32 bit is no longer valid

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: Mem
Lol....first we had XP via Vista (check OS forum for that)now we have Vista x68 v Vista x64.

Think I'll go back to my Vista x64 gaming with Nvidia drivers/Nvidia motherboard and choose one of my 51 working games that I have installed ,I won't bother saying anything about the solid drivers/gaming that I have. .


I'm staying neutral for the sake of peace and harmony .
Before I forget ,I'll wish you all a very happy new year .

Time to join my Vista/XP brothers online and kick some ass .

Honestly, I do not think it is a laughing matter. I believe that before anyone jumps into the 64-bit OS, they should be aware of potential issues.

You know about the problems I am experiencing, and I appreciate your advice.

But again - NO ONE mentioned any incompatibilities before I jumped in. EVERYONE was perfectly stable, MORE THAN EVER :laugh:

How can that be...? Am I just another PEBCAK...?

I am not blaming anyone, it was my decision.

But the security program incompatibilities are inexcusable.

I can deal with everything else just fine.

But it is too early for the 64-bit computing, as I have mentioned before. 1 - 2 years too early...

And I reserve the right to remain disappointed... at least for now.

 

[Mem]

The problem: no 64-bit Anti-Spyware programs, except for Defender. SpySweeper refused to install, other anti-spyware apps do not work in a 64-bit OS.

Norton Internet Security 2007 works fine, but it works as a 32-bit application.

Creative Audigy 4 works fine, including EAX, as a 32-bit app. So do HP 3-in-ones, faxes, printers, APC PowerChute, PunkBuster, WinPatrol, Everest - all in 32-bit mode. All games, except Crysis, work as the 32-bit app.

Yes, Vista 64 is the future.

NO, 32-bit Vista or XP are NOT obsolete, let alone invalid.

IMO, Vista 64 is the transitional OS, where many applications and drivers work in 32-bit mode. That's why people with more than 3 GB of RAM still have problems, since the drivers are designed to address that "forbidden space" just below the 4GB mark, and are probably "fighting for memory space" with the OS or the apps."

JustaGeek I was not laughing at you for the record ,getting back to what you was talking about that's the beauty of Vista x64,it can run most 32 bit software,the transition from 32 bit to 64 bit will be gradual over time,most people upgrade to Vista x64 for the memory size it can handle.

Good place here to find out what's happening with x64 software/security etc... .

I'm still not sure what your issues are?..is it that you can't find enough 64 bit software or have problems with your 32 bit software?

SpySweeper refused to install, other anti-spyware apps do not work in a 64-bit OS.

Spybot 1.5,SpywareBlaster,SUPERAntiSpyware all work in Vista x64 (I'm using them as I type this).

Also software like CCleaner,uTorrent ,ALZip,ZipGenius to name a few etc all work fine or are you saying you want more 64 bit software?

Feel free to pm me your problems.
I feel 32 bit compatibility is very good with Vista x64,you can argue we need more 64 bit software(which will come in time).

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin

let me paraphrase your buddy Avalon:

Blah Blah Blah

Now why don't we TEST it. What are you afraid of?

The confused icon is definitely appropriate. I have tested it and I posted my results along with the technical detail to back it up. Where's yours? Oh right, you wouldn't even know where to begin. Luckily progress and advancements in the PC industry don't advance as slowly as your ability to understand them. If that were the case we probably would still be stuck with AGP and Socket A.

it IS appropriate for you

Your 'tests' and 'technical details' are as valid as your FUD ... where is the side-by-side comparison of Vista32 with Vista64? ... i.e. Gaming Benchmarks and performance analysis in gaming. Where is RAM usage *compared* on an identical rig - not posted vague memories of 32-bit.
--i *could* do it ... easily .... i already benchmarked XP32 vs Vista32 for the Video forum this Summer as well as compared 8800GTS-640OC with 2900xt with a lot more than just claims, confused FUD and "more is better" BS.

Why would I need to bench Vista32 vs. Vista64 when it does nothing to address the main reason I upgraded to Vista 64 from XP to begin with: the inability to address more than 4GB of memory. In fact, it only makes those problems worst as Vista still uses more memory than XP even after the hot fix. This isn't anything that needs to be tested, its common knowledge.

There also isn't any need to go back and test XP when games I run on Vista 64 can now use more physical memory than a 32-bit system could even address for a single application given the limitations of 32-bit addressing + system overhead. Show me a 32-bit OS, XP or Vista that even comes close to 3GB commit charge for a single game. After that its simple math or the realization that more RAM compared to less RAM equates to better performance.

But i am not the one *claiming* superior performance in Gaming.
-nor do i care to purchase Vista64 now when 32-bit is just as valid for gaming as Vista-32bit with no demonstrative practical advantage.

No you're the troll that claims 1.25GB of additional memory magically unlocked DX10 on your Vista 32 install but fails to acknowledge more RAM (that's actually addressable by the game) would have any impact on performance.

Where is the test? Where is the proof?
... show us the practical gaming advantages of 64-bit instead of stating theoretical and future ones.

64-bit OS and 8GB RAM unlocked DX11 on my machine. True story.

i want to *see* that 4GB RAM, 32-bit rig thrashin' and and a chuggin' on a 32-bit game that is smooth sailing for the same HW on a 64-bit OS.

I already gave you a free example of a game that you supposedly played, LOTRO. I'm not going to go out of my way and re-install XP just to educate you but I'd be more than willing to compare gameplay at the same resolution. Simply record a travel route in FRAPs from North Bree to South Bree and see if there's any difference in "thrashin' and chuggin'".

EDIT: Something you *all should know* as n7 hit the nail right on the head:

Utter garbage is all nV puts out for Vista x64, seriously...don't know why i haven't gotten rid of this card already for a slower AMD one that doesn't have issues over a year after release...

nvidia pays lip service to 64-bit while serving up garbage drivers. When *they* get serious about it - every dev in the world will also get serious as they are mostly all in the twiimtbp program. Until then, we will see no change and 32-bit will be all devs program for.

NV's drivers have been the least of my problems in Vista 64, but what does that have to do with anything? There's a guy over in the PC games section that has a library of 320 games he claims run flawlessly, maybe compare notes with him?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: wordsworm

Vista 64 is not ready for prime time! It is actually pretty disappointing, with issues popping-up around every corner, and every time I open the "Event Viewer", I am waiting for some new "horror" messages.

Let me ask you to compare your initial experience with XP to Vista 64. I'll tell you that mine is similar as it was with drivers - some things aren't supported, but mostly there's no trouble.

And to Microsoft and the developers - get the security software ready! Get it to work on the 64-bit platform, or it will take another 5 years to fully implement it!

If you have a better test site, then please give it to me. Anyways, for years I've used https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?rh1dkyd2">Shields Up</a>.
.....................................................have a feeling that IE 64 bit is immensely more secure than what came with XP back in ... what, 2001 or 2002?

I am just wondering... Why would anyone here say that the 64-bit Vista is the most stable operating system in history...?

I wouldn't go that far. Windows 2000 seems to have been pretty stable to me. I would have to say that Vista is probably more stable from the outset than XP was. (I haven't tried Vista 32)

However, my point from the outset is that if you test a 256 MB video card vs a 768 MB video card, you're going to lose 512 MB more with the 768 because of the limitations of 32 bit OS. Now, are you still arguing that 512 MB isn't going to make a difference when running video card comparisons? I hope you're willing to recognize this limitation. If you go this far, then it doesn't take much to say that the results of such testing is going to be influenced by the difference with the way the 32 bit OS balances the RAM. If you can keep up with that logic, then perhaps you can catch on to what I was getting at in the first place: 32 bit Vista cannot compare video cards properly, and therefore, the tests are invalid because of the OS.

Now, rather than arguing over whether or not 32 bit Vista is going to be valid as an OS, help me see the flaw in my logic that will counter my premise that the limitation of 32 bit is going to handicap the accuracy of the results.

Look, I do not intend to start another exchange of pointless arguments - we have 2 others in this thread for this purpose (no offense...)

When I migrate to the new, "better", "SUPERIOR" (uhumm...) Operating System, I expect the programs with my paid subscription to work.

They don't.

SpySweeper, Registry Mechanic, System Mechanic, all these programs that give me (however false) sense of security MUST work - but they don't...

And frankly, I don't care if there were implementation problems with XP back in 2001. How can YOU claim that Vista 64 is SUPERIOR, and then say "Oh, yes, the problems, well, it's expected."

No - not with the "Superior" system.

And everything that DOES work, WORKS in 32-bit mode.

How superior is that...?

And honestly, I don't understand your argument with the 256 and 768 Video Cards.

AFAIK, the Graphics Drivers are still written in 32-bit code, and that makes them address the same area from the 4GB Threshold down. It will not be automatically freed-up for your applications to use. The driver will still be addressing it between 3.25 to 4GB range, or 3.75to 4GB, plus all the PCI memory within the same range, even on the 64-bit platform.

Why...? Because all the drivers are (again) designed in 32-bit code, and implemented, or rather adapted, for the 64-bit system.

IMO, the area between the 3 - 4GB will be "dead" for the users forever - it just makes sense, for compatibility reasons.

This 1 page article with a nice graph shows it best.

And please, with all due respect - please stop that "superiority" nonsense. If it doesn't work properly, it is not superior.

But I know it will be.

Let's call it "experimental" for now.

Not saying your problems aren't valid, but honestly I think you need to ask yourself what your reason is to upgrade and if you saw any benefit in that regard. I've said very clearly that there is some give and take and listed the problems I encountered in Vista 64, many of which were corrected. But I did see a tangible boost and benefit from the move in games, which made the move worthwhile to me, even at the expense of using my X-Fi for 3 months.

If running anti-virus is that important to you than maybe Vista 64 isn't for you. As others said, there are anti-virus programs that work (I don't personally run one, haven't needed one ever) in Vista 64. Sometimes the workaround is somewhat simple, like running the .exe in XP compatibility mode with Run As Administrator. Quirky workaround for sure, but it does work for many legacy 32-bit apps.

 

[wordsworm]

SpySweeper, Registry Mechanic, System Mechanic, all these programs that give me (however false) sense of security MUST work - but they don't...

I went through all that garbage when I migrated to XP. Didn't you? Of course you're going to have to change your infrastructure.

I believe that chizow has explained how Vista 64 uses memory above 4 GB.

XP was superior to both Windows 98 and ME, and arguably better than 2000 despite the problems that were inherent from changing platforms. I don't think you're going to argue against that. Now, I'm saying the same about Vista 64.
Spysweeper

Apparently spysweeper works, but the registry mechanic and system mechanic are problematic.

Anyways, I was trying to come up with more things to say, but then I read the other reply (nullpointerus) to this post of yours, and I feel very humbled by his much greater breadth of knowledge.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin

let me paraphrase your buddy Avalon:

Blah Blah Blah

Now why don't we TEST it. What are you afraid of?

The confused icon is definitely appropriate. I have tested it and I posted my results along with the technical detail to back it up. Where's yours? Oh right, you wouldn't even know where to begin. Luckily progress and advancements in the PC industry don't advance as slowly as your ability to understand them. If that were the case we probably would still be stuck with AGP and Socket A.

it IS appropriate for you

Your 'tests' and 'technical details' are as valid as your FUD ... where is the side-by-side comparison of Vista32 with Vista64? ... i.e. Gaming Benchmarks and performance analysis in gaming. Where is RAM usage *compared* on an identical rig - not posted vague memories of 32-bit.
--i *could* do it ... easily .... i already benchmarked XP32 vs Vista32 for the Video forum this Summer as well as compared 8800GTS-640OC with 2900xt with a lot more than just claims, confused FUD and "more is better" BS.

Why would I need to bench Vista32 vs. Vista64 when it does nothing to address the main reason I upgraded to Vista 64 from XP to begin with: the inability to address more than 4GB of memory. In fact, it only makes those problems worst as Vista still uses more memory than XP even after the hot fix. This isn't anything that needs to be tested, its common knowledge.

There also isn't any need to go back and test XP when games I run on Vista 64 can now use more physical memory than a 32-bit system could even address for a single application given the limitations of 32-bit addressing + system overhead. Show me a 32-bit OS, XP or Vista that even comes close to 3GB commit charge for a single game. After that its simple math or the realization that more RAM compared to less RAM equates to better performance.

no, don't test XP ... who cares? we are talking about Vista 32 vs Vista 64 with 4 GB of RAM and gaming performance

you may have upgraded for the wrong reason. i can't find a single 32-bit game that is benchmarked to show it runs better in Vista 64 over Vista 32. Devs *write* for the 2GB limit. Not for your 64-bit OS.

Here is a Crysis Bench for the demo 64 vs 32 ... nothing i can find for the retail game ... and Crysis is one of the very few games written for 64-bit. Not much difference.

http://play.tm/wire/click/1590563

But i am not the one *claiming* superior performance in Gaming.
-nor do i care to purchase Vista64 now when 32-bit is just as valid for gaming as Vista-32bit with no demonstrative practical advantage.

No you're the troll that claims 1.25GB of additional memory magically unlocked DX10 on your Vista 32 install but fails to acknowledge more RAM (that's actually addressable by the game) would have any impact on performance.

No magic - a couple of patches helped. You're the troll who makes sweeping claims but who can't back them up and doesn't care to do any tests because his mind is tightly shut.

Where is the test? Where is the proof?
... show us the practical gaming advantages of 64-bit instead of stating theoretical and future ones.

64-bit OS and 8GB RAM unlocked DX11 on my machine. True story.

no different than your other silly claims without foundation

i want to *see* that 4GB RAM, 32-bit rig thrashin' and and a chuggin' on a 32-bit game that is smooth sailing for the same HW on a 64-bit OS.

I already gave you a free example of a game that you supposedly played, LOTRO. I'm not going to go out of my way and re-install XP just to educate you but I'd be more than willing to compare gameplay at the same resolution. Simply record a travel route in FRAPs from North Bree to South Bree and see if there's any difference in "thrashin' and chuggin'".

Again ... forget XP and your old LoTRO exprience - it is not relevant - things change with the MMO games - they get patched. Anyway,i don't have the game anymore to compare. LoTRO is uninstalled and i won't pay to play monthly. Besides you are talking about playing *online* with lots of other variables that affect RAM usage and "chugging". Worst of all, you have zero clue how game textures are handled by an OS. Do you really think your 64-bit OS is gonna load all 6GB of textures at once? :roll:

EDIT: Something you *all should know* as n7 hit the nail right on the head:

Utter garbage is all nV puts out for Vista x64, seriously...don't know why i haven't gotten rid of this card already for a slower AMD one that doesn't have issues over a year after release...

nvidia pays lip service to 64-bit while serving up garbage drivers. When *they* get serious about it - every dev in the world will also get serious as they are mostly all in the twiimtbp program. Until then, we will see no change and 32-bit will be all devs program for.

NV's drivers have been the least of my problems in Vista 64, but what does that have to do with anything? There's a guy over in the PC games section that has a library of 320 games he claims run flawlessly, maybe compare notes with him?

[/quote]

and see another 64-bit zealot with more silly testimonials like yours?
-the point is that nvidia is not behind 64-bit ... not yet.

- to everyone else with an open mind ... lets *test* 64-bit vs. 32-for gaming ... we will be the first forum to have anything definitive on the subject

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
no, don't test XP ... who cares? we are talking about Vista 32 vs Vista 64 with 4 GB of RAM and gaming performance

Where did I mention XP? Once again, If Vista 32 and Vista 64 use the same amount of RAM for just the OS and drivers (on boot-up observer RAM use), but Vista 64 uses more RAM with just 1 game running than Vista 32, what other test would be needed to run. Now, my point is that there's no need for me to install 32-bit Vista and compare it to 64-bit Vista. You're running 32-bit Vista now. Simple. Post a SS of ANY game that can use close to 3GB commit in Vista 32. I posted mine (2.8GB in Witcher). Where's yours?

you may have upgraded for the wrong reason. i can't find a single 32-bit game that is benchmarked to show it runs better in Vista 64 over Vista 32.

I've already stated my reason for upgrading and provided proof it was justified. Not like you'd know the difference anyways since once again, the differences can't often be expressed in the almighty FPS.

Devs *write* for the 2GB limit. Not for your 64-bit OS.

Except in games that enable /largeaddressaware....or games that run on 32-bit OS that don't allow them to address more than 2GB anyways..........etc etc.

Here is a Crysis Bench for the demo 64 vs 32 ... nothing i can find for the retail game ... and Crysis is one of the very few games written for 64-bit. Not much difference.

http://play.tm/wire/click/1590563[/b]

More proof you don't understand the basic concepts of the argument. Those are benchmarks done in Vista 64 with the 32-bit and 64-bit clients.....do you even know the difference?

No magic - a couple of patches helped. You're the troll who makes sweeping claims but who can't back them up and doesn't care to do any tests because his mind is tightly shut.

No the patches fixed the "memory MISmanagement problems" you didn't have with 2GB because it was just enough, the extra 1GB magically unlocked DX10 remember? Feel free to read through your random ramblings, as painful as it is, to retrace your footsteps.

no different than your other silly claims without foundation

Because more RAM is magical, except when you don't think its needed, then its not.

Again ... forget XP and your old LoTRO exprience - it is not relevant - things change with the MMO games - they get patched. Anyway,i don't have the game anymore to compare. LoTRO is uninstalled and i won't pay to play monthly. Besides you are talking about playing *online* with lots of other variables that affect RAM usage and "chugging". Worst of all, you have zero clue how game textures are handled by an OS. Do you really think your 64-bit OS is gonna load all 6GB of textures at once? :roll:

How is it irrelevant? Insufficient RAM in LOTRO is easily as important as the GPU when it comes to smooth gameplay. There hasn't been any patches to the game for client performance since I moved to Vista other than DX10 and if anything that would've decreased performance for my system under Vista. The June 10th patch cleaned up the client for both XP and Vista and I ran the game under XP at the time. At that point, it became plainly obvious that more RAM would make the game run better, so I switched and it did.

I still see some hitching with 4GB+ but its nowhere near as bad as when I ran 2GB. For you to sit here and say it runs fine without hitching or stuttering with 2GB is just a flat out lie or you never played the game. Simple as that. And no the game isn't going to load all 6GB of textures, it simply can't and I never said it could, but its going to certainly load more than a 32-bit OS could. As for not knowing how textures are handled, lol.....you don't even understand the benefit of avoiding swapping entirely.

and see another 64-bit zealot with more silly testimonials like yours?
-the point is that nvidia is not behind 64-bit ... not yet.

Or someone with relevant experience to the contrary. I'm sure N7 found something wrong with NV's drivers, he always does, but how does that equate to NV not being behind 64-bit? They provide 64-bit Vista drivers with every single driver release, so unless you have verifiable evidence that there's a difference in compatibility between 32-bit and 64-bit Vista drivers you're just spreading more FUD.

- to everyone else with an open mind ... lets *test* 64-bit vs. 32-for gaming ... we will be the first forum to have anything definitive on the subject[/b]

For most with an open mind, its really as simple as observing a game using more RAM in a 64-bit system than it could on a 32-bit system.....

But that actually assumes they know how more RAM benefits performance....

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: chizow
Let's call it "experimental" for now.
.............................................................

Not saying your problems aren't valid, but honestly I think you need to ask yourself what your reason is to upgrade and if you saw any benefit in that regard. I've said very clearly that there is some give and take and listed the problems I encountered in Vista 64, many of which were corrected. But I did see a tangible boost and benefit from the move in games, which made the move worthwhile to me, even at the expense of using my X-Fi for 3 months.

If running anti-virus is that important to you than maybe Vista 64 isn't for you. As others said, there are anti-virus programs that work (I don't personally run one, haven't needed one ever) in Vista 64. Sometimes the workaround is somewhat simple, like running the .exe in XP compatibility mode with Run As Administrator. Quirky workaround for sure, but it does work for many legacy 32-bit apps.

:laugh:

You gave me a really good laugh here.

You are the strongest, the longest running advocate of upgrading to Vista 64, and now you are telling me that perhaps it isn't for me....?

Security is #1 (and it was the #1 issue on Microsoft's agenda with Vista) and maybe you feel that you don't need any anti-virus on your computer, but I do.

And I believe you should really look into it, before your machine becomes a "zombie" infected with a trojan or some bagle variant.

My Norton works fine though, the problem is AntiSpyware, which doesn't work.

And wordsworm - that information about the SpySweeper is incorrect, when I try to run the latest installer, the message says "incompatible with 64-bit system.

Now, my reason for the upgrade was all the accolades and great improvements that posters like chizow and other 64-bit supporters so strongly indicated.

And, obviously.... the geek's curiosity.

I have to admit that my favorite game NHL 08 feels and plays MUCH smoother.

Far Cry looks MUCH better, and the gameplay is more fluid.

Crysis looks amazing in DX10 64-bit at Very High (Shadows and PostProc Medium) @~30fps.

Quake 4 plays MUCH better too, with much more vivid colors and uniform gameplay.

Soo... what am I complaining about, one might ask...?

My biggest gripe is the AntiSpyware, and perhaps "the unexpected".

My problems are (were...?) valid, but I thing I got it under control.

But please, guys, lets not get carried away with blind support of the 64-bit, and lets not tell people "I haven't had problems", because it is a blatant LIE.

Just think, the ones of you that are technicians, or sell computers to the public....

If a client comes to you asking for a recommendation.... would you, in all honesty, recommend the 64-bit Vista to an "average Joe and Jane"...?

..........................?

I didn't think so...

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
You are the strongest, the longest running advocate of upgrading to Vista 64, and now you are telling me that perhaps it isn't for me....?

Uh, no I'm not. I upgraded much later than others and I did it for one reason and one reason only (the only reason I maintain a PC really), for games. I didn't upgrade for 64-bit program support, DreamScene, Aero, or anything else. If Anti-Spyware is that important to you, then maybe Vista isn't for you. I never said it was for everyone, I said I saw potential for x64 to improve my gaming experience and it has.

Security is #1 (and it was the #1 issue on Microsoft's agenda with Vista) and maybe you feel that you don't need any anti-virus on your computer, but I do.

And I believe you should really look into it, before your machine becomes a "zombie" infected with a trojan or some bagle variant.

Windows Defender is anti-spyware isn't it? Good enough for me, but then again I'm not running the NSA database on my rig.

As for needing an anti-virus....again I've never needed one. I'm simply careful about what external sources come in contact with my machine and worst case scenario there's nothing on my gaming rig that I don't have backed up or can't recover.

My Norton works fine though, the problem is AntiSpyware, which doesn't work.

And wordsworm - that information about the SpySweeper is incorrect, when I try to run the latest installer, the message says "incompatible with 64-bit system.

I've avoided Norton like the plague ever since SystemWorks caused an annoying hitching problem a few years ago. Funny many would argue Norton is the worst Spyware known to man.

For SpySweeper try right clicking on the install file, check off XP compatibility then run it as Admin. Fixes many of those install compatibility problems off the bat.

Now, my reason for the upgrade was all the accolades and great improvements that posters like chizow and other 64-bit supporters so strongly indicated.

And, obviously.... the geek's curiosity.

I have to admit that my favorite game NHL 08 feels and plays MUCH smoother.

Far Cry looks MUCH better, and the gameplay is more fluid.

Crysis looks amazing in DX10 64-bit at Very High (Shadows and PostProc Medium) @~30fps.

Quake 4 plays MUCH better too, with much more vivid colors and uniform gameplay.

Soo... what am I complaining about, one might ask...?

My biggest gripe is the AntiSpyware, and perhaps "the unexpected".

My problems are (were...?) valid, but I thing I got it under control.

But please, guys, lets not get carried away with blind support of the 64-bit, and lets not tell people "I haven't had problems", because it is a blatant LIE.

And I never said otherwise, but I'm glad you're experiencing the exact differences I said you would, even with 3GB in a 32-bit OS.

Just think, the ones of you that are technicians, or sell computers to the public....

If a client comes to you asking for a recommendation.... would you, in all honesty, recommend the 64-bit Vista to an "average Joe and Jane"...?

..........................?

I didn't think so...

average Joe and Jane would have an OEM box with parts and software compatible with Vista and supported by the people that made the OEM box. But I'd still recommend Vista 64 to them if they had a newer rig that didn't require legacy support.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin

- to everyone else with an open mind ... lets *test* 64-bit vs. 32-for gaming ... we will be the first forum to have anything definitive on the subject[/b]

For most with an open mind, its really as simple as observing a game using more RAM in a 64-bit system than it could on a 32-bit system.....

But that actually assumes they know how more RAM benefits performance....

it may appear that way to you but appearances may be deceiving. Your "more RAM benefits performance" is a very general statement that doesn't necessarily apply if the application isn't written to benefit from it.

it is silly for me to continue to go 'round and 'round with you as you dismiss anything that doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions of 64bit and gaming. You will insist that an ONLINE game is solely 'hitching' because of lack of RAM and then insist there were no updates in 6 months - or that my system should even be compared to yours. We have different GPU companies - at the least. Your arguments are the height of absurdity.

No, i am just not taking your casual "observations" as any form of truth. Perhaps you are right although i don't see any evidence - certainly nothing you presented that is outside "anecdotal". i don't mind being proved wrong. In fact, i wouldn't mind doing the tests myself except for the expense.
--But until we see a review or article or even reliable "in house" testing, i will not accept your unfounded premise that a 32-bit game written with the 2GB barrier in mind will run "better" on a 64-bit 4GB system just because it can address a bit more RAM.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: chizow
average Joe and Jane would have an OEM box with parts and software compatible with Vista and supported by the people that made the OEM box. But I'd still recommend Vista 64 to them if they had a newer rig that didn't require legacy support.

I appreciate you throwing that "if" in...

And I am certain that they would know what "legacy support" means

And believe me, it is important! My wife enjoys these little games that I was playing on 3.1, namely "Tri-peaks", "Word Zap" and "Hangman".

I am sure that it is possible to make the 16-bit apps work, perhaps in a form of a little "Virtual Application/Platform". The possibilities of 64-bit computing, with practically unlimited (by today's standards") amount of physical memory and 128GB addressability are enormous!

OK, maybe I panicked a little

Just installed Quicken 2007 and it works BETTER than in XP. I think the interface was specifically designed to work on a 3D desktop, because in XP it would really flicker and "visibly struggle".

Well, what's done is done. It is all kinda exciting anyway... in a strange "masochistic" way.

Thanks for the tip with the SpySweeper - I'll try that next.

BTW, do you know what to do for the XP not to erase my "Restore Points" in Vista...?

It is a known issue, and making the Vista Drive/Partition "Hidden" caused Vista boot failure. I had to "unhide" the partition, and inadvertandly loose the Restore Points again...

Unchecking "Vista Drive monitoring" in XP doesn't work either.

TIA

 

[JustaGeek]

FYI - XP compatibility and "Run as admin" does not work for SpySweeper.

 

[Mem]

My biggest gripe is the AntiSpyware, and perhaps "the unexpected".

JustaGeek As I have already stated you have alternatives ie Spybot 1.5,SpywareBlaster,SUPERAntispyware(all are free) .


You get Windows Defender thrown in free,you get anti-spyware thrown in from Kaspersky,Bitdefender,Norton security packages etc....

Start64 good site for x64 info/software. .

I've not even done a full anti-spyware search for Vista x64 so probably quite a few more available.In general most Vista x64 users are happy just like Vista x68 owners.

You can't expect Vista x64 to be 100% compatible,remember its a pretty new OS and when you throw in that its 64 bit as well with extra security( ie signed drivers etc ) then its wise to check what software you'll be using,in my experience I have always found an alternative to a program that was not compatible(ie I had one very old 16 bit paint software package ,which as you probably know Vista x64 has no 16 bit legacy support,my solution was simple I upgraded the very old paint package to their newer 32 bit version for $15 which I actually like more then the old version).

"The Unexpected" as you say (that always happens sooner or later with computers and software,regardless of the OS you are using).

I like to finish on this note as fas as I know SpySweeper does not have a compatible program for Vista x64 or XP x64,now do you blame the OS or the maker of SpySweeper?.....I think you know the answer to that,Microsoft have released more then one 64 bit OS and there are a few 64 bit software programs plus a lot of 64 drivers available,its up to the software companies to get their fingers out and start fully supporting 64 bit OS ,not Microsoft since they have done what they can.

.

 

[wordsworm]

32 bit has reached its limit. It isn't going to get any better. It's finished. It'll remain in the mainstream for probably another 3-4 years. But that's not how the enthusiast community works. It's not the mainstream community. It constantly seeks out new improvements, new ways to grow so that what we see in the future pales in comparison to what we have today. How long do you think the programming community will program exclusively in 32 bit? We already see that the best of the best is best in 64 bit (Crysis). When the community first started to exploit 64 bit technology with XP 64, 32 bit hadn't reached its limit. That's what makes Vista 64 a whole lot different circumstantially, and that is why Vista will take 15-20% of the OS market by the time MS has a new OS for us all to argue over.

64 bit isn't for the faint at heart. So if your heart is weak, then it's a good idea, ap*kof*in, to stay away from an advanced technology. If you don't like looking for new software that has been developed to protect your computer by other companies that want to get their foot in the door for what has been poorly coined, in this thread, as the 'early adopters,' then so be it. But for those of us who are content with leaving behind ancient 16 bit technology just as we did 8 bit, we content ourselves with 32 and 64 bit software. So, in a way, you could ask the question about what you're willing to sacrifice: 16 bit legacy software, or the best software available which is, right now, 64 bit software? Well, to decide the answer to that question I ask myself which I prefer: superior or inferior software? The number of 16 bit apps that Geek has said he uses are few in number. The number of apps that I'd want to use in 64 bit are few in number. Which ones am I willing to sacrifice for the other? For me, it's 16 bit that's going to get cut, not the 64 bit. For me, the argument is a little bizarre, since a 486 can be had for free, and they're more than sufficient to run 16 bit software. For me it's impossible to comprehend why anyone would stick by it like a spouse, aside from a business who uses it for, say, little more than a calculator, then by all means it makes no sense whatsoever to move to a superior system - which involves training staff and hardware investment. But that is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Vista 64 is superior to anything else that MS has put out. Leopard 64 bit is better than anything Apple has ever put out, if you believe the hype. I haven't heard much from the Linux community. But if I was playing around with it, I'd be running it in 64 bit. 64 bit is as superior to 32 bit as 32 bit was to 16 bit as it was to 8 bit as it was to 4 bit. It's really simple. Refuse it or use it. Stick to ancient technology or embrace new technology. It's a personal choice. But it's clear, regardless, that Vista 64 offers real benefit, real growth. Vista 32 starts off with a big limitation which is going to be like a tight collar on a growing puppy.

Like it or not, Justageek/Apoppin, 64 bit is the performance OS. 32 bit already has one foot in the grave.

 

[JustaGeek]

Thanks, Mem. I'll give the SuperAntispyware a try. Spybot works fine, too.

Any idea about the restore points in dual-boot...?

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
32 bit has reached its limit. It isn't going to get any better. It's finished. It'll remain in the mainstream for probably another 3-4 years.

.............................................................................

Like it or not, Justageek/Apoppin, 64 bit is the performance OS. 32 bit already has one foot in the grave.

wordsworm.....

You are now trying to speak like a prophet, not an enthusiast...

In 3-4 years... Afraid of new technology....

C'mon man.... What about my trip to Mars in 2020 - wanna hitch a ride...?

Don't try to defend your original statement like a preacher.

32 bit is STILL very valid.

High end STILL starts at 32 bit.

And will continue that way for another year or two, one might add...

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: apoppin

...

- to everyone else with an open mind ... lets *test* 64-bit vs. 32-for gaming ... we will be the first forum to have anything definitive on the subject[/b]

I would volunteer (since we have similar hardware ATM), but unfortunately I do not have that many "modern" games. The closest I have are F.E.A.R., Hg:L, and NFS:C -- not exactly the largest, most stressful games. Of those, only Hg:L has both 32-bit and 64-bit installations, and I don't know of any benchmarks for Hg:L.

Cool idea, though. :thumbsup:

 

[wordsworm]

Don't try to defend your original statement like a preacher.

You're sticking to a lost argument. 32 bit isn't high end, as has been demonstrated already by other posters as well as myself. You're right that I'm taking a guess that in 3-4 years 10-15% of MS market will be 64 bit. I'm willing to bet apples to donuts that Apple has sold the majority of 64 bit OSes this year, and they'll probably dominate that market for quite some time.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus

Originally posted by: apoppin

...

- to everyone else with an open mind ... lets *test* 64-bit vs. 32-for gaming ... we will be the first forum to have anything definitive on the subject[/b]

I would volunteer (since we have similar hardware ATM), but unfortunately I do not have that many "modern" games. The closest I have are F.E.A.R., Hg:L, and NFS:C -- not exactly the largest, most stressful games. Of those, only Hg:L has both 32-bit and 64-bit installations, and I don't know of any benchmarks for Hg:L.

Cool idea, though. :thumbsup:

let's just DO it ... i will be glad to exchange some games [trade and trade back] with you ... and there are many established benchmarks available on the 'net: Crysis/Prey/HL2/PK/D3/Q4/STALKER/LP:EC/CoJ/etc. --*All* i would need is the 64-bit Vista DVD [i am sure my key would work for the 30 day trial] and to setup Vista64-bit up on a clean partition.

Then we will see if there is *any practical difference in gaming* between 32bis OS and 64-bis OS on absolutely identical 4GB rigs. All my HW is new, 64-bit and i will just compare two basic "skeleton" systems, 32bit vs. 64bit. - the *only variable* being the OS.

i am sick of being lectured by clueless HW elitists with nothing but "how it feels" to back them up ... lets lay this crap to rest. We will be the *first* forum on the Internet to publish results on this!
[again]

You're sticking to a lost argument. 32 bit isn't high end, as has been demonstrated already by other posters as well as myself. You're right that I'm taking a guess that in 3-4 years 10-15% of MS market will be 64 bit. I'm willing to bet apples to donuts that Apple has sold the majority of 64 bit OSes this year, and they'll probably dominate that market for quite some time.

32-bit IS high end and we can *prove* it
-unlike your ramblings and misguided "prophecies"

Apple ... buy a mac for 64-bit... just make sure it doesn't have an Intel inside
:roll:

64-bit is the FUTURE ... not the now ... and it will be 2010 before GAMES really benefit from the move to it from 32-bit

How do you think someone like this will fare with 64-bit? - he is afraid to install a video card - at least two of them in that threat with nice systems:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2136151&enterthread=y

and this very excellent review comparing framebuffers and GPUs with vRAM from 256MB to 1GB

http://en.expreview.com/?p=159

only uses Vista32 ,,, so you are saying it is *not valid* ?


i say your topic is not valid

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Thanks, Mem. I'll give the SuperAntispyware a try. Spybot works fine, too.

Any idea about the restore points in dual-boot...?

What' the reason behind this?..I don't dual boot(since I have XP on a seperate PC),are you going back to an earlier restore point or want to make a new one?

 

[wordsworm]

Then we will see if there is *any practical difference in gaming* between 32bis OS and 64-bis OS on absolutely identical 4GB rigs. All my HW is new, 64-bit and i will just compare two basic "skeleton" systems, 32bit vs. 64bit. - the *only variable* being the OS.

Why stop there? Put 8GB on both of them before conducting your tests. Is there any software that gauges stuttering and other annoying things like that? Isn't the real purpose of your quest to determine which platform is high end?

 

[JustaGeek]

Once you boot into XP, the System Restore "takes over" the computer, including the Vista Drive/Partition, and wipes out the Restore Points created by Vista.

Once you boot back into Vista, all the Restore Points are gone, and ex. you can't use the "Last configuration that worked" option in case of failure, because.... there is no record!

I just create a new point, but again, it is not very safe. Sure, it is possible to "Repair Install" Vista, but it is more hassle than "going back" with the System Restore.

More here

 

[nullpointerus]

And read the title of the thread: "32-bit is no longer valid - High end starts at 64".

IIRC, the thread title was worded a bit more abrasively than necessary (and slightly misleading). The OP's original point was specifically limited in scope to which OS should be used to benchmark video hardware, and clearly a 32-bit OS is no longer valid in the strict scientific sense of comparison, where one must isolate the variable being tested (i.e. the video card), and keep the RAM, OS, etc. identical.

(The real world difference in fps alone? IMO probably not much, if anything.)

Sure, there were 64-bit fanboys who came in and got the thread sidetracked into a discussion about whether there was any point in still running a 32-bit OS, but that was not the original point of the thread, nor do I believe my personal opinion (based on my needs and wants) ought to apply to everyone else.

Before I made my decision to get the 64-bit Vista, EVERY single person running it said that they have had NO problems with ANY hardware and software. They would claim it is BETTER, faster, and how can I say anything about it since I do not use it.

Everyone? IIRC, I posted about the problems I had with 64-bit Vista before you announced your purchase, and so did some other people. True, some people did post glowing reports of not running into any problems when making the switch to 64-bit, but then that is also entirely possible. It all depends on what each individual does with his or her computer.

Here's my first post:

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
EDIT:

I ran Vista 32-bit and 64-bit for at least several months each on the same hardware during this past year, and I definitely prefer the 64-bit version. Gameplay is smoother (less fps but also less stuttering) and more stable. Compatibility issues are pretty much a given: iTunes, for example, still complains at startup because its CD-burning kit does not work on 64-bit OS's. But I've found suitable replacements for all such software.

Unfortunately, I recently tried the public preview of Vista SP1 RC (to troubleshoot a hardware compatibility problem that I was told is fixed in SP1 RC), but found out later that the SP1 RC installer erases all previously-created restore points. You can go back to the point just before SP1 setup began, but you cannot undo the installation of the special build of Windows Update that gives access to SP1 RC. Kinda stupid, IMO, but whatever.

Anyway, I'm stuck in a loop installing Vista x64 for like the fourth time in several days because the 3.5 .NET Framework for x64 keeps crashing at the last step (after playing with the registry for 30 minutes). This is on a clean install with stock speeds and no PSU issues. *sigh* But I seem to have a knack for breaking .NET installations on any version of Windows...

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
...Now I've also got problems with my creative x-fi cutting out while playing cs:s. It will distort heavily and/or just leave blank spots in my sound.

I thought Creative posted a new X-Fi driver to address a problem like this?

You may want to check for a driver update at:
http://www.creative.com

...and here's someone else's post just before it:

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
I've been running vista ultimate x64 since May and it's been exceptionally stable for me. Lately however I've had nvidia driver lockups which cause the system to become unstable at times but that's it. Now I've also got problems with my creative x-fi cutting out while playing cs:s. It will distort heavily and/or just leave blank spots in my sound.

I'm sure there were others in this thread.

There are numerous problems, and for the end user it does not matter who the responsible party is - developers or MS. The OS is not ready for widespread adoption.

I strongly disagree with this.

The issues you are having with the security software are blown out of proportion: such problems only apply to people who (a) are paying for their security software, (b) wish to continue doing so, and (c) have found there is no 64-bit compatible version of what they happen to be using. There's free stuff available that works quite well for ordinary users, so the only real cost here is a little time and effort. Some people will even save money (although, obviously, that is a pleasant coincidence of the switch, not a benefit of the 64-bit OS).

If you are talking about the stuff that comes on store shelves, that's a mixed bag. Computer makers (i.e. Gateway, HP, etc.) generally do some testing to verify compatibility between the OS and the various hardware components, and there's not exactly a dearth of 64-bit compatible hardware and software, so these major companies would surely have no problem assembling 64-bit PCs to put on shelves in a B&M store. However, people will expect the new computer they purchased to be compatible with peripherals in the same store, and those peripherals might not be 64-bit compatible. This could lead to headaches and other problems. That's why current 64-bit Vista PCs are sold build-to-order -- for power-users who really need the extra RAM, the ability to run 64-bit native software, and some additional improvements to the OS's memory manager. But I still think it would work in store shelves if companies were willing to spend the extra time and money. Peripheral/software vendors would change their tune pretty quickly if they realized their products wouldn't work with half the PCs sitting on the store shelves...

Would you recommend it to someone without advanced knowledge of computers...? Don't think so.

The vast majority of PC users would see no benefits from a 64-bit OS, so the question is a red herring.

For people who would actually benefit from more than roughly 3 GB* of system memory, there is no question that, in the general sense, the pros outweight the cons. The kinds of problems we have discussed -- and many people would not run into any problems -- are nothing compared to months or years of benefits. For these people, I have no problem recommending 64-bit Vista.

* The actual amount of 4 GB system memory usable on a 32-bit OS can vary widely. apoppin reports having something like 3.5 GB available; some people report as little as 2.5 GB. The vast majority of cases I'ved encountered put the typical number around 3.25 GB.

We are the "64-bit early adopters", and there is no turning back, even for me. (Honestly, if I could return the OS for a refund, I probably would...).

An early adopter? Sort of...although I think XP 64-bit users were the real early adopters. We're just late-comers who gripe about some software incompatibilities; that hardly qualifies as "pioneering" in my book. The real issue here is that some third parties need to get off their respective duffs and release compatible software.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Once you boot into XP, the System Restore "takes over" the computer, including the Vista Drive/Partition, and wipes out the Restore Points created by Vista.

Once you boot back into Vista, all the Restore Points are gone, and ex. you can't use the "Last configuration that worked" option in case of failure, because.... there is no record!

I just create a new point, but again, it is not very safe. Sure, it is possible to "Repair Install" Vista, but it is more hassle than "going back" with the System Restore.

More here

I never had to use a restore point in Vista or XP in 7 years,so I think you don't have a lot to worry about.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: wordsworm

Then we will see if there is *any practical difference in gaming* between 32bis OS and 64-bis OS on absolutely identical 4GB rigs. All my HW is new, 64-bit and i will just compare two basic "skeleton" systems, 32bit vs. 64bit. - the *only variable* being the OS.

Why stop there? Put 8GB on both of them before conducting your tests. Is there any software that gauges stuttering and other annoying things like that? Isn't the real purpose of your quest to determine which platform is high end?

why stop there? ... why not 16GB of RAM ?

we aren't testing servers ... we are testing gaming rigs!

make it as ridiculous as you want to ... but the standard for Vista gaming IS Vista 32 with 2GB of System RAM. Since over 3GB is available to 32-bit systems but not over 4GB it makes *sense* to test with 4GB of RAM

and the test is to see if there is a difference - on the same HW - between 32-bit Vista and 64-bit Vista. If there is NO difference, then there is no reason to run your 8GB test. If there is, the experiment can proceed further

One thing at a time ... don't attempt to confuse the issues ... we a testing to see if 32-bit is "high-end" - or not. 4GB RAM suits our purpose perfectly for testing 32-bit games.

And the *testers* can say if there is anything that the FPS doesn't show.

i will tell you right now ... if there IS significant improvement in Games, i will THEN dual-boot 32-bit Vista with 64-bit for gaming and perhaps even try out more RAM [as i can return mine within 30 days for 2x2GB]

lets SEE if you are right - or not