32 or 64 bit vista?

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: chizu
Well, I'll stop here since it's useless to post back and forth. You may think the X64 is good for now because you invested a good amount on RAM but there isn't enough applications worth to switch to x64.

Oh, so now it's not a speed issue it is 'there aren't apps available?'. Well since most 32bit apps run fine, that is also wrong. Care to play again? I love people who get owned then try to change the argument 90% to divert that fact.

And "way slower" to me might not be to you?

I think the general community has a feel for what 'way slower' is defined as and 'the same speed as the 32bit platform +-3%' is NOT it.

You tried to lie (at worse) or at least tried to repeat some FUD you read elsewhere (at best), you got called out. Take your lumps like a man and try to post facts next time. If your posts are factual, I don't care if you reommend (or don't) Vista 64, Linux, or Mac for that matter. Just don't post lies of FUD.

 

[tonie]

Ok, you're right and I'm wrong....

 

[bsobel]

Edit: It looks like you need to chill out, no need to get upset over this.

Tones are hard to read online, but I'm in no way upset. It's simple, if you post lies or FUD I'll correct you. If you post facts and have a different opinion on something, while I may post mine, your certainly entitled to yours. If you had said 'I prefer Vista 32 as too much of my hardware doesnt have 64bit drivers' thats a factual statement of your opinion/option to run Vista 32. I may ask you what hardware (if I'm curious), but would find no reason to disagree with you. However your original blanket statement was a bit over the top in terms of 'not going to disagree'

(you being defined as a poster, not specifically just YOU the poster I'm responding to).

 

[m21s]

Originally posted by: chizu
Ok, you're right and I'm wrong....

QFMFT

 

[Venomous]

I guess im a real serious bragger than because i use 8 gigs in Vista64 and believe me, i use damn near every bit of it. I can max out 4gb in a heartbeat. Photoshop, 3DS Max and Video takes serious advantage of not only the available ram, but the speed of the 64 processor to boot. I use CCE and Canopus Encoders, Tons of photoshop filters, 3DS Max plugins with tons of rendering.

My specs are as follows:

DFI N680i LP SLI
8 Gigs ( 2X 4Gb kit of Muskin PC6400 )
5 Drive Raid 6 provided by Areca and Western Digital
Dual DVD Burners
Intel QX6600 Quad Core
Intel PCI-E Network Card ( Gigabit )
Dual NV 8800 640MB GTS in SLI for ( gaming: Finally working SLI drivers in X64 ) and non Sli for multi monitor
Westinghouse 37" 1080p Monitor
2 Dell Wide 20.1 inchers


Go for the 64 Bit.. The stuff that doesnt work, most likely you wont need anyhow, because its old. There's always going to be people telling you unfactual data about a decision. The guy above having a senseless argument, than pointing to Tom's of all places for credible benches, which btw, were wrong since they compared different OS's, says enough in itself.

I wouldnt be using Vista64 with the above hardware if i knew it wouldnt increase my productivity. Believe me, it does increase my productivity and for the first time since 2003, im actually using the full scale power of my rig.

 

[LarryK]

Vista 64 bit runing fine with 2GB HP printers slow twith the drivers but it doesn't matter they don't have Vista 32 bit drivers ither

 

[randym431]

Does that vista upgrade advisor tell you anything about 32 vs 64 versions? Doesnt the advisor just advise on vista as a whole? Does it check for software & drivers for the 64 vista? I didnt think so.

When I asked the 32 or 64 question, the best advice was to get the retail 32 and you can get the 64 CD from MS along with the deal (by mail). So you have both.

IS there a list (or someone should start a list) of software they encountered problems with using vista, and what version the problem occured in. Just a running list would be nice.

 

[Mem]

Having gone from 32 bit XP to Vista x64 I find my 32 bit programs run just as fast,in some ways faster due to the way Vista handles memory which is superior to XP etc....


Overall I have had no problems .

Spybot and adware ran way faster on XP32bit than vista64

Spybot which was one of the programs meantioned runs fast on my Vista x64.,certainly no slower then when I was using it on XP.


There does seem to be a lot of FUD going around about Vista.

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: n7
This has been asked a number of times in GH (here) & the OS forum.

For maximum compatibility, 32-bit is safest, but overall, i'd still suggest 64-bit (as long as you know nothing you plan to run has issues w/ 64-bit).

I foresee 4 GB becoming the norm for enthusiasts running Vista quite soon, so 64-bit is somewhat necessary.

Personally, i'm happy running 64-bit thus far.

i installed 64 first, back in february, whenever it first launched. anyway, i installed32 the next day because of issues.

that was then though. i couldn't even get vista drivers for my realtek sound. now, when i do my next install, it will definitely be 64.

 

[azilaga]

Originally posted by: Mem
Having gone from 32 bit XP to Vista x64 I find my 32 bit programs run just as fast,in some ways faster due to the way Vista handles memory which is superior to XP etc....


Overall I have had no problems .

<snip>

I second that, but I had to move to 2gb from 1gb of memory for a subjectively smoother experience in Vista.

 

[manowar821]

64 bit vista here, no problems at all. All 32 bit programs will run natively, or with the compatibility mode. I haven't had to use it, though.

No driver issues. No game issues.

 

[doggyfromplanetwoof]

32bit

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: manowar821
64 bit vista here, no problems at all. All 32 bit programs will run natively, or with the compatibility mode. I haven't had to use it, though.

No driver issues. No game issues.

same here

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: stash
The security benefits of the 64bit versions make it worthwhile even with less than 4GB of RAM.

:thumbsup:

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: stash
The security benefits of the 64bit versions make it worthwhile even with less than 4GB of RAM.

:thumbsup:

Also from what I read Microsoft's next OS Vienna is going to be 64 bit only,so you could argue going Vista x64 has better prospects down the road and life span too.

 

[n7]

Good to see the FUD has been kept outta this thread, or kicked out

 

[videopho]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: stash
The security benefits of the 64bit versions make it worthwhile even with less than 4GB of RAM.

:thumbsup:

Also from what I read Microsoft's next OS Vienna is going to be 64 bit only,so you could argue going Vista x64 has better prospects down the road and life span too.

I second to that and would like to add that...
I can see the end of 32 bit OS by 2010.
The 64 will be mainstream by then.
And the 128 bit OS will be born, say mid 2015.

"The optimist"

 

[MarxMarvelous]

Originally posted by: Mem
Also from what I read Microsoft's next OS Vienna is going to be 64 bit only,so you could argue going Vista x64 has better prospects down the road and life span too.

Not necessarily - that rumor spread rapidly and incorrectly. They stated that their server OS's (after Windows Server 2008) would only ship in 64-bit. There have been no statements about future client OS's (i.e. Vista successor).

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windo...5/18/on-64-bit-and-windows-client.aspx

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: MarxMarvelous

Originally posted by: Mem
Also from what I read Microsoft's next OS Vienna is going to be 64 bit only,so you could argue going Vista x64 has better prospects down the road and life span too.

Not necessarily - that rumor spread rapidly and incorrectly. They stated that their server OS's (after Windows Server 2008) would only ship in 64-bit. There have been no statements about future client OS's (i.e. Vista successor).

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windo...5/18/on-64-bit-and-windows-client.aspx

Regardless on what Microsoft do in the future , I think 64 bit is closer then what people think ,Vista x64 will pave the way,besides when DX10 games arrive how long do you think before we start to see games needing 4GB+ for gaming?..Do you think 32 bit OS will be adequate for long term gaming ,as far as I'm concerned 32 bit OS is at its end,look at history and you'll see games have always needed more memory as time went on,few years back 1GB was a lot, nowdays that's the bare minimum for a lot of games.

Microsoft is pushing for 64 bit OS, (ie especially with Vista x64) Vista WHQL approval for drivers is proof of that.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Venomous
I guess im a real serious bragger than because i use 8 gigs in Vista64 and believe me, i use damn near every bit of it. I can max out 4gb in a heartbeat. Photoshop, 3DS Max and Video takes serious advantage of not only the available ram, but the speed of the 64 processor to boot. I use CCE and Canopus Encoders, Tons of photoshop filters, 3DS Max plugins with tons of rendering.

I'm curious as to what people like you did before 64bit O/Ss. Swap like hell from the hd?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: Venomous
I guess im a real serious bragger than because i use 8 gigs in Vista64 and believe me, i use damn near every bit of it. I can max out 4gb in a heartbeat. Photoshop, 3DS Max and Video takes serious advantage of not only the available ram, but the speed of the 64 processor to boot. I use CCE and Canopus Encoders, Tons of photoshop filters, 3DS Max plugins with tons of rendering.

I'm curious as to what people like you did before 64bit O/Ss. Swap like hell from the hd?

Use a Mac lol...I kid buyt OSX has been able to use that much memory for quite a while.

 

[bsobel]

I'm curious as to what people like you did before 64bit O/Ss. Swap like hell from the hd?

My current machine simply couldn't be utilitzed by XP, so I waited for Vista's RTM to order it.

 

[Nothinman]

Use a Mac lol...I kid buyt OSX has been able to use that much memory for quite a while.

Last I checked Leopard is the first release to have anything more than the kernel and some base userland be 64-bit so while the system can address the memory most apps would still be stuck ~3G each.