Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads
Recommended Download



Welcome to the Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads, YOUR Largest Resource for Windows Vista related information.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so , join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Driver Scanner

Vista 32 or 64 bit?

microsoft.public.windows.vista.performance maintenance






Speedup My PC
Reply
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2007
umo
 

Posts: n/a
Vista 32 or 64 bit?
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?

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2007
Richard G. Harper
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Vista 32 or 64 bit?
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] rgharper@gmail.com
* 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


"umo" <shoreke@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182402865.477812.118290@i13g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
> 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?
>



Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2007
phypps
 

Posts: n/a
Vista 32 or 64 bit?
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


"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
news:uMEOGi%23sHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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] rgharper@gmail.com
> * 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
>
>
> "umo" <shoreke@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1182402865.477812.118290@i13g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
>> 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?
>>

>
>



Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2007
Mike Hall - MVP
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Vista 32 or 64 bit?
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..



"phypps" <nobody@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:K_idnQ5_V6DH-OfbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@bt.com...
>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
>
>
> "Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
> news:uMEOGi%23sHHA.1216@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> 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] rgharper@gmail.com
>> * 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
>>
>>
>> "umo" <shoreke@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1182402865.477812.118290@i13g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
>>> 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/



Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2007
Ken Blake, MVP
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Vista 32 or 64 bit?
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:14:25 -0000, umo <shoreke@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2007
James Matthews
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Vista 32 or 64 bit?
If you want more the 3.5 gigs of ram!

--

http://www.goldwatches.com/watches.asp?Brand=39
"umo" <shoreke@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182402865.477812.118290@i13g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
> 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?
>


Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-28-2007
Richard
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Vista 32 or 64 bit?
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


Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-27-2007
me too
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Vista 32 or 64 bit?
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.

"Richard" wrote:

> 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
>
>
>

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SURPRISE!> Microsoft Plans to Combine 32-bit and 64-bit Windows Vista After SP1 Tiberius microsoft.public.windows.vista.general 29 06-19-2007 19:27
DVD Player or 64-bit MPEG Codec (WMP) for Vista Business 64-bit Cal Bear '66 microsoft.public.windows.vista.music pictures video 3 03-28-2007 02:58
Dual boot with windows XP Pro 64 Bit and Vista Ultimate 32 Bit Lee Steele microsoft.public.windows.vista.general 2 02-28-2007 21:10
Windws Vista 32 bit versus 64 bit disk performance hit. =?Utf-8?B?UGhpbCBFLg==?= microsoft.public.windows.vista.performance maintenance 7 12-13-2006 04:13




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:17.




Driver Scanner - Free Scan Now

Vistaheads.com is part of the Heads Network. See also XPHeads.com , Win7Heads.com and Win8Heads.com.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin for phpBBStyles.com.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120