Vista x64, Ram Limits & the meaning of Life.

[Markdek]

I'm researching going from XP pro to Vista x64, primarily because I've picked up some new ram at the recently cheap pricing.

Why is it still so difficult to decide to go 64-bit, and also to pick a Vista brand (home, premium, etc.)? If I go 64-bit there are all these warnings about what software might or might not work. What's with the stupid 32-bit ram limits in this day and age? For the money that Microsoft brings in you'd think they could have planned this better, or just plain do a better job. And the prices; what bull.

Should I stay with my XP Pro, where I'm happy as a lark, or switch to Vista x64, and spend weeks or months tweeking the rig, just to realize 4gb?

 

[eeyrjmr]

There is a RAM (correct term memory address space) limitation because in a 32bit system you ONLY have 2^32 possible addresses.

Sure you can use PAE to expand on this to 64Gig BUT for some reason MS decided not to allow that (yes there is a slowdown as you need to page between the different 4gig banks but... for servers and such.)

For performance and full bandwidth you need extra memory address lines and thus 64bit is needed. Its not some great conspiracy, its simple maths&engineering

HOWEVER 64bit on windows is different to say... 64bit on linux due to the number of apps that are actually 64bit compiled, is this of concern? kinda
1) as opose to a 100% 64bit system (/me loves his gentoo setup), in a system with a 64bit OS, but 32apps you end up loading effectively the same libs/apps twice (the 64bit version and the 32bit versions)
2) if you end up having a load of RAM but for some stupid reason expect said RAM/mem-map to be exposed to a 32bit application you are very much mistaken. A 32bit app can only address 2^32 lines (in practice 3.5Gig) so if you have 8gig of RAM its a waste

just some thoughts. If you want 64bit OS go for it, if not don't. Simple as that

 

[bbz_Ghost]

It's just how things are, not much a single person or any group of us can do to make things different. The 32 bit world of computing is slowly coming to a close. It's long held domination of the market and the technology world will give way to 64 bit machines, then probably 5 years from now or less we'll start to see the beginnings of 128 bit computing, etc. It's just a progression of technology, as things have always happened.

If you're going to go clear from XP to Vista x64, do it with both feet and don't look back. The first thing you're going to notice is that Vista shares some stuff in common with XP and previous versions of Windows, but it ain't that much, really. You can't load it up and run it for 2, maybe 3 days and then gripe about it if you've coming from a long history of using previous versions of Windows only.

It's a NEW OS, regardless of what the detractors say about it. It takes time and effort and a lot of patience on the part of someone that's will to drop older versions of Windows and embrace the new way things are done and will continue to be done.

As for the 64 bit thing, the only way to know for sure is again: take the the leap. Do it and go for it and simply don't look back.

I've never found a single piece of hardware that I use that isn't 64 bit compatible nor have I failed in finding 64 bit drivers for every single piece of hardware I own or have owned for the past 2 years - everything has support.

If you go to some store and buy the $10 sound card, chances are you won't get support in the 64 bit domain, so the simple rule of thumb is: don't buy cheap shit and you won't have that problem.

Buy name brand reputable hardware and it'll be supported. In the past, before Vista x64 came out, OEMs and other makers were leery of putting out 64 bit drivers and a lot of companies simply didn't - but since Vista has been in development and now in full release the companies didn't have any damned choice this time because to get that "Designed for Microsoft Windows Vista" logo or sticker on it the product has to work in 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Vista.

That does not mean it has to have a 64 bit version of the application or software; it means to get the logo certification and be able to advertise "Our products work with Vista" the products or software have to work totally and completely under both platforms: 32 bit and 64 bit.

So that one single requirement by Microsoft itself is going to ensure solid support for the 64 bit computing platform from early 2006 and forever on, at least till 128 bit takes over.

My advice, which is always the same: just do it.

Hope this helps...

 

[Markdek]

Thanks,

Well I'm taking the dive; and I ordered Vista Home Premium Builders OEM; I've only had XP on this build for a week, so when it comes in, I'll install it and try it.

I'm not looking forward to loading on OS from scratch again, however. It takes alot of time to re-download and install all my apps.

Is a clean install really recommended?

 

[Catweazle]

.. What's with the stupid 32-bit ram limits in this day and age? For the money that Microsoft brings in you'd think they could have planned this better, or just plain do a better job...

The practical stuff has been addressed by others quite adequately, so I'll direct my own comment to that 'planned it better' bit.

The 'planning' around the 32-bit limitation wasn't conducted today. 32-bit OS's were devised and developed decades ago. Decades ago it was menaingless to even try to conceive of 64-bit computers with the power of today's machines sitting on people's desktops.

The 'planning for 64-bit computing, in the Microsoft Windows realm, started years ago. It's proceeding quite well, in relative terms, because it needs to be realised that 'changing' the Windows world is sorta like trying to steer an ocean liner with a wooden paddle. Takes time and distance to complete a turn. In a few years time we'll have completed making the change of direction in Windows computing.


If you are an individual contemplating the change then you can make it right now. Picture yourself sitting in an outboard-motor equipped dinghy rather than in that ocean liner. Ram the tiller full over, because the water is clear up ahead

 

[masteraleph]

Sure you can use PAE to expand on this to 64Gig BUT for some reason MS decided not to allow that (yes there is a slowdown as you need to page between the different 4gig banks but... for servers and such.)

MS decided not to do it due to incompatibilities. Win. 2003 does have PAE and does permit >4GB address space, but certain drivers (notoriously nvidia's) will crash hard on such systems. Granted, Vista has a new graphics driver model, but it's still not worth dealing with the support headaches, especially when they're producing x64, which can deal with >4GB natively.

 

[zacdl]

For the money that Microsoft brings in you'd think they could have planned this better, or just plain do a better job.

Something people fail to realize, is that Microsoft doesn't oversee every single application out there. If Microsoft creates a 64-bit OS, software developers have to write and be compatible with it- Microsoft has nothing to do with it.
However, as already mentioned, for at least the larger companies, to get the "Designed for Vista" sticker, it has to work. That helps things out a bit.

The only other option to guarantee everything would work- is Microsoft basically dictating what software can and cannot run on Windows. Everything would have to go through Microsoft for testing, etc.
But then, everyone would gripe and complain because Microsoft is a monopoly and has agenda's to push...

Really a lose-lose situation for Microsoft, no matter what the heck direction they go.

Is a clean install really recommended?

I'm assuming you got the Upgrade, otherwise you don't have much of a choice (could be wrong... but I think you are either licensed for "full" or "upgrade"- not both)...

Basically, Vista isn't like previous versions of Windows that just patch and edit OS files, creating an unstable "trashed-out" system. It installs all the OS files cleanly. Before the upgrade, it caches your data and applications. It then totally nukes the Windows directory, and installs the OS files clean. Then it copies your programs and data back over.

It does create a Windows.old directory that will enable you to go back to XP if you ever need, but other than that- same thing as a clean install.

 

[Catweazle]

...I'm assuming you got the Upgrade, otherwise you don't have much of a choice (could be wrong... but I think you are either licensed for "full" or "upgrade"- not both)...

...It does create a Windows.old directory that will enable you to go back to XP if you ever need, but other than that- same thing as a clean install.

Upgrade packages can be used to perform a clean install. Full install packages can be used to conduct an upgrade install. That situation has always existed, and isn't gonna change

And the main purpose of the windows.old folder is to preserve and protect any data so that you can recover it if need be.

 

[zacdl]

Upgrade packages can be used to perform a clean install. Full install packages can be used to conduct an upgrade install. That situation has always existed, and isn't gonna change

Via the workaround- yes. My point was you cannot use the key provided to give yourself a full install like you are "supposed" to. I guess, how it was "designed" to be used

Can you use a full-installation key in order to run an upgrade install? I've done several full-install-via-workaround installs, but never have had a full disk and tried to do an upgrade...