Vista 32 or 64?

S

solartaco

n00b
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
26
I have both versions of Vista Ultimate 32 and 64 bit. Which should I install? Or should I just try the 64 and if it flakes out go back to 32? Did I just answer my own question?

ASRock 939Dual
FX 64 X2 4200
WD Raptor
1GB PC3200 (Dual)
9600XT Radeon (i know..)
 
the problem with the 64bit version imo is you going to need 64bit drivers and 64bit applications/games, i personally will install the 64bit version on my computer when i buy vista.
 
At this moment, it's not really going to matter in the long run. But if you must install one or the other, go for 32 bit at this time. 64 bit requires proper drivers, which simply don't exist as of yet across as wide a path as the 32 bit drivers do, so that means you'll end up having issues with gaming if that's your thing. Current video drivers are not the final ones, meaning ATI and Nvidia both have a lot more work to do before Vista hits store shelves on January 30th.

Having said that, if gaming isn't your thing, then by all means give Vista 64 a shot and see what hardware you presently have that's natively supported by Vista - meaning you don't have to add any additional drivers. 64 bit drivers, in Vista, must be signed from what I can tell (that may have changed recently and if it has I'm not aware of it), not just 64 bit, so that's one reason they simply don't exist right now. They'll come in time, but right now you may have hardware driver incompatibilities or the hardware simply will not work at all.

Only one way to find out for sure.

Install whatever Vista 64 edition you want, then hit Windows Update - that is, hit Windows Update if your NIC is supported and you're able to get online. See what drivers Windows Update may or may not install from Windows Update, then afterwards and after any reboots requested, take a look at Device Manager and see what hardware isn't supported and go from there.

Hope this helps...
 
Thanks for all the information. I'll go for the 64 and see what happens and let you good folks know. Thanks again.
 
Bear in mind that the memory footprint of x64 versions of Windows (either XP or Vista) are larger than their 32-bit versions. That means you'll have less available memory for running your applications.

As a result, you can expect to be hitting the swap file more frequently which will likely eat up any performance benefit you might otherwise get from the 64-bit version of the OS.

The benefits to 64-bit operation are minimal if you don't have 4GB or more RAM. I doubt that, for most people, the trade off in finding suitable drivers is worth it.

Personally I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate on my development machines, and loving it, but those all have 4GB or more RAM anyway.
 
I tried to run Vista x64 for a week or two. I ended up going back to XP. With x64 (XP or Vista), you have less driver and application support. Add Vista on top of that, and Vista x64 for business use is really painful. Many things just don't run. My laptop is a Dell, and they provide no drivers for any Vista. VMware doesn't run on Vista. There is not Vista x64 Cisco client. I could list more, but in the long run, I was far less productive with Vista x64 than either XP or XP x64. I'm sure that will change as application and driver support increases.
 
Thing that chapped my ass about Vista is that it didn't even detect half the stuff I got in and around my PC (Keyboard/G15, Mouse G5, 8800GTS :| ),

So hopefully they will have better support upon release..(not getting my hopes up)
 
solartaco said:
So in order to play BF2 I'll need a 64bit version? Never heard of it.
Click to expand...

not sure of other's experiences, but i was unable to get bf2 to work properly on vista (rc2 and another post rc2 release). i installed vista a few times on my last computer build, then upgraded the mobo and video and tried it again with no luck.

basically, the menu screen has various artifacts which cause it to be unworkable. it will play fine and dandy if you're in a game (which happens when you click one of the two shortcuts, initially), but without the ability to change the menu items, you're screwed :\ (and i did try it with the background video removed with no luck)

if there's a workaround i'd like to know as that is the only reason i'm not going to do vista as dual booting is just not worth it to me.
 
this is my comp....

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 cpu
Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 mobo
Corsair XMS2 TWIN2X2048-6400 2GB 2X1GB PC6400 DDR2-800 memory
EVGA E-GEFORCE 8800 GTS video card
Microsoft Windows XP Professional

i would also like to know whether to upgrade to 32 or 64bit vista....i am thinking that the 32 bit will be a bit safer, seeing that we know the drivers exist
 
RailGunRiz said:
So hopefully they will have better support upon release..(not getting my hopes up)
Click to expand...

"they" meaning the companies that write the drivers for Vista so their hardware devices can communicate with Vista, right? Of course... it's not Vista's fault if some hardware doesn't work just yet; that's the domain of the hardware manufacturers.

Same thing with application and general software support. In time most every application will be recoded or retooled to work with Vista, but it will take time. Vista is a beast, we all know that, but it's a good thing.

And as for the 32 vs 64 bit memory footprint and swap usage, that's a moot point. I'm currently running Vista Ultimate 64 with 2GB of RAM on a Core 2 Duo laptop. 32 bit editions actually use more RAM when I reach the Desktop than the 64 bit editions do, and presently I'm just running mIRC, IE7 (64 bit edition), and YIM; memory usage is about 812MB because of SuperPrefetch and other tasks running in the background.

You can't use a point of view that comes from years of using XP when referring to Vista - they're two different OSes no matter how much alike people seem to think they are.

Vista is not XP, nor any previous version. Its RAM usage is totally different, CPU usage works differently as well. With SuperPrefetch and the performance boosts it can offer, RAM usage will always look higher than with XP and previous versions of Windows, but that's how Vista works and it's perfectly normal now.

This all will take some time to get used to, that's a given, but it would help if people started learning about Vista and why the RAM usage looks so high compared to <insert OS here>. It's perfectly normal operation now, and hindsight is just going to keep you in the past.

Just my $.02...
 
The most sensible thing to do would be to stay with XP for a while then upgrade to Vista 64-bit after a few months. Unless you want to buy Vista twice. Everything eventually will be 64-bit. And security wise, it's a lot better buy than 32-bit Vista.

There's an excellent netcast about security in Vista and it compares 32 bit vs 64 if you really want detailed information.

http://www.twit.tv/sn66
 
Ion Silverbolt said:
The most sensible thing to do would be to stay with XP for a while then upgrade to Vista 64-bit after a few months.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I'm planning on waiting to see how the 64 bit driver support shakes out. Once I am confident I have viable 64 bit drivers for my PC, I'll probably go with the 64 bit version.
 
I'm under the impression Vista will ship with both 32 and 64 bits versions in the disk.
 
Ion Silverbolt said:
The most sensible thing to do would be to stay with XP for a while then upgrade to Vista 64-bit after a few months. Unless you want to buy Vista twice.

http://www.twit.tv/sn66
Click to expand...

I get all version and copies for free from where I work. Viva MSDN Subscription.
 
Xilikon said:
I'm under the impression Vista will ship with both 32 and 64 bits versions in the disk.
Click to expand...

I also read somewhere that your disk has the ability to install either one. So you won't have to buy another copy to go to 64bit.
 
Yesterday I went to a Vista, office 2007, exchange presentation for OEMs

The MS representative said that the retail versions of vista will include 32 and 64bit versions.

OEMs will have a choice of either 32bit or 64bit installation disks.

Off topic, Exchange is looking to be an amazing product, I was most impressed by it than Vista or Office.
 
Xilikon said:
I'm under the impression Vista will ship with both 32 and 64 bits versions in the disk.
Click to expand...

Vista will be released in 32 bit versions only as far as the Express upgrade program goes, the retail boxed products, etc., so sayeth some people in low places in Redmond I keep in touch with. The 64 bit versions of any edition will be available upon request after proof-of-purchase is given or something that says you have a legit 32 bit edition and probably paying a modest shipping fee.

I can't confirm this as of this moment, but I can't see any reason to doubt the statement. I doubt Microsoft is going to release Vista on 2 DVDs in every retail package, so that means the only way to get the 64 bit DVD would be to ask for it after the purchase as just noted.

And Microsoft isn't going to release 32 and 64 bit editions on a single DVD, no matter how much we'd all love to see that happen. They're not ready to manufacture an "All-In-One" DVD like a particular one floating around out there is <hintBillGateshint> which is a severe hack job and mishmash of 32 and 64 bit code.

32 bit and 64 bit editions cannot fit on a single layer DVD5 - they're both too large as distributions. It would require one dual layer DVD9 to distribute them both, which would mean a huge jump in mastering and production costs, so it ain't gonna happen. Just one DVD with 32 bit editions on it, and 64 bit waiting in the wings for a request.
 
And as for the 32 vs 64 bit memory footprint and swap usage, that's a moot point.
Click to expand...

Not really. In general, all other things being equal, 64-bit code is physically larger than equivalent 32-bit code. The reason is fairly simple ... any instructions dealing with memory addresses in a flat 64-bit space have operands twice the length of those necessary in a 32-bit space.

I'm not making comparisons with XP. This is Vista-to-Vista with a common set of services.

Most engineers doing native 64-bit development, and all of those writing code that has to compile for both x86 and x64 should be well aware of this by now.

Bear in mind I'm not talking about perceived memory load ... I'm talking about actual available physical memory once you get past the minimum needed to run your Kernel, drivers and UX.

Anyway, the standard memory load for a given configuration of Vista could be larger by default under 32-bit (I'd like to see it ... it's certainly not the case on any of my development boxes), but ultimately when you pair things down to the minimum you need to run the 64-bit code will be larger (and consequently occupy more RAM) than the 32-bit.

Compare the native 32 bit components for Vista x86 with the same components compiled for native x64 Vista and you'll find the 64-bit binaries are 20-50% larger. Look at memory usage directly (either via a process explorer or a kernel level debugger), and you'll see RAM usage is correspondingly larger also.


Further more if you're running 32-bit code (e.g. BF2) under a 64-bit OS you have the additional overhead of WoW exec.

The bottom line is that running a 64-bit OS on a machine with 1GB of memory offers no significant advantages for the vast majority of scenarios. Benchmarks may show a modest gain (depending on what they are), but with the system under a heavy memory load (BF2 isn't exactly frugal unless you're using minimum settings) those will evaporate rapidly.

Beyond a few additional registers, which most applications simply don't use today, the benefit of 64-bit is increased flat address space. There are other benefits on current 64-bit CPUs but those relate purely to individual CPU architecture and have no relation to the register size of the chip ... and many of those advantages are available without running a 64-bit OS in the first place.

...
 
At the last seminar I attended from Microsoft, it was revealed that everything is included on the same disk....from Home Basic to Vista Ultimate (except Enterprise), both 32 and 64 bit versions. The difference is which PID key you own to access what portions of the disk that you have permissions for....

Xilikon said:
I'm under the impression Vista will ship with both 32 and 64 bits versions in the disk.
Click to expand...
 
Microsoft isn't releasing an "All-In-One" DVD as was commonly believed in the past. The "leaked" <hint,hint> thing floating around out there that claims to be an "AIO" DVD isn't; it's a hack job that's not done properly nor using the proper code as it should be - a mishmash of crap if I've ever seen one. It's got entirely too much 32 bit code on installed when you choose the x64 editions, and not the same as the real 64 bit editions do, not nearly as much real 64 bit code.

It's already known that the key is what determines the actual edition installed: one can verify this by choosing to not use a key when asked for one during the initial setup. You'll get a popup and if you click "No" then the next screen allows you to choose any of the available editions on that particular DVD - simply select the edition you'd like to install and check the box that asks if you've chosen the edition you purchased.

Some people mistakenly take this as a "30 day trial period" for Vista's other editions, and while it might be construed as such, Microsoft has never officially made any public statement either way. It does allow you to 'check out' the other editions if you'd happen to want to know how the others work on your hardware or perhaps see what they offer over the one you purchased, however.

Currently, if you look at the actual MSDN 32 bit Vista ISO that's available, it clocks in at about 2.49 GB (2,678,614,016 bytes), while the 64 bit ISO comes in at 3.53 GB (3,796,490,240 bytes). Simple math will tell you that both versions, even though they do share some 32 bit code like IE 32 bit, WMP 32 bit, Notepad/Wordpad 32 bit, etc., simply cannot exist on a 4.3GB (ok, 4.7GB if you want the actual real math amount) single layer DVD blank. It would require a piece of dual layer DVD9 media to accomplish the "AIO" thing, and I seriously doubt Microsoft is about to put out Vista on a dual layer disc to millions and millions of customers.

The current word I've scooped is that all the retail products and most of the business editions will be in 32 bit distribution format, with 64 bit versions available upon request, and most likely with a nominal fee for shipping and handling.

Currently I have my Vista Express upgrade order in for Home Premium and I got in on that "Power Together" thing for Business for free also. These things won't actually get to me till probably March, but I'm in no hurry presently.

Just my $.02...
 
So let me get somethings straight about Vista 64. You actually need your print driver, and software (quickbooks) to all be 32 bit? or can you use 32 bit vista print drivers?
 
Drivers will have to be 64-bit for Vista x64, exactly as they have to be for XP x64. Software can go either way, though in theory 64-bit versions should be zippier.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though, bbz_Ghost...32-bit is still all the rage, after all...
 
You are right about 32 and 64 bits in the same media, which is impossible. I was talking about packaging both versions like MS did for the CPP Beta/RC1/RC2.

Stoly may be right. Indeed, OEM doesn't need both but Retail surely does because you can use it for a long time and will transition to 64 bits in the future if support is there.
 
The driver issue won't be an issue IMO. Only people with fairly new hardware would consider Vista 64-bit anyway.
 
Redshirt #24 said:
Drivers will have to be 64-bit for Vista x64, exactly as they have to be for XP x64. Software can go either way, though in theory 64-bit versions should be zippier.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though, bbz_Ghost...32-bit is still all the rage, after all...
Click to expand...

Add on top of the 64 bit driver requirement that they have to be digitally signed 64 bit drivers as well, which is another big issue for a lot of people. Yes, it's possible to boot Vista 64 into a mode that allows you to install unsigned drivers (only needs to be done one time iirc), it's still a hassle for most; enough of one to turn them off from Vista 64 totally which I think is a bad thing.

64 bit is coming, it's practically on top of us at this moment, and it'll roll right over 32 bit as time goes by. Why wait, if you can find drivers for the hardware you have, or if you can design a new computer from scratch that has full 64 bit across the entire component spread?

/me pets his Core 2 Duo laptop with 100% 64 bit driver support...

Works great for me, and I highly recommend Vista 64 if you can run it with full support.
 
Ion Silverbolt said:
The driver issue won't be an issue IMO. Only people with fairly new hardware would consider Vista 64-bit anyway.
Click to expand...

Actually the "Driver Issue" will continue to be a sticking point for the near term. The reason is simple: the vast majority of installations will be 32-bit and companies won't be sufficiently motivated to invest in x64 driver development. Also there is the factor that the x64 version of Vista will require "signed drivers", where the 32-bit version will not. This extra level of certification is what most hardware companies don't want to pay for, and I can't really blame them.

Now if your hardware is the type normally found in servers, this will be different. Hardware companies that focus on server hardware can justify the expense of 64-bit drivers. And you will pay for that development cost when you purchase said hardware. That's something that many of us learned with XP-64. (Even 6 months after release I had hardware companies telling me there was "No Demand" for 64-bit drivers. And get this! Even Microsoft didn't have 64-bit drivers for their own keyboards and mice.)

I personally plan on waiting until at least August/September of 07, before building a new system, and hoping to use Vista. Much of that will be dependent on how good 64-bit driver support is by that time. But I'm not optimistic about this happening, and the reason is that I suspect most people who "upgrade" will just use the 32-bit versions. I also don't expect Vista to be adopted at the rate which Microsoft hopes it will be, for purely economic reasons. Both of those circumstances mean that there may not be much demand for 64-bit Vista drivers. We'll see - just don't blame me for failing to be terribly optimistic.
 
Cannydog said:
Actually the "Driver Issue" will continue to be a sticking point for the near term. The reason is simple: the vast majority of installations will be 32-bit and companies won't be sufficiently motivated to invest in x64 driver development. Also there is the factor that the x64 version of Vista will require "signed drivers", where the 32-bit version will not. This extra level of certification is what most hardware companies don't want to pay for, and I can't really blame them.

Now if your hardware is the type normally found in servers, this will be different. Hardware companies that focus on server hardware can justify the expense of 64-bit drivers. And you will pay for that development cost when you purchase said hardware. That's something that many of us learned with XP-64. (Even 6 months after release I had hardware companies telling me there was "No Demand" for 64-bit drivers. And get this! Even Microsoft didn't have 64-bit drivers for their own keyboards and mice.)

I personally plan on waiting until at least August/September of 07, before building a new system, and hoping to use Vista. Much of that will be dependent on how good 64-bit driver support is by that time. But I'm not optimistic about this happening, and the reason is that I suspect most people who "upgrade" will just use the 32-bit versions. I also don't expect Vista to be adopted at the rate which Microsoft hopes it will be, for purely economic reasons. Both of those circumstances mean that there may not be much demand for 64-bit Vista drivers. We'll see - just don't blame me for failing to be terribly optimistic.
Click to expand...

64bit support has been a catch22. there was little demand for x64 so hardware companies didn't release drivers, developers didn't release 64bit code and the lack of drivers/software made many people pass on x64.

64bit apps and drivers will take a while to come to your desktop, but MS is going to push it into the server market. for example MS Exchange 2007 only works in 64 bit and AFAIK there won't be a 32bit version.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Add on top of the 64 bit driver requirement that they have to be digitally signed 64 bit drivers as well, which is another big issue for a lot of people. Yes, it's possible to boot Vista 64 into a mode that allows you to install unsigned drivers (only needs to be done one time iirc), it's still a hassle for most; enough of one to turn them off from Vista 64 totally which I think is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Actually, that probably will turn both users and developers away from Vista x64 for a little while. Other than the major hardware manufacturers, who's going to want to develop drivers for it and pay for/maintain a new set of WHQL certificates at first? And conversely, if there are no drivers for various peripherals, who's going to want to use it? It'll be better than XP/x64 almost literally by default, but it'll still be a little on the scarce side depending on exactly what hardware you're dealing with...
 
Vista 64 is a major launch unlike XP64. Also, you have 64-bit support on both Intel and AMD desktops. I don't believe it will be neglected like XP64 was.

As for the driver signing issue, I have no problems with it. The way MS is locking down the 64-bit kernel is great. It's one of the reasons it will be more secure than 32-bit Vista is.
 
The driving force in all this 64 bit hoohah so far has been lack of support for the "consumer" level CPUs from Intel meaning stuff your average Joe could go buy or build for himself.

Let's face it: Intel rules the CPU market, and AMD is still just a drop in the bucket against them. Yes, AMD has made incredible strides in acheiving market share over the past decade, and a nice jump in share with the introduction of the Athlon64 - Opterons are still outside the "comfort zone" for prices for that average Joe referenced above.

The limiting factor in the big 64 bit push was Intel's lack of being involved in it at reasonable prices.

With the introduction of the Core 2 Duo with 64 bit support, now that's changed.

It's a better CPU than comparably rated Athlon64 and Turion64 processors - I'm not trying to stir up shit with that statement, it's just true regardless of where your alliances lay - and the price is down in the "comfort zone" so average Joe can get his hands on them or purchase a ready-to-roll PC or laptop with phenomenal performance value for the cost.

Now that Intel is firmly entrenched in the 64 bit market with CPUs that are accessible for the average Joe, it's time for the 64 bit push, from Intel itself and from it's biggest partner in this game: Microsoft.

Hardware support will increase at a very very rapid pace in the next few months, so if your "new" hardware (less than maybe a year old) isn't supported natively in Vista or with drivers off Windows Update, then you can count on it being supported within 3 months of the January 30th launch. Windows Update will automagically have tons of driver support once the launch happens, that much has been confirmed by Jim Allchin himself at the Windows Vista blog, so I have high hopes.

But right now I have full support as it is, without a single device in this laptop that isn't supported. Even my crappy $25 HP Deskjet D1320 printer has 64 bit support: I use the XP64 drivers from HP - they're signed and work perfectly without issues.

I know that not everyone else can be nearly so lucky as I am for that support, but even so, 64 bit is coming... hop on board and ride...
 
in theory i think yes, not sure.

hey guys do you think 64bit windows will fail like btx for cases?
 
JVC said:
hey guys do you think 64bit windows will fail like btx for cases?
Click to expand...
This isn't even debatable. 64 bit computing isn't some kind of new fad. It's not even a discussion of failing or not...it's a discussion of Windows playing catch-up, with 3rd party vendors following right behind (hopefully).
 
JVC said:
in theory i think yes, not sure.

hey guys do you think 64bit windows will fail like btx for cases?
Click to expand...

My understanding is we will have to use 64 bit Windows to access more than 4 GBs of memory, so I don't see how it can fail. It might not be useful for the next 2 or 3 years but eventually it will be necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top