32 bit is no longer valid

[boomhower]

I have been running Vista64 for several months with no problems other than there are no decent firewalls available. I tried outpost and didnt like it at all. If something along the lines of zonealarm were available I would be very happy.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: taltamir
You provided a link to the article, but you quoted a whole paragraph and bolded 5 or so sentances, all of which deal with the 2GB per program limit, which is not what we were talking about. We were talking about the fact that if I pay for 4GB I want windows to make 4GB available, not 3 or less GB.

The 3.25GB or so limitation on Windows 32-bit OS precedes the links/quotes I highlighted and is addressed on page 1 of Part 1. Just because you paid for 4GB doesn't mean you'll ever see 4GB on a 32-bit Windows OS since 32-bit is 2^32 for 4GB of addressable space.

When you're limited to 4GB of addressable space, other hardware and peripherals that require addressable space will eat into your 4GB max which is why you end up seeing @3.2GB of system RAM and not 4GB. Apparently there's other 32-bit OS that can address beyond 4GB, but Windows 32-bit is limited to 4GB and makes sense really.

I understand this. I am saying that because I paid for 4GB of ram I am gonna use a 64bit os and get ALL 4GB of it... rather then have some inaccessbile and unused due to os deficiency.

Originally posted by: Mana
taltamir, it is possible to create a 32-bit OS that can access all 4 GB of memory. But then there are some drawbacks, such as how to communicate with various devices.

Like most things computer science related there is a trade off, you can have more storage space at the expense of speed and complexity, or you can have less complexity and more speed at the expense of storage space. The people who design modern OSs chose to go with the latter.

It should be noted that I am not an expert on this.

Thats the beuty of it, you don't NEED to create a 32bit OS that can access the whole 4GB... by the time 4bit was useful I could choose to use a 64bit OS instead... I was using 64bit XP since the day it was released. And vista64 from about half a year after it came out.

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
I have said it before, and I will say it again: 32-bit Windows XP is the most stable consumer Operating System ever - period.

I will take it as meaning "the most stable MICROSOFT os ever..."

Originally posted by: kmmatney
From the DansData article, even 64-bit OSs will lose the memory between 3 GB and 4 GB, to maintain backward compatibility. However you can then start using the memory between 4 and 8 GB after the 3-4 GB hole. So an 8 GB system will only have about 7.2 GB of usable RAM. That is, unless your motherboard allows you to remap the RAM.

Interesting stuff in that article.

No, absolutely not... a 64bit os with 8GB of ram will have 8GB of ram... Now I am not sure about exact implementation; it might have bit nubmer 8,000,000,000 addressed 9,000,000,000 to do so, but all the ram will be accessible and usable.

Originally posted by: Cheex
I'm glad to see that you have conceded. It takes a big man to admit he is wrong :thumbsup:.

Anyway, I believe that will all the applications and games nowadays utilizing more than 2GB of memory, it is definitely time to move towards 64-bit OS technology.

However, it MUST start with enthusiasts like ourselves. The more conventional users might not be so eager to make the change. We see the benefits and I think we should honestly start embracing the 64-bit evolution (not revolution).

I agree entirely, it does.


@justageek... one of my biggest gripes about 64bit is lack of applications, but there are a few and they make it worthwhile because they are so much faster...
1. 64bit IE7 - several times faster
2. 64bit firefox - several times faster
3. 64bit 7zip compression program (I just tried a file in both the 64 and 32 bit versions and the 64bit one was 19% faster)
4. Windows itself... vista 32bit is much slower in doing normal operations compared tovista64bit.
5. RealVNC - several times faster loading.

These are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head... probably the only ones I use. But its still nice to have them.

 

[wordsworm]

Only if you have more than 3 GB of RAM. Reading the Dansdata article, this issue also effects 64-bit operating systems, however you can add more RAM above 4 GB to make up for a lot of memopry that is lost in the 3-4 GB range.

I have a 'mature' motherboard + an AMD chip, and I don't see any memory (I have 4GB) missing at all. So, I don't know what you're talking about. I like seeing memory usage at around 40-60% usage. I don't know if it's just horse hair in my head or if there's some sense to it, but I don't like using 100% of anything. I like having headroom. Usually my computer uses between 1.2-2.5 GB of RAM. That still leaves me with a lot of room.

 

[cputeq]

To actually be able to USE 4+ GB of RAM, and not "lose" any, you need

1) An OS capable of addressing past 4GB (Vista 64, etc)
2) A compatible chipset capable of memory mapping past anything that drivers may chew up in the 1-4GB space.

Drivers are generally going to start at 4GB address and move down. Your memory controller / chipset, then must be able to remap those addresses to spots beyond the 4GB range, and your OS must be able to address numbers larger than 4GB.

XP/Vista 64 + nonmapping chipset = You'll lose RAM
XP/Vista 32 + mapping chipset = You'll lose RAM

XP/Vista 64 (or other 4GB+ addressing OS) + mapping chipset = You'll have all your RAM. (Check BIOS settings to enable remapping, as it may be off by default)



This is exactly why you "lose" memory when going above ~3GB RAM with a 32bit OS and/or a nonmapping chipset.

Here's a hypothetical situation

1) Bob has Vista 32 and 2GB RAM. He installs 512MB video card. This card, per driver instructions, Maps itself around the 4GB address range (not physical, as the system only has 2GB physical), and takes up 512MB worth of addresses from about 4GB to 3.5GB (we're going down, remember). That's fine for the computer, because the OS can address 4GB and downward. Add in perhaps memory addressing for PCI components, etc. etc. and you're still okay, because you've only got 2GB physical RAM, and so far the "RAM eaters" are all sitting, invisible to the user, in the 4GB -3.2GB addresses.

You have all your RAM available, life is good.


2) Jane has Vista 64 and 4GB RAM with a chipset capable of addressing 8GB worth of memory addresses.

She, like Bob, installs a 512MB video card. So, from 4GB-3.5GB, you've now "lost" that RAM...but, the chipset is wise on this, so it just tells the system that to find the rest of the "missing", physical RAM, you'll just need to look in the addresses for the 4.5GB-4GB range.




3) Little Timmy opens up his shiny Vista 64 copy and installs it in his Machine of Doom. The motherboard will accept 4GB max RAM, so he goes and buys 2 more GB
because he's sure it'll help him frag more people in Headshot: The Return of the Bullet.

Unfortunately for Little Timmy, his mobo can only address 4GB worth of locations, and he's running a GTX video card with 768MB of RAM. Guess what happens?
Yep, his system only really sees about 3.2GB of total system memory (or less). For Little Timmy to see all the RAM, he's going to have to upgrade his motherboard to one that can address more than 4GB of memory ranges.

 

[JustaGeek]

I will take it as meaning "the most stable MICROSOFT os ever..."

See, taltamir, I am not interested in "proprietary" OS' like Mac OS X, Unix etc.

If it wasn't for Microsoft and IBM, we wouldn't be able to have a conversation like this one today.

We would be buying computers like we buy TV sets, DVD players, etc. Only because of these two companies we can freely assemble computers, install OS', and play with the settings.

There is no "Mac Builder's Website", so even if their OS is stable as a rock, it better be - they built it all, hardware and software.

one of my biggest gripes about 64bit is lack of applications, but there are a few and they make it worthwhile because they are so much faster...

So because IE7 and firefox open faster, it is worthwile switching...?

C'mon now.

The 64-bit Windows is like an electric car in a Hybrid car stage.

The future is electric (64-bit) but today we use Hybrid and still feed it gasoline (32-bit applications).

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: wordsworm

Only if you have more than 3 GB of RAM. Reading the Dansdata article, this issue also effects 64-bit operating systems, however you can add more RAM above 4 GB to make up for a lot of memopry that is lost in the 3-4 GB range.

I have a 'mature' motherboard + an AMD chip, and I don't see any memory (I have 4GB) missing at all.

That would be because on the AMD platform, the chipset can't fsck it up because the RAM controller is in the processor - and that one's been 64-bit aware right from the start.

 

[JustaGeek]

It might be 64-bit aware, making all 4GB of RAM "visible".

But the range between ~3 - 4GB is still not available to applications - and again, it will probably never be.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

I will take it as meaning "the most stable MICROSOFT os ever..."

See, taltamir, I am not interested in "proprietary" OS' like Mac OS X, Unix etc.

If it wasn't for Microsoft and IBM, we wouldn't be able to have a conversation like this one today.

We would be buying computers like we buy TV sets, DVD players, etc. Only because of these two companies we can freely assemble computers, install OS', and play with the settings.

There is no "Mac Builder's Website", so even if their OS is stable as a rock, it better be - they built it all, hardware and software.

I was talking about linux... And while stable there isn't much you could DO with it...
MacOSx is about as stable as windows 98... worked at video editing, 10 MacOSX computers, 10 windows computers... guess what kind of computer will crash about once a day? (hint, the advertisement for it says "it just works"... it was a different mac every time too). The only plus side to the macs was that when we got a virus (I could tell because it disabled norton on all computers... which our boss insisted we use...) I had to manually iso each computer and clean the virus myself (by terminating the executable, using search to find the file, and deleting it... none of the free anti viruses was able to catch it either...)

one of my biggest gripes about 64bit is lack of applications, but there are a few and they make it worthwhile because they are so much faster...

So because IE7 and firefox open faster, it is worthwile switching...?

C'mon now.

The 64-bit Windows is like an electric car in a Hybrid car stage.

The future is electric (64-bit) but today we use Hybrid and still feed it gasoline (32-bit applications).

You wouldn't drive a hybrid car if you could afford one? I would.
I can afford 64bit os... I can't afford a hybrid car.

Originally posted by: wordsworm

Only if you have more than 3 GB of RAM. Reading the Dansdata article, this issue also effects 64-bit operating systems, however you can add more RAM above 4 GB to make up for a lot of memopry that is lost in the 3-4 GB range.

I have a 'mature' motherboard + an AMD chip, and I don't see any memory (I have 4GB) missing at all. So, I don't know what you're talking about. I like seeing memory usage at around 40-60% usage. I don't know if it's just horse hair in my head or if there's some sense to it, but I don't like using 100% of anything. I like having headroom. Usually my computer uses between 1.2-2.5 GB of RAM. That still leaves me with a lot of room.

You completely misunderstood the semantics involved... 1.2-2.5GB of ram "in use" means thats how much ram is FULL right now of yummy information... Here is what you do... hit alt-ctrl-del and select the task manager... In the tast manager choose performance.
Look where it says "physical memory (MB)." It should list 4098MB of physical memory available... if it lists 30xxMB of memory available then you are having a gig of ram go unused. If your system "needs" 5 gigs of ram it will put 3GB in ram and 2GB on pagefile (harddisk). If MY system needs 5GB of ram it will put 4GB on ram and 1GB on pagefile (harddisk).

 

[cputeq]

It might be 64-bit aware, making all 4GB of RAM "visible".

But the range between ~3 - 4GB is still not available to applications - and again, it will probably never be.

I believe the way you're thinking of it is incorrect.

That's the whole point of memory mapping -- to tell applications/OS what address to traverse to when looking for the RAM in the 3-4 GB range. This is completely transparent to the software.

Let's look at it this way:

The letters below represent 512MB Address blocks.
An "A" In the block means memory filled with application / OS stuff
A "V" means memory "taken" by video card, etc.



A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

A A A A A A V V A A A A A A A A


In a "working" 64bit system, any request to write in the 3GB-4GB range will work out just fine -- the memory controller will tell the application:

I know you're writing stuff in the 3-4GB range, which is fine, but instead of going to address G and H, you need to head over to I and J to find that physical RAM

So, in essence, you're not going to lose any RAM, it's just addressed (mapped) to another location.


So, let's take my particular system into account:

My motherboard supports 8GB of RAM, Vista Home Premium 64 supports 16GB of RAM.
If I max out my RAM at 8GB, then installed a 1GB video card, would I "lose" RAM?

Answer - Yes.
Why? - Because my motherboard is limiting me to the range of 1-8GB of address space. Even though Vista 64
has the capability of addressing 16GB worth, my motherboard can (I assume) only address 8GB, meaning I'd lose 1GB to my video card because it would be unable to remap the "lost" 1GB (3-4GB addresses) to anything higher....those locations are already physically filled, so no mapping can take place.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
What I was referring to as 'invalid' is the benchmarks that were passed and compared to one another. Basically, the video cards with greater RAM are hobbled with 4GB of memory in a 32 bit OS, and therefore the comparison that Anandtech and a few others had made comparing v90 to v92 wasn't really objective, in my opinion. If you have 2GB of RAM, then it makes sense to stick to 32 bit Vista/XP. If you have 4GB of RAM, then it doesn't make sense to stay with a 32 bit OS.

why not? ... none of the games in the reviews use over 2.0GB system RAM and there is no "hobbling" whatsoever


Why does it make no sense to have 4GB of RAM in Vista32 - just because it is not 'fully addressing' 0.6 GB of 4.0 GB ?
-is it such a huge "waste " of resources to spend $50 on 2.0GB and use only 1.5GB of it fully - especially when there is no need for it currently

Bring up your argument again in 18 months ... i will agree with you then

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: wordsworm
What I was referring to as 'invalid' is the benchmarks that were passed and compared to one another. Basically, the video cards with greater RAM are hobbled with 4GB of memory in a 32 bit OS, and therefore the comparison that Anandtech and a few others had made comparing v90 to v92 wasn't really objective, in my opinion. If you have 2GB of RAM, then it makes sense to stick to 32 bit Vista/XP. If you have 4GB of RAM, then it doesn't make sense to stay with a 32 bit OS.

why not? ... none of the games in the reviews use over 2.0GB system RAM and there is no "hobbling" whatsoever


Who does it make no sense to have 4GB of RAM in Vista32 just because it is not fully addressing 0.6 GB of 4.0 GB ?
-is it such a huge "waste " of resources to spend $50 on 2.0GB and use only 1.5GB of it fully - especially when there is no need for it currently

Bring up your argument again in 18 months ... i will agree with you then

maxed out DX9 (i dont know about DX10):
WIC uses 1.5GB
Supreme commander sues 2.1GB.
CoH claims to need about 2.5GB of ram or more (using the ingame meter thingie)

Windows XP fully loaded (with daemon-tools, antivirus, etc) takes 600-700MB.
Vista Ultimate takes 1.1 - 1.3GB by itself for most users...

Do the math.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: wordsworm
What I was referring to as 'invalid' is the benchmarks that were passed and compared to one another. Basically, the video cards with greater RAM are hobbled with 4GB of memory in a 32 bit OS, and therefore the comparison that Anandtech and a few others had made comparing v90 to v92 wasn't really objective, in my opinion. If you have 2GB of RAM, then it makes sense to stick to 32 bit Vista/XP. If you have 4GB of RAM, then it doesn't make sense to stay with a 32 bit OS.

why not? ... none of the games in the reviews use over 2.0GB system RAM and there is no "hobbling" whatsoever


Why does it make no sense to have 4GB of RAM in Vista32 just because it is not fully addressing 0.6 GB of 4.0 GB ?
-is it such a huge "waste " of resources to spend $50 on 2.0GB and use only 1.5GB of it fully - especially when there is no need for it currently

Bring up your argument again in 18 months ... i will agree with you then

maxed out DX9 (i dont know about DX10):
WIC uses 1.5GB
Supreme commander sues 2.1GB.
CoH claims to need about 2.5GB of ram or more (using the ingame meter thingie)

Windows XP fully loaded (with daemon-tools, antivirus, etc) takes 600-700MB.
Vista Ultimate takes 1.1 - 1.3GB by itself for most users...

Do the math.

i did the math ... and i looked at the practical results ... none of the games i am playing at 16x10 - using a 512MB 2900xt - require 2.0 GB RAM in Vista 32 premium
--and your argument falls totally flat if i add another 2.0 GB for a total of 3.5 GB addressable system RAM in Vista 32 [for only $50]. in addition to all this, i also have a 2.0 GB flash drive that'll take care of the background garbag... [um] overhead.

. . . now you do the math again and show me what could possibly require over 3.5 GB - now ...
i never see my HD light or any 'thrashin'

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: cputeq

It might be 64-bit aware, making all 4GB of RAM "visible".

But the range between ~3 - 4GB is still not available to applications - and again, it will probably never be.

I believe the way you're thinking of it is incorrect.

That's the whole point of memory mapping -- to tell applications/OS what address to traverse to when looking for the RAM in the 3-4 GB range. This is completely transparent to the software.

Let's look at it this way:

The letters below represent 512MB Address blocks.
An "A" In the block means memory filled with application / OS stuff
A "V" means memory "taken" by video card, etc.



A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

A A A A A A V V A A A A A A A A


In a "working" 64bit system, any request to write in the 3GB-4GB range will work out just fine -- the memory controller will tell the application:

I know you're writing stuff in the 3-4GB range, which is fine, but instead of going to address G and H, you need to head over to I and J to find that physical RAM

So, in essence, you're not going to lose any RAM, it's just addressed (mapped) to another location.


So, let's take my particular system into account:

My motherboard supports 8GB of RAM, Vista Home Premium 64 supports 16GB of RAM.
If I max out my RAM at 8GB, then installed a 1GB video card, would I "lose" RAM?

Answer - Yes.
Why? - Because my motherboard is limiting me to the range of 1-8GB of address space. Even though Vista 64
has the capability of addressing 16GB worth, my motherboard can (I assume) only address 8GB, meaning I'd lose 1GB to my video card because it would be unable to remap the "lost" 1GB (3-4GB addresses) to anything higher....those locations are already physically filled, so no mapping can take place.

Of course remapping would solve the problem!

The question is - why...?

I am certain that developers will just leave it alone, and allow the PCI memory to remain allocated there. Just so you don't crash when all of a sudden you install an "old" driver.

Just like the "Upper Memory Area" before 640B and 1MB.

This ~1GB in 10 years will seem as microscopic as these few hundred bytes of Upper Memory Area feel today.

A little "forbidden zone", Area 51, so to speak...

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: wordsworm
What I was referring to as 'invalid' is the benchmarks that were passed and compared to one another. Basically, the video cards with greater RAM are hobbled with 4GB of memory in a 32 bit OS, and therefore the comparison that Anandtech and a few others had made comparing v90 to v92 wasn't really objective, in my opinion. If you have 2GB of RAM, then it makes sense to stick to 32 bit Vista/XP. If you have 4GB of RAM, then it doesn't make sense to stay with a 32 bit OS.

why not? ... none of the games in the reviews use over 2.0GB system RAM and there is no "hobbling" whatsoever


Why does it make no sense to have 4GB of RAM in Vista32 just because it is not fully addressing 0.6 GB of 4.0 GB ?
-is it such a huge "waste " of resources to spend $50 on 2.0GB and use only 1.5GB of it fully - especially when there is no need for it currently

Bring up your argument again in 18 months ... i will agree with you then

maxed out DX9 (i dont know about DX10):
WIC uses 1.5GB
Supreme commander sues 2.1GB.
CoH claims to need about 2.5GB of ram or more (using the ingame meter thingie)

Windows XP fully loaded (with daemon-tools, antivirus, etc) takes 600-700MB.
Vista Ultimate takes 1.1 - 1.3GB by itself for most users...

Do the math.

i did the math ... and i looked at the practical results ... none of the games i am playing at 16x10 - using a 512MB 2900xt - require 2.0 GB RAM in Vista 32 premium
--and your argument falls totally flat if i add another 2.0 GB for a total of 3.5 GB addressable system RAM in Vista 32 [for only $50]. in addition to all this, i also have a 2.0 GB flash drive that'll take care of the background garbag... [um] overhead.

. . . now you do the math again and show me what could possibly require over 3.5 GB - now ...
i never see my HD light or any 'thrashin'

Firstly, how is 1680x1050 resolution maxing out? try 1920x1200 resolution with all settings on maxium... I know some people use even higher resolutions but that is not too realistic right now... 1920x1200 is.
Also, I should have noted it there... those are the ONLY games I know of that benefit from more then 2GB of system memory...

Also my argument doesn't fail... if you add another 2GB of ram and get a total of 3GB and its enough for everything you then good for you.
But I had two arguments:
1. 2GB is not enough for some games - not in any way contradicted by this statement, since you said you need 3.5GB
2. If I pay for 4GB I want all 4GB to be abialble.. not 3.XGB. - again, not contradicted here, you just said YOU are fine with 3.5GB... I am not.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: wordsworm
What I was referring to as 'invalid' is the benchmarks that were passed and compared to one another. Basically, the video cards with greater RAM are hobbled with 4GB of memory in a 32 bit OS, and therefore the comparison that Anandtech and a few others had made comparing v90 to v92 wasn't really objective, in my opinion. If you have 2GB of RAM, then it makes sense to stick to 32 bit Vista/XP. If you have 4GB of RAM, then it doesn't make sense to stay with a 32 bit OS.

why not? ... none of the games in the reviews use over 2.0GB system RAM and there is no "hobbling" whatsoever


Why does it make no sense to have 4GB of RAM in Vista32 just because it is not fully addressing 0.6 GB of 4.0 GB ?
-is it such a huge "waste " of resources to spend $50 on 2.0GB and use only 1.5GB of it fully - especially when there is no need for it currently

Bring up your argument again in 18 months ... i will agree with you then

maxed out DX9 (i dont know about DX10):
WIC uses 1.5GB
Supreme commander sues 2.1GB.
CoH claims to need about 2.5GB of ram or more (using the ingame meter thingie)

Windows XP fully loaded (with daemon-tools, antivirus, etc) takes 600-700MB.
Vista Ultimate takes 1.1 - 1.3GB by itself for most users...

Do the math.

i did the math ... and i looked at the practical results ... none of the games i am playing at 16x10 - using a 512MB 2900xt - require 2.0 GB RAM in Vista 32 premium
--and your argument falls totally flat if i add another 2.0 GB for a total of 3.5 GB addressable system RAM in Vista 32 [for only $50]. in addition to all this, i also have a 2.0 GB flash drive that'll take care of the background garbag... [um] overhead.

. . . now you do the math again and show me what could possibly require over 3.5 GB - now ...
i never see my HD light or any 'thrashin'

Firstly, how is 1680x1050 resolution maxing out? try 1920x1200 resolution with all settings on maxium... I know some people use even higher resolutions but that is not too realistic right now... 1920x1200 is.
Also, I should have noted it there... those are the ONLY games I know of that benefit from more then 2GB of system memory...

Also my argument doesn't fail... if you add another 2GB of ram and get a total of 3GB and its enough for everything you then good for you.
But I had two arguments:
1. 2GB is not enough for some games - not in any way contradicted by this statement, since you said you need 3.5GB
2. If I pay for 4GB I want all 4GB to be abialble.. not 3.XGB. - again, not contradicted here, you just said YOU are fine with 3.5GB... I am not.

for me, 2GB is plenty ... for the 19x12'ers, 3.3GB is way more than enough currently

1. 2GB is plenty for all current games if you bother to shut down running background processes

and

2. When i pay for 4GB i am getting all my fifty bucks worth because ALL games that [eventually ... possibly ...] require 3GB will be well-covered by my minimal upgrade

--by then - ~'09 - it will make sense for most of us to finally migrate to Win64 and the transition will also be smoother for us ... not now just because you feel 'cheated' by Win32's inability to access ~10% of the available total system memory

 

[bunnyfubbles]

It isn't exactly a case of whether or not 2GB is "enough", its the fact that 2 x 2GB pairs of DDR2 800 can be had for ~$100 - that's insane, well below enthusiast budget. For $200 (and more what an enthusiast might spend) you're talking 8GB or 4GB of faster DDR2 1066 (and/or faster timings).

Ram is as cheap and fast as it has ever been, and the only thing holding it back is the lack of 64 bit OS support. The only thing holding back 64bit OS development is lack of adoption. I know I sure as hell am going to be buying a whole new rig soon, and with ram prices as they are it most certainly is going to have at least 4GB of ram, and I'll have to put up with a 64bit OS whether I like it or not. I'm sure others are going to be in the same boat with me, so hopefully we'll be helping to spark the changes needed in order for things to get over this hump we're at.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: swtethan
I run vista64 and the only thing that doesnt work is my canon scanner which is about 5+ years old. oddly enough my 10+ year old HP laserjet still works under vista64 :-D gotta love that.

See (?!?) - "gotta love that" because it works.

Not - "gotta love that, because it is so much better and faster that my obsolete 32-bit OS"

Besides it working, I love the instant search function, the new tabbing functions, and the new directory layouts. Doing things within a Vista system seems a lot less clunky to me compared to XP. It's also been more stable.

My only problem so far has been due to Creative and their shitty Audigy drivers. Every 20-30 minutes or so, a loud *POP* will emit from my speakers.

 

[taltamir]

use the built in audio... creative is a plague and I hope they go bankrupt.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: LightningRider
I run Vista 64 Ultimate with no problems whatsoever.

QFT. :thumbsup:

Quit listening to Walt Mossberg and idiot mainstream reviewers. :laugh:

Vista x64 is the most solid, mainstream 64-bit OS out there. It's highly reliable. Why on earth would you cripple a modern build (with 64-bit CPUs and 8GB+ RAM) by using a 7 year old operating system that doesn't support half of it?

The only driver issue I ever had was the earliest nVidia Vista drivers. That has long ago been resolved and I'm running flawlessly.

To the guy who was saying iTunes doesn't work under x64, um, yeah it does. What specific issue are you experiencing?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
You're wrong. Vista x64 is perfect. It works just the same as x86 versions of the OS and I have yet to find ANY application that is 100% not workable in Vista x64. Even iTunes runs (no burning support yet) when Apple clearly states x64 OS not supported. I found out that Apple doesn't even let users run x64 Vista when running Bootcamp because obviously Apple wants everyone to believe that Windows is not as good as MacOS X. In fact, I find Vista more trouble free.

Do a search on G.E.A.R. 64-Bit Drivers. You can install them and get CD Burning support in iTunes under Vista x64. Works perfectly.

 

[Intelman07]

I use Vista x64 and love it. It is the future, it is more secure, it is the way of the future.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LightningRider
I run Vista 64 Ultimate with no problems whatsoever.

QFT. :thumbsup:

Quit listening to Walt Mossberg and idiot mainstream reviewers. :laugh:

Vista x64 is the most solid, mainstream 64-bit OS out there. It's highly reliable. Why on earth would you cripple a modern build (with 64-bit CPUs and 8GB+ RAM) by using a 7 year old operating system that doesn't support half of it?

The only driver issue I ever had was the earliest nVidia Vista drivers. That has long ago been resolved and I'm running flawlessly.

To the guy who was saying iTunes doesn't work under x64, um, yeah it does. What specific issue are you experiencing?

iTunes cannot burn audio CDs on vista... because it uses its own driver for burning CDs, and thats only available in 32bits. It warns you that it is not compatible with 64bit OS but aside from not burning CDs it works perfectly... personally I wouldn't touch that piece of crap, but my brother who uses it on vista64 never had any trouble with it, ever (he doesnt need it to burn audio cds, not only does he never do so, he has nero in case he wanted to for some reason).

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: taltamir
iTunes cannot burn audio CDs on vista... because it uses its own driver for burning CDs, and thats only available in 32bits. It warns you that it is not compatible with 64bit OS but aside from not burning CDs it works perfectly... personally I wouldn't touch that piece of crap, but my brother who uses it on vista64 never had any trouble with it, ever (he doesnt need it to burn audio cds, not only does he never do so, he has nero in case he wanted to for some reason).

Yes, iTunes can burn Audio CDs on Vista, both 32 and 64 bit flavors. I know, because I do it all the time on x64 and I've done it on x86 several times too. The 64-bit requires the 64-bit GEAR drivers, and then it works just fine.

 

[apoppin]

http://www.comodo.com/products/free_products.html

i notice some of you are complaining about 64Bit Win and Firewalls
... the above was recommended to me

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: taltamir
iTunes cannot burn audio CDs on vista... because it uses its own driver for burning CDs, and thats only available in 32bits. It warns you that it is not compatible with 64bit OS but aside from not burning CDs it works perfectly... personally I wouldn't touch that piece of crap, but my brother who uses it on vista64 never had any trouble with it, ever (he doesnt need it to burn audio cds, not only does he never do so, he has nero in case he wanted to for some reason).

Yes, iTunes can burn Audio CDs on Vista, both 32 and 64 bit flavors. I know, because I do it all the time on x64 and I've done it on x86 several times too. The 64-bit requires the 64-bit GEAR drivers, and then it works just fine.

The gear drivers are a third party fix... itunes by itself cannot do it, but with some modified drivers made by fans it works... however I put the GEAR drivers on my brother computer and it would error whenever he tried to update itunes until I removed the GEAR drivers (i don't remember if there were other issues).. But yea, if you are willing to mess with it you can make it work, takes a bit more effort but it can be done.