Vista 32 or 64 bit?

[umo]

I'm running Vistax32 and it works fine. I've got a Core2Duo CPU, 2GB
RAM and 256MB Nvidia. No problem finding all the drivers for my
hardware and software. I'm scratching my head trying to find any
reason why a home user should even consider switching to the 64bit
version? What say you guys?

 

[Richard G. Harper]

Unless you need to support more than 4gb of memory, or a program you need
only comes in a 64-bit version, there is no reason for anyone to run the
64-bit version of Vista.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

 

[phypps]

I don't think its that black and white.

Depending on what use it gets, the machine described below probably is OK
with 32 bit.
But high spec machines are much more debateable.

I disagree with the "higher" than 4Gb.
2 Gb or less will be used optimally on any machine and 32 bit, but not 4Gb.
Due to hardware allocation of memory addresses combined with the 4Gb adress
space limit then 4 Gb of physical memory will NOT all be available on a 32
bit system.
Now, people with 4Gb of memory are probably power users (I hate that term
but what else can I put) with powerful machines and an expectation of using
all that lovely memory in ways that suit their particular needs.
The irony is that more powerful hardware will grab more of that address
space than a weaker system leaving even less available.
(So the people with greatest need will feel the biggest hit !)
For instance an 8800GTX will steal 768Mb of that 4Gb on its own.
That memory will be unavailable to any application because it has been
"allocated".
On a 64 bit system that allocation occurs at a memory address above the
physical memory so has no impact at all.
Programs are evolving rapidly to make greater use of memory so you will need
to make full use of it.
Another way of looking at it is: if Vista itself virtually needs 1Gb to run
efficiently and you have 4 cores, how much memory does each core have to
work with?
Over the next year you are going to need every bit of that memory.
(Photoshop CS3 takes 1.8Gb to itself on a 4Gb 64 bit system !)

The other factor, often ignored, is that 64 bit is far more secure.
Many site this as a problem.
A lot complain about the security aspects impacting on their experience with
32 bit let alone 64 bit.
If you think turning off UAC is good idea please don't even think of going
to 64 bit.
But users with 4Gb and powerful machines and computer savvy have a different
outlook.

Drivers.
I see 64 bit drivers everywhere I look.
It seems that manufacturers are waking up to the fact that with Vista, 64
bit is here for real this time.
OK its not perfect, but in my opinion its a damn good start and its only
going to get better.
Sure, sticking an extra 2Gb into a not so new machine and upgrading to 64
bit without checking whether your (probably obsolete) hardware is supported
isn't going to be a pleasant experience. But what do you expect?

So just because "most" people are going to be quite OK with 32 bit doesn't
make 64 bit an automatic no no.
Current need is not an acceptable excuse.
Multithreaded applications are appearing already (I have at least 4 that can
run flat out with all 4 cores)
All those cores need memory.
Gamers can't have enough memory. Plus directx10 games developers must
surely have an eye on 64 bit.
How long before 64 bit programs start to appear ? Whatever you think, it
will be sooner.

So if you are about to get a reasonably high spec new machine then make sure
it has 4Gb of memory and Ultimate 64 bit.
(by definition the hardware will have all the appropriate drivers)
On that sort of machine, with the usage that its going to get, and the
expectations and mindset of the user then going with 64 bit is the only
sensible option.


Phypps

Unless you need to support more than 4gb of memory, or a program you need
only comes in a 64-bit version, there is no reason for anyone to run the
64-bit version of Vista.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

I'm running Vistax32 and it works fine. I've got a Core2Duo CPU, 2GB
RAM and 256MB Nvidia. No problem finding all the drivers for my
hardware and software. I'm scratching my head trying to find any
reason why a home user should even consider switching to the 64bit
version? What say you guys?

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

The 'power users' you speak of should not be running with a $100 64bit
motherboard capable of only handling 4gb max.. if a user needs to run 64bit
programming, then run it on something decent where it has room to move..
most motherboards are 64bit because they can be, and not because they are
particularly practical.. it is akin to running an F1 car on a go-kart
track..

The average user will have little use for 64bit security, especially in view
of the fact that most users don't even make use of 32bit security..

Drivers for basic hardware are available now, but not for Motorola phones,
webcams and fingerprint readers.. the overall driver situation is still not
good in that respect..

In the traditional world of 64bit computing, the machines are set up to do
one job, not general purpose stuff.. they have the motherboard resources,
RAM, storage space to fit the task in hand..

Presently, 64bit programs are thin on the ground.. yes, it may be the
future, but not today or tomorrow..

A general purpose machine will never be the fastest at anything, neither
should any attempt be made to make it so.. there are always trade offs, some
of which will be impossible to live with..

I don't think its that black and white.

Depending on what use it gets, the machine described below probably is OK
with 32 bit.
But high spec machines are much more debateable.

I disagree with the "higher" than 4Gb.
2 Gb or less will be used optimally on any machine and 32 bit, but not
4Gb.
Due to hardware allocation of memory addresses combined with the 4Gb
adress space limit then 4 Gb of physical memory will NOT all be available
on a 32 bit system.
Now, people with 4Gb of memory are probably power users (I hate that term
but what else can I put) with powerful machines and an expectation of
using all that lovely memory in ways that suit their particular needs.
The irony is that more powerful hardware will grab more of that address
space than a weaker system leaving even less available.
(So the people with greatest need will feel the biggest hit !)
For instance an 8800GTX will steal 768Mb of that 4Gb on its own.
That memory will be unavailable to any application because it has been
"allocated".
On a 64 bit system that allocation occurs at a memory address above the
physical memory so has no impact at all.
Programs are evolving rapidly to make greater use of memory so you will
need to make full use of it.
Another way of looking at it is: if Vista itself virtually needs 1Gb to
run efficiently and you have 4 cores, how much memory does each core have
to work with?
Over the next year you are going to need every bit of that memory.
(Photoshop CS3 takes 1.8Gb to itself on a 4Gb 64 bit system !)

The other factor, often ignored, is that 64 bit is far more secure.
Many site this as a problem.
A lot complain about the security aspects impacting on their experience
with 32 bit let alone 64 bit.
If you think turning off UAC is good idea please don't even think of going
to 64 bit.
But users with 4Gb and powerful machines and computer savvy have a
different outlook.

Drivers.
I see 64 bit drivers everywhere I look.
It seems that manufacturers are waking up to the fact that with Vista, 64
bit is here for real this time.
OK its not perfect, but in my opinion its a damn good start and its only
going to get better.
Sure, sticking an extra 2Gb into a not so new machine and upgrading to 64
bit without checking whether your (probably obsolete) hardware is
supported isn't going to be a pleasant experience. But what do you
expect?

So just because "most" people are going to be quite OK with 32 bit doesn't
make 64 bit an automatic no no.
Current need is not an acceptable excuse.
Multithreaded applications are appearing already (I have at least 4 that
can run flat out with all 4 cores)
All those cores need memory.
Gamers can't have enough memory. Plus directx10 games developers must
surely have an eye on 64 bit.
How long before 64 bit programs start to appear ? Whatever you think, it
will be sooner.

So if you are about to get a reasonably high spec new machine then make
sure it has 4Gb of memory and Ultimate 64 bit.
(by definition the hardware will have all the appropriate drivers)
On that sort of machine, with the usage that its going to get, and the
expectations and mindset of the user then going with 64 bit is the only
sensible option.


Phypps

Unless you need to support more than 4gb of memory, or a program you need
only comes in a 64-bit version, there is no reason for anyone to run the
64-bit version of Vista.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

I'm running Vistax32 and it works fine. I've got a Core2Duo CPU, 2GB
RAM and 256MB Nvidia. No problem finding all the drivers for my
hardware and software. I'm scratching my head trying to find any
reason why a home user should even consider switching to the 64bit
version? What say you guys?

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I'm running Vistax32 and it works fine. I've got a Core2Duo CPU, 2GB
RAM and 256MB Nvidia. No problem finding all the drivers for my
hardware and software.

You've had no problem finding the 32-bit drivers. Have you looked for
the 64-bit hardware drivers? They are different and may be much harder
to find. In some cases, they may not exist.

I'm scratching my head trying to find any
reason why a home user should even consider switching to the 64bit
version? What say you guys?

In most instances at the moment, most people shouldn't.

Running 64-bit software, in theory, is faster than running 32-bit
software. However, outside of 64-bit Windows itself, there is still
very little 64-bit software available. You might get a small speed
boost from the speed improvements within Windows, but the real
potential for improvement is if you run 64-application software.
Today, there is very little 64-bit application software available, so
your potential for improvement is very small. As more and more 64-bit
apps are released in the future, that will change of course.

Other than that, the only real difference is that 64-bit Windows can
support more than the 4GB of RAM (about 3GB in practice) that 32-bit
Windows supports, so if you run applications that can make effective
use of that much RAM, there's a potential benefit for you there too.
But very few people (mostly those doing things like extensive video
editing or editing large high-resolution photos) can make effective
use of so much RAM.

So there's very little potential for improvement for most people, and
there are potential driver issues. Put together, that means it's a
rare person for whom 64-bit Vista makes much sense today. That will of
course change (both for apps and drivers) in the near future.

 

[James Matthews]

If you want more the 3.5 gigs of ram!

 

[Richard]

Some day we will own a PC with a true 64 bit processor and full 64 bit
memory space, and a successor operating system truly designed to work with
multi-core processors and applications optomized to run on such a PC,
processor and operating system. Then we will be switching from our 32 bit
versions of Vista. Give it about 3 years; at least.

Richard

 

[Guest]

I have 64 bit premium and decided to buy it for these reasons:

1. Security
2. Multiasking ability
3. I wanted an os to take advantage of my 64 bit cpu
4. I have 4 gigs of memory
5. My hard disk is 250 gigs (xp 32 bit never recognized all of it)
6. I expect to keep my current setup for many years
7. I wanted the best vista experience
8. I'd rather have 64 bit and not need it than need it and not have it

I can emulate 32 bit but can't upgrade to 64 bit from 32 without a new cpu,
new os and new drivers. However I'd guess most users don't have a desparate
need for 64 bit computing and I don't expect a vast wave of 64 bit software
to be available for a while but its coming. Developers, from what I've seen,
are offering 32 bit and 64 bit drivers for their hardware although I haven't
found any 64 bit patches for games yet. I've been too busy becoming familiar
with vista (new installation) to search for them. This post consists of my
personal views and isn't directed at anyone.