Vista Ultimate vs Server 2008 Workstation

[griffinhart]

Hi Mr White,
My stance addresses an amalgam of all the issues. I'll try to draw this out as clear as possible. Here are the issues I was addressing.

1) Someone says, "I have 4 GB, I must use 64 bit Vista" , this is VERY prevalent misconception everywhere.
2) Vista 64 is Faster than Vista 32
3) Vista 64 is slower than Vista 32

So I'm saying if you have 4 GB and you(a customer or a friend) said you were leaving performance on the table and had to go to Vista 64(because Vista only showed 3.4 GB), I would point out these articles that show that with some appz, V-64 runs slower than V-32

I could also point out articles that show that some apps run faster under V-64 than V-32. Most apps, however, run pretty much the same speed. Ultimately, the vast majority of applications run so close in performance on 32/64 bit Vista that any actual differences are so insignificant it just isn't a concern.

That the Memory Remapping in the Bios may not be such a huge performance hit. That V-64 uses 20-40% more memory(depending on the app), so the 600mb difference in RAM is not that huge of an advantage considering WoW and the rest of the 64 bit Vista headaches, drivers, driver signing, software availability, etc.

If it were an actual headache, then I would agree, but in practical day to day use it just isn't. As most people actually running Vista 64 are finding out, it has no more problems running drivers and applications than Vista 32 is. Simply put, 64-bit has come a long way with the creation of Vista 64. It truly is a mainstream 64 bit OS.

I would also say that if you think you are going to do the Vista 64 deal, give it what it needs to let it run. As per what I said, and the article you posted, it needs more than 4 gb to really do anything over 32 bit or even itself. So that's where I came up with 6 GB, and ideally 8GB to match all four slots.

But it doesn't "need" 6 GB to run. I have a 2GB Media Center running V-64 quite happily and performing every bit as well as MCE2005 did on the same box.

The Vast Majority of users simply aren't going to see any practical difference between 32 or 64 bit. That is until they decide that they may want to run more RAM. In that case 32bit users will be out of luck. Considering that Vista 64 is a pretty practical OS to run it makes more sense to use it just to accommodate future hardware on the same machine.

IF I had DDR2 in my box, I would throw 16 GB to it or at least 8 GB. But I've got 4GB DDR3 very fast Cell Shock 8-7-6-21 1800 mHz and I just can't justify pulling it all out and dropping another $700 bucks on memory just to play with it right now.

My Primary machine has run both 32 and 64 bit flavors of Vista. It's a 4GB machine and I honestly saw that my computing experience in general improved when I moved to 64bit.

I've built several PC's recently for people I know. I've put Vista 64 on all of those machines. So far, everyone has been extremely happy with it.

 

[DeaconFrost]

basically received nothing but ridicule, no evidence.

If there was any ridicule, it was found in your posts. That's why mods had to edit them. Stop trying to play the innocent victim. That gets old around here quick. You were the one flaming and ridiculing, and that's why the mods had to step in. So drop the game, and stick to the civil debate.

Now, to the debate I mentioned. If you would like to suggest some tests and comparisons to run on the same hardware, I have some spare PCs sitting around I could gladly put through the ringers and get some actual results for you. Many of us have already stated our first hand experiences, but that doesn't seem to be good enough. So, let's work on something we can agree on. I have a decent Core 2 Duo system on my desk at work, and several spare SATA drives that can be used for testing. I used this very same system a few months ago to compare Vista and Server 2008, and found no noticeable difference in everyday usage (as a workstation). Aside from needing to load enterprise apps on the Server 2008 drive, there wasn't much of a difference. I'd gladly post the specs of this system, and run it through some tests using Vista x86 and Vista x64.

 

[TechieSooner]

I could also point out articles that show that some apps run faster under V-64 than V-32. Most apps, however, run pretty much the same speed. Ultimately, the vast majority of applications run so close in performance on 32/64 bit Vista that any actual differences are so insignificant it just isn't a concern.

Exactly.
Some run faster on 64, some run faster on 32.
Old Lets_Garden here just picked one side of the argument

Ibut in practical day to day use it just isn't.

This is where his argument falls flat on it's face: common sense, common knowledge, and actual real-world experience.

Sorry, but the "day to day use" is key. You can quote crap all day long from the internet, but arguing with people that use this OS day in and day out when you clearly don't makes you look like a moron.

I've built several PC's recently for people I know. I've put Vista 64 on all of those machines. So far, everyone has been extremely happy with it.

64 bit is very mature. I'd say by the time Windows 7 rolls around (I'm still guessing 2010), the "norm" will be 4GB of RAM (compared to now, which I'd say 2GB is norm). If we followed the Garden's suggestions, we'd all be SOL and stuck on 32 bit.

Many on here would actually say the 64 bit OS runs smoother, and I'd agree with that....

 

[j0j081]

64 bit is very mature. I'd say by the time Windows 7 rolls around (I'm still guessing 2010), the "norm" will be 4GB of RAM (compared to now, which I'd say 2GB is norm). If we followed the Garden's suggestions, we'd all be SOL and stuck on 32 bit.

Many on here would actually say the 64 bit OS runs smoother, and I'd agree with that....

I think the norm is already 4 GB. If you look in a store like Staples almost all the laptops have 3 or 4 GB of Ram and most of the desktops have 4, there was even one with 6.

 

[hewho]

There is/was a Howto for this in PDF format on the net, but all the links I can find for
it are dead,
Anyone has a working link for it?

thanks