture mods, which disappeared when I switched to Vista 64-bit. I found that strange since it's a 32-bit app and should only have 2GB available regardless, but that's what happened.

When building a new system, the only OS to use is Vista 64-bit. Just make sure any components and peripherals carried over from older systems are 64-bit compatible or the transition won't be very smooth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top