Windws Vista 32 bit versus 64 bit disk performance hit.

[Guest]

Installed Vista RTM 32 bit, component drivers, and Office 2007 RTM. The
system scored a 4.4 based on the hard disk performance lowest common
denominator.

The system booted and ran quite quick. It was stable, applications opened
quick and switching between them was quick.

Wiped, and installed Vista 64 bit, component drivers, and Office 2007 RTM.
The system scored a 4.0 based on the hard disk performance lowest common
denominator.

The disks would run quite a bit whenever I opened a program, IE7, or tabs
within IE7. Base install, nothing to index, so not an issue. Sounded like it
was constantly working the swap file for application changes and additions.
Is quite frustrating.

System config:
Intel 925X, P4 650 3.4 GHz.
3GB DDR2 (2x 1 GB, 2 x 512 MB dual channel mode)
2 x 200 GB 7200.8 Seagate RAID 1
ATI X850 PCIe

Any ideas?

Needless to say, at this point I will switch back to the 32 bit version of
Vista and go production with it as I can't afford to sit there and wait for
the system on the 64 bit version of Vista.

Thanks,

Phil E.
MSBS

 

[Toby Broom]

I installed x64, I think unless you have a specific need there there no
point it seem like more hassle than it's worth.

Toby

 

[Robert Moir]

Installed Vista RTM 32 bit, component drivers, and Office 2007 RTM.
The system scored a 4.4 based on the hard disk performance lowest
common denominator.

The system booted and ran quite quick. It was stable, applications
opened quick and switching between them was quick.

Wiped, and installed Vista 64 bit, component drivers, and Office 2007
RTM. The system scored a 4.0 based on the hard disk performance
lowest common denominator.

The disks would run quite a bit whenever I opened a program, IE7, or
tabs within IE7. Base install, nothing to index, so not an issue.
Sounded like it was constantly working the swap file for application
changes and additions. Is quite frustrating.

System config:
Intel 925X, P4 650 3.4 GHz.
3GB DDR2 (2x 1 GB, 2 x 512 MB dual channel mode)
2 x 200 GB 7200.8 Seagate RAID 1
ATI X850 PCIe

Any ideas?

Needless to say, at this point I will switch back to the 32 bit
version of Vista and go production with it as I can't afford to sit
there and wait for the system on the 64 bit version of Vista.

If I had to guess, it could be that the 64bit Vista drivers for your system
are less well developed with the 32bit drivers. Were you running the 32bit
or 64bit version of Internet Explorer when you noticed the problems, btw?

 

[Robert Moir]

It gives me pause, as I have another machine that is higher in
performance and I do not see the point if the 64bit version grinds
due to disk driver immaturity.

Of course the drivers for the other machine might be better, if it isn't
identical to the first machine of course. The hardware manufacturers, not
Microsoft, produce the drivers, even the ones bundled on the install DVD.

I'd imagine that a hardware manufacturer would concentrate on getting the 32
bit drivers for 'everything' done first because the 32bit market is where
the most action is right now and that is where they'll live and die. Then
work on 64 bit stuff afterwards in the time they have left, newest products
first. I'm not excusing bad behaviour and poor drivers, you understand, just
explaining one way I think it could happen.

 

[Guest]

I do agree with you on that.

And, as a result, I will wait for the 64bit platform to mature a bit before
doing the change from XP Pro 32bit to Vista 64bit on that particular machine.

Thanks for your input.

Phil E.

 

[Guest]

Phil,

There are a lot of variables here you aren't providing:

What are you computer specs, primarily?

 

[Guest]

Phil,

There are a lot of variables here you aren't providing:

What are you computer specs, primarily?

Here are the specifics:
System config:
Intel 925X mainboard, P4 650 3.4 GHz.
3GB DDR2 (2x 1 GB, 2 x 512 MB dual channel mode)
2 x 200 GB 7200.8 Seagate RAID 1
ATI X850 PCIe, SoundBlaster Audigy 4 Pro
DVDRW, floppy, Antec Bx1030 with 550 Watt PSU.

Need anything else?

P.