Vista 32 bit or 64 bit?

B

Bubsan

Hello!
I'm planning to migrate from XP to Vista and I'm collecting info about what
version to choose.
My system is as follows:
nF4 MB (socket 939)
Athlon XP-60 (2.6 GHz, dual core)
1 GB RAM
Raptor 74 GB for system (+5 other HDD)
GeForce 6600 128 MB
so, it's an old system but I think it has enough power to do everything
comfortably except of course, play games, which I don't.

I was wondering what are main advantages and disadv. of both, 32 and 64 bit
Vistas?

Thank you!
 
R

Rick Rogers

Hi,

There are a lot of sites devoted to this issue. Unless you have an
application that can take advantage of 64 bit processing, you'll probably be
better off compatibility-wise with the 32 bit version as there is a better
selection of drivers available and you will be able to run older 16-bit
programs should you need to.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
 
B

Bubsan

Thanks for your input.
I am reading across net about 32 and 64 bit, and most of all of my concerns
are about 32 bit software performance under 64bit Vista? Is 32bit software
running slower or about the same on 64bit Vista as it would on 32bit?
I did come across few sites that claim 32bit software isn't slower running
on 64bit Vista or at worst case scenario difference is few % points. Is that
true?
Right now (and writing this of it), I'm testing 64bit Vista on my system,
had no problem with drivers, everything works fine so far on system/hardware
level, but didn't still get a chance to install all the software I'm using.
But even when I do install it, assuming it worked, I'd like to know is there
a preformance payoff comparing to 32bit Vista running same applications?
 
M

Mark

If you really want to know, find a benchmark (i.e. PassMark has both 64-bit
and 32-bit versions), run it on the 64-bit version and 32-bit version of
Vista, then compare the scores on your own machine.
 
J

John E

Mark said:
If you really want to know, find a benchmark (i.e. PassMark has both
64-bit and 32-bit versions), run it on the 64-bit version and 32-bit
version of Vista, then compare the scores on your own machine.
Yes, I did that. However, it is worth remembering that the 64bit version is
running natively and achieves *much* better results than the 32 bit version
does on 32 bit Vista. That does not (currently) translate into real world
performance, when most programs are not running natively under 64 bit.

However, there is a sense of direction with 64bit which is why I stick with
it. I have 4 GB RAM and can use all of it. I have drivers for everything
except my Hauppauge hybrid TV card (they say that they do not now intend to
produce 64 bit drivers for this card which is only a year old). Vista 64 is
now completely stable - unlike a month or two back - largely thanks to
better Nvidia drivers, and to a few significant fixes from MS.

John
 
J

John Barnes

It is about the same unless you have a program and system that can use more
than 4gig ram.
 
B

Bubsan

However, there is a sense of direction with 64bit which is why I stick
with it. I have 4 GB RAM and can use all of it.

If I upgrade to 4 GB RAM, why 32 bit would not use it all?
I thought 32bit Vista supports up tp 4 GB of RAM???
 
J

John E

Bubsan said:
If I upgrade to 4 GB RAM, why 32 bit would not use it all?
I thought 32bit Vista supports up tp 4 GB of RAM???


32 bit can address 4GB but some of it is used for system use - here's a
fairly entertaining link
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

Probably of greater significance in the long term, is that each application
can only use a maximum of 2GB under 32 bit windows, and at some point,
applications will appear that can use more than that. This would be of
particular interest in video rendering apps - e.g. video editing suites. For
the moment, we are on the cusp, and it is not too much of an issue, but I
guess in five years time, there will be more pressure for 64 bit.

John
 
R

Rick Rogers

Hi,

It does, but the 32 bit version also has an address limitation of roughly
4GB of address space, and some of that is reserved by the system. Most see
between 2.8 and 3.2GB left for memory address space. The PAE switch can
allow for more addressing space.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
 
H

Hans-Georg Michna

I am reading across net about 32 and 64 bit, and most of all of my concerns
are about 32 bit software performance under 64bit Vista? Is 32bit software
running slower or about the same on 64bit Vista as it would on 32bit?
I did come across few sites that claim 32bit software isn't slower running
on 64bit Vista or at worst case scenario difference is few % points. Is that
true?

Yes. The crucial question is whether they run at all. If they
do---no problem.
Right now (and writing this of it), I'm testing 64bit Vista on my system,
had no problem with drivers, everything works fine so far on system/hardware
level, but didn't still get a chance to install all the software I'm using.
But even when I do install it, assuming it worked, I'd like to know is there
a preformance payoff comparing to 32bit Vista running same applications?

Lucky you! Go for it.

Test all your software.

Some games, if you install their 64 bit versions, run
significantly (30%) faster.

Hans-Georg
 
K

Ken Blake, MVP

Hello!
I'm planning to migrate from XP to Vista and I'm collecting info about what
version to choose.

I was wondering what are main advantages and disadv. of both, 32 and 64 bit
Vistas?


There are essentially three issues:

1. You may have trouble getting 64-bit drivers for some of your
hardware. If you do decide to install 64-bit Vista, it would be
prudent to first make sure all the drivers you need are available.

2. The performance improvements of 64-bit Vista are so small as to be
practically unnoticeable, *unless* you are running 64-bit
applications. Since there are very few 64-bit applications yet, the
performance issue doesn't exist for most of us.

3. 32-bit Vista is limited to a 4GB address space, which typically
translates into around a 3GB limit on how much RAM it can use. 64-bit
Vista has a much larger limit. *If* the apps you run can make
effective use of more than 3GB, you might want to consider 64-bit
Vista for that reason. However, very few people running Vista will be
able to take any real advantage of more than 3GB.
 
B

Bubsan

Thank you for you input.
I think I'll install what's left of my apps to test and make an RAM upgrade
to 2 or 4 GB. Still haven't decided. Leaning towards 4 GB ;) In that case,
if apps testing was succesful, I'm going for 64bit.
 
M

Mark

Don't be too quick to put in 4 GB RAM unless you are sure you are going with
64-bit.

While 32-bit can "see" 4GB, your hardware (video, etc.) is most likely using
the addresses above 3GB. Memory assigned to hardware cannot be used by the
32-bit OS as RAM which means you'd be wasting money on that 4th GB. This is
hard-coded and won't change unless you are using a 64-bit OS with 64-bit
drivers.

Regarding benchmarking:
My idea was to use both versions of the benchmark (32-bit and 64-bit
versions) in the 64-bit environment. You should then get a glimpse (when
comparing results) of what 64-bit can do and what 32-bit running in 64-bit
can do. It's not the best test, but it should show something.

Bubsan said:
Thank you for you input.
I think I'll install what's left of my apps to test and make an RAM
upgrade to 2 or 4 GB. Still haven't decided. Leaning towards 4 GB ;) In
that case, if apps testing was succesful, I'm going for 64bit.
 
J

John Barnes

Sounds like a good decision. If everything you currently want to run works,
you may as well be ready for the future. I started the move to 64-bit with
XP64 in beta. I made the commitment to replace any hardware that didn't
have drivers with new equipment that had the drivers. Same for software. I
ended up finding new software for about 50% of my programs. Vista64 has
better driver support than XP64 while many free programs that have drivers
are not planning on Vista64 support due to the cost of the required signed
drivers. I have one Vista64, one XP64 and a Vista32 running.

Bubsan said:
Thank you for you input.
I think I'll install what's left of my apps to test and make an RAM
upgrade to 2 or 4 GB. Still haven't decided. Leaning towards 4 GB ;) In
that case, if apps testing was succesful, I'm going for 64bit.
 
E

ewitte

particular interest in video rendering apps - e.g. video editing suites. For
the moment, we are on the cusp, and it is not too much of an issue, but I
guess in five years time, there will be more pressure for64 bit.

John

Its already an issue. I have no clue why they didn't make the 64-bit
version the standard one because of the memory issue. It was already
a pressing issue with XP.
 
J

John Barnes

XP already has a more stable 64-bit version as it is built on the server
base, not the consumer base. If drivers are not an issue I feel it is a
better choice.
 
J

John E

John Barnes said:
XP already has a more stable 64-bit version as it is built on the server
base, not the consumer base. If drivers are not an issue I feel it is a
better choice.

I wouldn't disagree with either of these comments. However, I did run XP64
for a while, and had some problems with software incompatibility. I *hope*
that the increased marketing pressure behind Vista might resolve these
issues in time. As I said, Vista 64 works well for me now, with the
exception of Hauppauge hybrid TV card drivers.

John.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

64-bit versus 32-bit Vista 12
Internet Explorer- 32-bit versus 64-bit 5
Why 64 Bit? 13
32 bit or 64 bit 14
Vista 64 vs 32 17
32 bit and 64 bit RAM access 11
64 bit vista ultimate. 3
32 vs 64 11

Top