Vista 64: Worth The Extra $15?

Z

zacdl

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
2,012
I've been using Home Premium x84 for awhile now, and like it very well.

I'm aware of the driver issues as well as (generally) any performance increase would require x64 software- which is lacking.

I'm just wondering- is it even worth $15?

I've heard that IE7 is a bit more secure under Vista 64 (Why is this- I've never heard a reason? Perhaps the same reason that everything else is more secure on other items- it is just not as supported, and less used to target?).

I'm just looking at the pros of 64 vs. 32 bit. Everything I seem to find online deals with the "driver" issues- which I already know about. I'm talking about performacne here.

Just a side question- does Vista 64 take a different product key than my Vista 32?
 
x84? ;)

To answer this question:

zacdl said:
Just a side question- does Vista 64 take a different product key than my Vista 32?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the same one will work. Just installation CDs/DVDs differ (which I'm sure you knew).
 
It's simple, really:

Does your processor have 64 bit support?

Answer: Yes - then buy the 64 bit version of Vista.

Answer: No - stick with Vista 32 bit or whatever.

See, simple.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
It's simple, really:

Does your processor have 64 bit support?

Answer: Yes - then buy the 64 bit version of Vista.

Answer: No - stick with Vista 32 bit or whatever.

See, simple.
Click to expand...

Yea- but should I deal with waiting for 64 bit DVD to get shipped in? Why should I spend $15 that wouldn't benefit me in any performance increase?
I'm sure you disagree- which is why I posted. I want to know if and how much of a performance increase it offers.

l3ender said:
x84? ;)
Click to expand...

It's Friday- what can I say?
 
I don't know what other people see or do with their computers, but on my hardware which is a Dell Dimension 9100 desktop (just bought the whole system with a 19" LCD and multifunction printer/scanner/fax/etc for $300) with the following specs I get fantastic performance with 64 bit OSes:

Pentium 630 3 GHz w/2MB L2 cache
1GB of DDR2 533 4-4-4
250GB SATA I 16MB 7200 rpm drive
Audigy 2 ZS
ATI X300 128MB
Plextor 760A 18x DVD+RW
yadda yadda yadda

Running XP x64 over running XP x86 on this box gives me a performance boost, a considerable and very noticeable one in day to day usage.

Running Vista x64 over Vista x86 on this box gives me a performance boost, a considerable and very noticeable one in day to day usage.

Sooo... having said that, what instances exist where I can prove a difference in performance? Well, here's the one I use most often since it's easily reproducible.

I have that 250GB drive partitioned as:

25GB system partition for whatever OS I'm running as drive C:
The rest of the space as "Storage" and it's drive D:

On drive D: I have a folder called mp3. It contains 4753 mp3 files I ripped myself from original CDs using EAC Burst mode (Secure, Burst, doesn't matter, the checksums are always the same), then encoded with LAME 3.90 final using --alt-preset standard for high quality VBR rips at roughly 200 Kbps each. All those files were created a few years ago and I've never felt the need to re-rip 'em just because a slightly better LAME compile or version has appeared.

Every single file is hand tagged by me using Tag&Rename (ok, not hand tagged, but I checked every single file and made sure it has ID3v1.1 and ID3v2.0 tags, even comments as available and metadata). Then the files were leveled - all of them - to 92 dB using MP3Gain for nondestructive audio "normalization."

The point here is: the files are complete, and there's a ton of them, and each one has all the metatags and metadata fileds occupied. Why is this important? Glad you asked, I'll tell you.

My test of choice for overall system performance from the OS based on a common pattern of usage that many users share is this:

Run Windows Media Player (I use v11 for testing purposes since it's available for all the OSes tested, even XP x64 also) and add all those files to the WMP Library. When that operation happens, WMP reads every file, reads every tag of data that each and every file has inside it, then categorizes and sorts all of it appropriately. When it's done, it's done.

Here are the results I compiled last week when I got this machine and spent the first 2-3 days testing using that methodology.

XP x86, fully updated from Windows Update as of Wednesday May 30th (my 40th birthday, by the way) - time to complete the Library run: 8 minutes, 38 odd seconds.

Vista x86, fully updated from Windows Update as of the same day but an hour later - time to complete the library run: 6 mins, 25 odd seconds. A bit better.

XP x64, fully updated, same date, another hour or so later, time to completion: 2 minutes 47 seconds (+/- 10 seconds). It was over so fast I didn't even realize it so I'm guessing on the seconds give or take 10 either way; I noticed the drive light stopped so I looked at WMP and then realized it just finished, soooo... I didn't want to redo the test right then and there because of possible data caching in RAM, so I cleared out the Library file and rebooted.

Upon reboot, I did the same operation again, time to completion: 2 mins, 43 seconds flat.

Vista x64, fully updated, same date, another hour later, time to completion: 2 mins 49 seconds flat.

Now, I won't go so far as to say it's highly scientific, but considering the hardware is exactly the same across all 4 OSes, and noting that the incredible difference in speed happened with the 64 bit OSes only, how could anyone say a 64 bit OS is slower on a 64 bit processor than a 32 bit OS working on the very same processor?

I just don't get it. And yes, the testing was done with WMP11 32 bit on all platforms, not the 64 bit version. So even on the 64 bit OS the 32 bit version of the same software outperformed the 32 bit version of the application under a 32 bit OS. Go figure.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

A 64 bit OS on a 64 bit processor will outperform a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit processor. I don't know what it would take to make people understand that, and I don't like running stuff like PCMark or 3DMark or whatever for benching because that stuff really doesn't test the day to day activities people do.

I know PCMark does some stuff that falls into that category, but PCMark's Achille's Heel is that it only works under XP x86 and Vista x86 and nothing else. It won't work under XP x64, nor Vista x64, nor is it a completely standalone benchmarking application:

It requires you to download additional modules from Microsoft for the Windows Media Encoder.

How can you test the performance of an OS when you keep having to add stuff to it to make the benchmark "legit"?

So I use the WMP Library test as my indicator of performance. There are other things also, but that's the one that makes the most immediate and noticeable difference to me.

I use IE7 64 bit and Firefox 2.0.0.4 Bon Echo 64 bit, they're both faster than their 32 bit counterparts by a longshot; but that could be because they're both not wasting time with Flash crap as the Flash applet doesn't work in either browser yet. With IE 64 bit, none of the ActiveX stuff works either, so that could also account for some speed difference, but I know where the real reason is. :)

Why people keep messing around with a 32 bit OS when their hardware supports a 64 bit OS is beyond me. Fear, uncertainty... damned statistics... who knows. All I know is it works, and it works very damned well.

'Nuff typed.
 
It's worth it to me just to have the expanded memory availability over 32bit.
 
Ive upgraded (clean install) from Vista Home Premium to Vista Ultimate 64 bit and I won't be looking back. At all.

Memory subsystem is FAR better performing than 32 bit. In Vista 32 I heard my hdd thrash a lot and make all sorts of odd sounds, and that was after 2 reinstalls. Also, it never used my full 4gigs and that pissed me off. Gaming was meh.

Upgraded to 64 bit, my HDD run smooth and quiet, 4gigs is there to be used and my games? Believe it or not they appear to run faster and w/o HDD thrashing. It surprised me quite a bit as when I played WoW, STALKER, Jade Empire and Company of Heroes I got at least a 15-20% increase in performance for gaming in just about all of them.

As for drivers? It appears they are MUCH easier to gussy up for Vista as I haven't seen an issue with 64bit support yet. My only real beef is that NVidia needs to pull the fingers out of their ass and get to increasing hte performance of their stuff.
 
It's the same key....your license is tied to product key, not the media. The only one that contains both the 64 and 32 bit systems is the Ultimate, the rest you have to pony up the S&H to MS for the 64 bit DVD.

zacdl said:
Just a side question- does Vista 64 take a different product key than my Vista 32?
Click to expand...
 
Bzz- You're a great contributor to this forum, really. I don't know how many people would take the time to run stuff like that just to say "Here's how it stacks up".

64 DOES look like a much better improvement. Although it does seem the XP 32-64 jump gives you a better increase compared to the Vista 32-64 jump.

I would assume WMP11, Defender, and all these Microsoft apps are all the 64 bit versions on the 64 bit Vista disk?

I think I'll go ahead and order the darned thing ;)
I have read tons of "Vista 32 vs. Vista 64" articles- and all they touch on is drivers, compatibility, etc. I just haven't seen any good stats like yours.

That said, I agree with you 100% on the benchmarking stuff. I'm struggling with what processor to get (Siding with AMD at this point because I don't overclock- and they are still cheaper), and the fact of the matter is: I can care less about those numbers. I want to know how they actually perform in real life situations.

Supported memory is another good point. I'm planning on getting 2GB right now, but in the future I'm sure I'll get another 2GB.

Thanks for the help guys, I'll no doubt post after getting this thing built (A few more weeks yet) and seeing how I like 64 bit. Obviously "performance boost" is going to be there- as it's about 10x better than the hardware I'm currently running.
 
Also with the x64 version of Vista you're getting all the security benefits the new OS has to offer like hardware DEP, virtualization, and address space layout randomization.
 
Where can I upgrade my vista biz 32bit to vista biz 64bit for $15 or thereabouts ?

Cuz I been seeing a few ppl doing this cheap upgrade to 64bit and I dunno where they are getting it from, so where can I get the cheap upgrade from ?

cheers
 
EVIL-SCOTSMAN said:
Where can I upgrade my vista biz 32bit to vista biz 64bit for $15 or thereabouts ?

Cuz I been seeing a few ppl doing this cheap upgrade to 64bit and I dunno where they are getting it from, so where can I get the cheap upgrade from ?

cheers
Click to expand...

From microsoft. The only reason they charge you $10 is for shipping and handling. You already purchased the cd key with your 32bit edition.

Or just download a 64bit copy off of the net through your favorite torrent site. Your CD Key will still work, it will activate and it will be considered a genuine copy. All you need is a legal cd key.
 
I considered that myself- what exactly does Microsoft send you?
Do they send you a new box, or just another disk in a case (like what you could burn off from the web...)?

For info on getting it from Microsoft, see the "Need 64-bit instead of 32-bit?" paper inside the case.
Just go to www.windowsvista.com/1033/ordermedia and be sure to have your product key handy.
 
WTF, i went to that site, entered in my key and it checks MS and it came, sorry no offer found ?

:(
 
Works for me. Although I purchased my key legally...
All I can tell you, if you have a legit key- is to call them.

Otherwise- piracy isn't allowed over here ;)

Edit- considering the only copies I could find were either modified in some way, not the correct version (IE, stripped out), and a huge risk of malware... I just got the "legit" disk from Microsoft ;)
$10.78 total- supposed to arrive within 10 days.
 
It is a legit key, you think I would put in a fake key and try to get it verified on a MS website ?

The copy I have is Vista Business but its from a university and it was dirt cheap, kinda like a oem version I would think and its only for sale to students and at $10 a pop it is a no brainer to buy it, so maybe it being a faculty version of vista maybe thats why it said no offer for me:(

no big deal, i got uber cheap legit version of vista for 10 bux and I get to try it out before I commit myself to buying retail ultimate.
 
Same with me but i'm mainly getting the 64 bit so i can use all the memory. 10-11 dollars isnt bad actually to get the upgrade. Glad to hear that it should help in other ways. Just wish it didn't have to do a clean install but can't be helped i suppose.
Student copy most likely, but i'd call MS and see if they can send you a copy tho. Can't hurt to try.
 
I disagree with the way this is marketed. They should just charge $10 more when people buy and put a copy in every Vista box.

This way the transition to 64 will be much more then niche. The average joe is not going to know what the difference is, or what it even means. Since 64 bit OS is the future they should be pushing it a bit more forcefully imo.
 
Because probably the only people interested in the 64 OS are the niche market atm..lol
I doubt very seriously whether the average person will really care whether it's 32 or 64 bit as long as it works.
 
Well, I just switched from xp pro to vista 64-bit, and I'm impressed. I talked to a few people who install pc's for a living, and they said if you're going vista, and you have the right hardware, go with the 64-bit. It's got better (more stable) drivers, faster, more secure, etc. And, I won't have to upgrade this software for awhile.

I bought the $111 shipped from Directron; oem builders version.
 
I agree that 64-bit should be included in every copy you buy. It is more of an inconvience to order it from MS than cost so much.
 
Something else I forgot to ask:
I assume Microsoft apps like Windows Defender are the 64-bit versions under 64-bit Vista?
Or are they still 32-bit, and you need to download the 64?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top