Please don't flame but I am wondering what the advantage of 64 bit is over 32 bit other than the larger memory addressing? I understand that in 32 bit you can only use 3 gb of memory but is there an advantage in stability or other advantages or would it just be a pain to find 64 bit drivers if I don't currently need more memory?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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.
Why Vista 64 bit?
- Thread starter hhuricane
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,610
If we are talking about Vista, there is no pain to finding drivers. Microsoft required both platforms to be available for driver certification. At this point, if going to Vista, the question would be why NOT x64?
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
Because basic tasks and applications are actually notably faster on Vista 64bit vs Vista 32bit. I ran both on the same machine and have no trouble stating that the 64bit OS was faster.
Everyone will tell you that you need 64 bit, but I haven't found that any 32 bit software is faster on it. Since 99% of most software is still 32 bit, I see no point. Even though the issues with 64 bit are rare at this point, they do still occasionally exist. If you don't have a pressing need to change, don't bother. I got tired of maintaining a "Program Files" and a "Program Files(x86)". I will be excited when the day comes that there is enough 64 bit software to justify running it, but that day is still not here yet. I don't care about bragging rights, and I don't care that I can "only" use 3.25GB of RAM. I rarely use more than 50% of that at any given time anyway. No disrespect to anyone running 64 bit, again, I look forward to 64 bit software, but if you have 32 bit installed now, don't bother to "upgrade". You won't be able to tell much difference running either, until you hit that program that will not run on 64 bit. And as few problems as there are with 64 bit, 32 is still more compatible at the moment.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,610
What is there to maintain here though? The only time you see these directories is when you install software, and you simply let the software go to the default of the two. Aside from that, these two directories are out of sight, out of mind.
well if you should be upgrading to Vista from XP now regardless of 32/64 bit... and as these are both covered under the same license, i see absolutely no reason not to take this so-called "upgrade"..
All (almost) software incompatibility stems from Vista itself, not 64bit.. I could not come up with one valid argument to support remaining on 32bit..
games like Crysis get a noticeable boost in performance on 64bit..
In general multitasking is smoother on 64bit..
besides all that.. the biggest reason.. "We should all be behind 64bit and supporting it's development".. 32bit has had it's day in the sun... but it will soon be obsolete... for my rig it already is..
All (almost) software incompatibility stems from Vista itself, not 64bit.. I could not come up with one valid argument to support remaining on 32bit..
games like Crysis get a noticeable boost in performance on 64bit..
In general multitasking is smoother on 64bit..
besides all that.. the biggest reason.. "We should all be behind 64bit and supporting it's development".. 32bit has had it's day in the sun... but it will soon be obsolete... for my rig it already is..
Uberbob102000
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 2,243
I agree, Use it even if you don't need 4GB of RAM if your going Vista (XP 64 is a different story). There really isn't any point not to. Plus Crysis and most source games have 64bit and 7-Zip 64 is ungodly fast.
are you saying that XP x64 is not worth it?
Really? So you only run 64bit apps and no 32bit apps?
FloridaPalms
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2
In my experiance 64 bit is more of a pain than its worth from a usability point of view at this point. This may change in the future, but probably not within the lifetime of any computer you build/but at the moment.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
What experience is that? I've built 3 machines with Vista Ultimate 64bit now, and only one had any issues, and that came down to running ancient HP printers and scanners. The scanner thing I was able to fix with a universal capture driver and a third party app after a few minutes of searching on Google, and the printer driver issue comes down to HP being lazy and refusing to support 3+ year old hardware on Vista.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
XP X64 is hell to get drivers for when compared with any other modern flavor of Windows. No, it's not worth it at all.
If you indeed want or need to use more than 4 GB of RAM, then you should consider switching to 64-bit editions of Windows Vista, it can support for as much as 8GB of memory on the Home Premium X64 most of the MB today can only support 8GB of ram total.
As 64-bit users will still use some 32-bit programs with x64 architecture and operating system but will not be able to use 32-bit drivers Many 32-bit applications will not be updated for Windows Vista x64 Edition; however, most 32-bit software will still function because of a Microsoft emulation known as WoW64,
Because memory manager in 32-bit Windows Vista is limited to a 4 GB physical address space, users have concluded that the limitations are imposed by the operating system. But this is not the case; in fact, Windows has nothing to do with this restriction, no operating system has, it is an issue with the x86 hardware. The actual problem is that in the limited 32-bit address range you do not only fit RAM but also the other devices in the system. In this context, not all the volume of 4 GB address space will be reserved for RAM. This will leave Windows Vista with something in the vicinity of 3.5 GB if you have a total of 4 GB on your system.
Can't make up your mind look here http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1354
Bye
As 64-bit users will still use some 32-bit programs with x64 architecture and operating system but will not be able to use 32-bit drivers Many 32-bit applications will not be updated for Windows Vista x64 Edition; however, most 32-bit software will still function because of a Microsoft emulation known as WoW64,
Because memory manager in 32-bit Windows Vista is limited to a 4 GB physical address space, users have concluded that the limitations are imposed by the operating system. But this is not the case; in fact, Windows has nothing to do with this restriction, no operating system has, it is an issue with the x86 hardware. The actual problem is that in the limited 32-bit address range you do not only fit RAM but also the other devices in the system. In this context, not all the volume of 4 GB address space will be reserved for RAM. This will leave Windows Vista with something in the vicinity of 3.5 GB if you have a total of 4 GB on your system.
Can't make up your mind look here http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1354
Bye
Moogle Stiltzkin
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2004
- Messages
- 814
64 is a higher number then 32. Newer is better ?
:X this is the reasoning of an update a holic.
:X this is the reasoning of an update a holic.
WoW64 is really extremely good at getting everything to work unless it uses 32-bit drivers, hooks a 64-bit program like Explorer, or the odd program with some kind of bizzaro programming. There's been a couple of programs which I've tried to use which don't work, but no important ones, and I don't regret going 64-bit. It was a bit niche and potentially problematic when the 64-bit Windows platform was new, around XP x64, but with Vista its time has come.
My copy of Vista Home Premium x64 is noticably faster than XP Pro x86. I run both. I find myself using Vista more and more and XP less and less. I have had zero issues with 64 bit so far. I take that back the only pain is can't really use IE7 64bit browser as Adobe is lazy and still does not have Flash for 64 bit yet lol.
The 32 bit software I run in vista runs just fine and the 64 bit software runs like a striped assed ape.
Just make sure that if you go with 64bit Vista that drivers are available, they were for all my hardware. Also my Vista 32 bit software runs just fine in Vista x64. I'm pretty damn pleased.
The 32 bit software I run in vista runs just fine and the 64 bit software runs like a striped assed ape.
Just make sure that if you go with 64bit Vista that drivers are available, they were for all my hardware. Also my Vista 32 bit software runs just fine in Vista x64. I'm pretty damn pleased.
InCogneato
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,236
64bit: faster, more stable, more secure, more memory (as you said), completely compatible with 32bit, HELP BRING FORTH A FUTURE STANDARD SOONER, highly supported *thanks to Vista*
theres really no point in using 32bit at all.
theres really no point in using 32bit at all.
I work for a software company. I have to deal with stuff like that all day long. There is no out of sight here.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,610
That's a very unique situation. We're referring to general users/usage for Vista x64.
True, but keep in mind Vista x64 is not general usage either. When I talk to our customers, most of them don't even know what OS they are working with all day. Outside of people on forums like this, most people will not even encounter a 64 bit version. For most of the users here, x64 or x86 will be fine, and my recommendation would be to test them both, and run with the one that is best for your machine, or your personal preferences. The OP had 2 GB of RAM listed in his sig, so I doubt x64 will work better for him without going to at least 4GB. I have had a better experience with the 32 bit. The only thing I would gain with x64 is the full usage of 4GB of RAM, but the x64 version has a bigger footprint, offsetting that enough to make it pointless. I don't like to recommend for someone to have to reformat and reinstall everything they have to end up with something that pretty much looks and runs like what they had anyway. A lot of work for no gain. Now if they are formatting anyway, give it a try, run it a couple of days, and then decide before you install everything you have. There are valid points for going either way. Not to argue, but so that others will know what their options and possible issues are.
TheRapture
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 31, 2000
- Messages
- 6,885
Baloney. If you really feel that, you obviously:
1. have old hardware not fully supported by Vista 64
2. have not ran Vista 64 in a long time, if ever
I was one of the hold outs until a few weeks ago, and to be honest, I wondered why I did not switch sooner. It feels snappier...Crysis runs smoother and a bit faster....I have had absolutely ZERO issues with software I run, nor finding drivers for all of my hardware. I did add another gig of ram which brings me to 4g total.
If someone is running a well set up 32 bit Vista at this point, thats great and no reason to really change (yet), BUT, if you are installing fresh, or on a new build, and have at least 2g of ram and current hardware, there is *no* reason at all to not install Vista64. I won't be going back, I can tell you that.
Vista 64 is very slick; the 64/32 applications run pretty seamless for me, and I sometimes forget im even using a 64-bit O/S... just the way it should be. Sure, in the past 64-bit applications and o/s seemed out of reach for general consumers, either because of business oriented applications, or expensive hardware. Vista 64 brings 64-bit goodness to the masses. I've been using it since it came out, all my hardware has 64-bit drivers, all my applications 32 and 64 bit work flawlessly. If you are not running semi-current hardware circa 2006 - YMMV, of course.
As more applications and vendors get on baord with the 64-bit, I think Vista x64 will act as a nice segue toward mainstream bottom -to- top 64-bit computing.
As more applications and vendors get on baord with the 64-bit, I think Vista x64 will act as a nice segue toward mainstream bottom -to- top 64-bit computing.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2000
- Messages
- 6,841
Thats not true at all, everytime you patch one of those X86 progrmas you have to remember to tell the patcher that the software is not in the default location and have to type in the correct location, however most of the time you just have to add "(x86)" in the command line. To alot of us that isn't a problem, but to the less computer savvy they will have no idea why they cant patch there software, however at the same token they aren't likely to be patching there software.
farfromhome
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,018
Because Uncle Bill needs new shoes
Irrelevant. One license covers both x86 and x64, so at most Uncle Bill gets a small markup on measly shipping/handling charges of the DVD if you can't borrow somebody else's.
...and the only real reason to use 32-bit instead of 64-bit is because of old hardware that doesn't have drivers, so if you get updated hardware, you really have no excuse not to run 64-bit then.
Good program updaters will look for their own location in the registry and you won't have to worry about it.
Shame on all the lazy programmers out there that assume any installation location. Pre-Vista especially (as Vista has extra protections for the Program Files folder), I would always have my own directory tree of programs organized how I liked it, not all in one monolithic folder like Windows wants to do by default. Neither Firefox nor any of my games have any problems patching themselves installed in non-Program Files locations, and most other programs I have don't have update features; it's just uninstall the old version and install the new one for them.InCogneato
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,236
no program worth its salt works like that and if you miss out on x64 just because of some obscure program that might work that way then i think youre silly
Rofl! There's not a single thing in that post that is true if you count the memory and secure out. And with memory it doubles your memory needs so you end up paying for nothing.
XP32 is still THE only OS to even consider.
SuperSubZero
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2000
- Messages
- 3,780
So? Most people aren't aware of anything about their computer. To them it's just a magical box that has a button and some cables, and when they push the button they can surf the internets. They don't know 64bit the same as they don't know 32bit or 16bit or 900000bit. Bits is nothing to them.
Does ignorance mean there's no point to progress? If that was the case we'd all be sitting around crunching numbers in Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets in DOS. Just because the user can't comprehend the benefits doesn't mean those benefits don't deserve to exist. Nobody in the "general usage" category asked for a GUI, or Windows, or pre-emptive multitasking, or dual-GPU video cards. Many of these things, people didn't know they needed it until they saw it or experienced it.
There's a lot of reluctance to 64-bit, and I have no idea why. Users have no reason to fear it. It's not some massive structural upheaval that will totally destroy their way of lives and change them forever. It's access to more RAM and more opportunities to use more powerful applications. Just as the vast majority of your users probably never saw the change from 16bit to 32bit, they can live through this too. Drivers are out there, support is out there, stuff *works*, it's not a big deal. As far as your support headaches over ONE DIERCTORY, ya know, the industry evolves and changes. Deal with it.
True, but there are many programs that are very poorly coded. Having worked for software companies the last 12 years, I have seen some really bad stuff. And one of these was a multi billion dollar corporation that you would have expected more from. You're right, but that doesn't make it go away.
As far as sitting around using Lotus 1-2-3 in DOS, you'd be surprised how many people still do.
As far as reluctance to use 64 bit, I don't think that is the issue. The death of 16 bit was probably one of the best things to ever happen. The problem then as now, is an issue of expense. All of us run somewhat current hardware. Most people do not. As for more RAM, being able to use "only" 3.25GB is not a limitation, and won't be until the next version of Windows. You are right, drivers are out there, not a major problem. Since 99% of software is 32 bit, I would rather run it natively on a 32 bit system than emulated on a 64 bit OS. Most benchmarks I have seen show that even if the OS is slightly more responsive on 64 bit, 32 bit programs are faster on a 32 bit OS. Maybe when there is an MS Office 64, and some good Adobe 64 software, I'll be more likely to switch. Again, I do have some small issues with 64 bit, and none with 32. And as for the "program files" issue, my biggest complaint is that it doesn't work right anyway. From my understanding, 64 bit software can be dumped into the (x86) folder if it has a 32 bit installer, so it doesn't work right anyway. Why did they bother? I am someone that gets truly peeved by the idea of being inconvenienced by something that doesn't work anyway. Overall, I prefer the 32 bit, and neither I nor anybody else owes it to society to run 64 bit. I will most likely wait until Windows 7, or whatever it is going to be, to go 64 bit. By then, 16GB will probably be the norm. Until then, I can let you guys work out all of the issues, so I don't have to.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,610
Also true.
It isn't about the hardware...it is about getting the most out of the hardware you have. If the x64 variant is faster on the same hardware, then it will always run faster, regardless if you keep your current hardware or upgrade. There isn't anything "to fly with" in that argument. Vista x64 does run faster, and is the future, but at the same time works well now too, so why cling to the past when looking to the future has no drawbacks?
SuperSubZero
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2000
- Messages
- 3,780
I'd really love to hear stories of people in 2008 using 1986-era software. Really. I mean besides people who don't live in caves in third-world countries.
If someone owns a computer capable of running an x64 OS (and such machines have existed now for a few years) there's little reason not to. Even for legacy apps (like Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS) if needed they can be run in virtual machines that companies will happily give away for free.
The discussion here has not been about forcing users to upgrade. If they are happy with 1986-era applications on 1988-era computers, then they could continue to be happy for another 20 years. *NEW* computers are the discussion. When that clunker's 10MB MFM hard drive finally dies and gramps decides to crawl out of his cave and get a new Wal-Mart special, there's no reason for it not to have a 64-bit OS standard, whether it be Linux or Windows. If gramps needs DOS 3.3, virtual machine it. The market doesn't need "IS 32-BIT OR 64-BIT BETTER??!!" nonsense. Since the transition is so transparent for most people just give them the best future-proof'd product. x64 doesn't *require* 4GB of RAM, I've run it in 2GB comfortably. These days 2GB of RAM is rock bottom both on amount of RAM and price, so there's no point in getting less in a new machine. If a person REALLY needs to cut an extra $10 off the system, they should go mow a couple of lawns or something and make $10.
Before SP1, Vista seemed to run a bit slower than XP Professional.
Now with SP1, I see a noticeable improvement in boot time with Vista Ultimate x64 over XP Pro.
The thing someone said about 64bit version booting faster, I find that hard to believe.
Now with SP1, I see a noticeable improvement in boot time with Vista Ultimate x64 over XP Pro.
The thing someone said about 64bit version booting faster, I find that hard to believe.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,610
You don't have to remember anything, actually. For example, when I run a game patch, it already knows the default position for that software. I don't know what it is you are patching from the command-line, but that also wouldn't be something the "average" user would be doing anyway. If you have to manually type in the x86 part, you are either using junk software, or you have something wrong with your system.
farfromhome
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,018
And those people would be better off sticking to XP.
To paraphrase another 32-bit fan from above, do you upgrade to Vista because Uncle Bill needs a new pair of shoes? Anybody with the hardware to run Vista comfortably, can run Vista 64 except an odd P4 Extreme or Core Duo (non-2) here or there.Spoken like somebody who has no idea what's going on under the hood. Whether you're running a 32-bit or 64-bit OS, the 32-bit code is running natively on the processor. 64-bit Windows works a lot like most 64-bit Linux distros, and installs both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of libraries on the system. What WOW64 does then is fool the 32-bit application into thinking it's running a full 32-bit OS on it by aliasing paths and such. There is actually no "emulation" really going on, strictly speaking. This isn't like the PPC-to-Intel transition at Apple where a whole CPU architecture had to be emulated.
If you're running a 64-bit capable processor, the performance hit for the masquerade is so minimal you'll only notice it on benchmarks. Wake me when less than 1% performance hit is interesting. And note that pretty much all heavily-CPU dependant applications, such as POVRAY and Maya and other content-creation tools, are already available as native 64-bit applications. Ditto for server applications like Apache and IIS. There is no practical benefit for office applications being 64-bit at the moment, for example.
What programs are still out there that don't let you place them in arbitrary folders? Why should it matter is a 64-bit program is accidentally placed in "Program Files (x86)" anyway? I have yet to see a major program actually depend on the value of %PROGRAMFILES% for its operation. A non-issue. Not that any program I've run across has had such confustion anyway.
Overall, I prefer the 32 bit, and neither I nor anybody else owes it to society to run 64 bit. I will most likely wait until Windows 7, or whatever it is going to be, to go 64 bit. By then, 16GB will probably be the norm. Until then, I can let you guys work out all of the issues, so I don't have to.
By the very fact of posting on the [H], you show that you are smarter than your average computer user.
If enough people don't switch to 64-bit now, there won't be an Office 64-bit, Flash 64-bit, etc... by the time that Windows 7 is out, and most people will, again, end up using Windows 7 32-bit and making the same excuses you are. Really, 64-bit Vista is ready now, and I have not had one, single, solitary compatability problem with it yet.Vista x64 is not mind boggling faster than the 32bit variant. So I agree with the poster who says that speed should not be a reason to upgrade. Infact I don't notice a speed difference, I did right after I installed the OS, but it went away.
Unless you have more than 4GB of ram, want to run specific 64bit applications, or can deal with rare surprise incompatibilities you might as well stay at 32bit.
Also, if you do go x64, make sure you have SIGNED 64bit Vista drivers for ALL of your hardware BEFORE you install the x64 version.
Other than that Vista x64 is very usable, just not mainstream material yet.
Unless you have more than 4GB of ram, want to run specific 64bit applications, or can deal with rare surprise incompatibilities you might as well stay at 32bit.
Also, if you do go x64, make sure you have SIGNED 64bit Vista drivers for ALL of your hardware BEFORE you install the x64 version.
Other than that Vista x64 is very usable, just not mainstream material yet.
oh the irony.