Benifit in vista 64-bit?

[SQBubble]

I simply don't understand 32-bit and 64-bit ? what's the benifit? is it worth it? why 64-bit?

 

[dclive]

If you've got 4GB you might consider a 64 bit OS. If you've got 6GB or 8GB (or more), you'll want to run a 64 bit OS. Otherwise, it's not worth the bother.

 

[SQBubble]

yea but why would I go for 4gb with vista 64 instead of 2gb with vista 32? is there something special in 64-bit?

 

[JustaGeek]

The only benefit is "futureproofing", and ability to use more than 4GB of RAM.

For the compatibility reasons, I would recommend 32-bit version. Some software will not work on Vista x64.

If you like experimentation (I do! ) go 64-bit, but be prepared for some issues, however minor.

There will be many posters here claiming "no issues whatsoever", but issues do exist.

And the developers are relatively slow with new software/drivers, especially for older hardware. The recent Valve survey showed that only ~2.5% of gamers use 64-bit OSs, so there is no compelling reason for the developers to do a "better job".

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: SQBubble
yea but why would I go for 4gb with vista 64 instead of 2gb with vista 32? is there something special in 64-bit?

If you are asking, you probably don't see a clear reason to jump to 64 bit, and currently there is no compelling reason (if you don't use lots of RAM) to jump so..... don't jump to 64 bit, and stick with 32 bit. There's no disadvantage if you're not using >=4GB RAM.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: SQBubble
yea but why would I go for 4gb with vista 64 instead of 2gb with vista 32? is there something special in 64-bit?

If you play games, some of them might require more than 2GB of RAM on Highest Quality settings (Quake 4, STALKER, Supreme Commander etc.)

But 3GB of RAM is plenty for any of today's games.

 

[JustaGeek]

Quite a coordinated response...

 

[SQBubble]

so I should get 2x1gb and 2x512gb to have 3gb dual channel?

 

[SQBubble]

meh ill just stick with 2gb, I think itll be enough. Should I go with Corsair Dominator 1066mhz 2GB or OCZ Reaper 1066mhz 2gb ?

 

[dclive]

I can't imagine why people love buying overpriced RAM.

Figure out how fast your chipset and CPU need the RAM to run, and buy that RAM. It should cost around $40/2GB stick.

 

[SQBubble]

ill be using a e8400 on an asus p5k deluxe/wi fi p35 what should I get? idk what speed to choose

 

[JustaGeek]

Go with the "tried, tested and true" DDR2 800, with the timings of 4-4-4-12, and maximum rated voltage of 2.1V.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

The only benefit is "futureproofing", and ability to use more than 4GB of RAM.

For the compatibility reasons, I would recommend 32-bit version. Some software will not work on Vista x64.

If you like experimentation (I do! ) go 64-bit, but be prepared for some issues, however minor.

There will be many posters here claiming "no issues whatsoever", but issues do exist.

And the developers are relatively slow with new software/drivers, especially for older hardware. The recent Valve survey showed that only ~2.5% of gamers use 64-bit OSs, so there is no compelling reason for the developers to do a "better job".

Every OS has some form of issue or limitations including Vista x86,don't get caught up in statistics since they don't paint the full story and they also change with time,bottomline Vista x64 has better security(signed drivers which I think is a good thing) ,better memory capacity(a must for future games/demanding video software since we all know games etc always need more ram sooner or later).

I could argue Pro's and Con's of every OS until I'm blue in the face,compatibility wise Vista x64 is virtually as a good as Vista x86 if you take into account it can't run any 16 bit software(that may be important to you).
More importantly if you do decide to go Vista x64 make sure you have the drivers and any important specialized software will run.
Vista x64 works for me with no compatibility issues(taking 16 bit software into account).

so there is no compelling reason for the developers to do a "better job".

I'm sure you really don't believe that, if you did we would be back on 8 bit still, 64 bit software is growing slowly(like 32 bit software years ago when 16 bit was the norm) ,progress moves forward and stops for no-one.

 

[SQBubble]

will there be a problem if I put 2x1gb and then put 2x512mb so I would have 3gig running in dual channel?

 

[JustaGeek]

Of course it would NOT be a problem - that's what I am running!

2x1GB + 2x512MB for a total of 3GB.

 

[SQBubble]

cool, just wanted to make sure that the motherboard would recognize the 3gb as dual channel

 

[dclive]

For that .1% performance gain?

Wiser IMHO to buy 2 2GB sticks and then have more flexibility for future expansion.

 

[SQBubble]

thats what I wanted to do in the first place... but because of 32bit, itll detect 3.5 or 3gb only so I thought that would affect the 4gb dual channel and the ram will be read as independent rams.

will it still work as dual channel if I get 2x2gb for vista32bit?

 

[toadeater]

Originally posted by: SQBubble
thats what I wanted to do in the first place... but because of 32bit, itll detect 3.5 or 3gb only so I thought that would affect the 4gb dual channel and the ram will be read as independent rams.

will it still work as dual channel if I get 2x2gb for vista32bit?

Memory detection has nothing to do with it. The problem is addressing space. All the memory is detected, it's just that ~500MB is reserved for drivers. There is no performance difference, just how much total memory you have available.

 

[dclive]

(Not to mention there's so little difference between dual and single channel that it's just not worth worrying about)

 

[imported_wired247]

For me, I can't imagine sticking with a 32bit OS right now, with tech headed in the direction it is. 32bit is getting outdated quickly, simply put

IMO, and some will disagree with me, winXP 64 bit is simply a band-aid 64bit OS that will cease having support before long (without ever having gained much momentum), while vista32 is simply a temporary OS to give "64bit worrymongers" something to cling onto while the last kinks in 64-bit-land are being ironed out. As far as I can see there is VERY little compelling reason to stick with a 32bit OS at all, and worrymongering that SOME program or driver may give SOME conflict is not a good enough reason. Remember.... for fear of compatibility and general OS problems, millions of people have switched from PC to buying Macs.

If serious issues come up, fine -- dual boot or VMware some good old winXP 32 bit.

Face it... vista 64 bit is the most prominent direction that the immediate future is headed, even if mostly because of the RAM issue. Now some might ask who the hell needs 4GB of RAM? Vista makes very good use of RAM, RAM is cheap, RAM demands typically increase in the future, and at this point I just don't see myself getting limited to ~3GB!

(Thinking back, I remember all the times I've been told in chronological order

way way back "oh you don't need 512mb ram"

way back "1GB of ram is more than enough"

winXP32 days "2GB of ram is overkill" )


now 3GB is indeed plenty for most users, but that's right now. the choice is yours, if you really feel that 32bit OS is best for you then I won't say another word

 

[RebateMonger]

Kinda' makes you wonder, though...

Twenty years ago, the typical system had 1 MEGABYTE (or less) memory. We'd run Windows or DESQView, flip back and forth between Excel spreadsheets, go online (CompuServer, Prodigy, BBS), and play games. I used to do a lot of flight simulators.

Now, we need over 2GB of RAM, and we're doing the same thing.

 

[mechBgon]

I'd consider the Kernel Patch Protection feature to be a benefit to x64. ALL YOUR ROOTKIT ARE BELONG TO US :evil:

Also, considering Vista has a forward lifespan of ~10 years, I'd rather not paint myself into a corner with >4GB RAM support by choosing 32-bit. Think about how much RAM you had installed five years ago. If you get retail Vista, however, you can have your cake & eat it too, by picking up a 64-bit DVD so you can migrate to 64-bit when desired: DVD order page, not needed for retail Ultimate since it comes with both DVDs in the box.

 

[imported_wired247]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Kinda' makes you wonder, though...

Twenty years ago, the typical system had 1 MEGABYTE (or less) memory. We'd run Windows or DESQView, flip back and forth between Excel spreadsheets, go online (CompuServer, Prodigy, BBS), and play games. I used to do a lot of flight simulators.

Now, we need over 2GB of RAM, and we're doing the same thing.

nothing pissed me off as much as how long it took my IBM XT to check all 640kb of ram... seemed like an eternity every time

as far as what we can do with computers now though... it's just mind blowing seeing stuff that comes out of dreamworks studios, pixar... hell, even the crap they put on your screen during the superbowl. all that is because of faster computers, in essence

if all you're doing is the same old same old as 10 years ago, then there's really no need to have a better computer than maybe a good old celeron 512mb of RAM, save yourself a few grand and kill some spreadsheets

 

[JustaGeek]

I have 3 computers at home, running XP x86, Vista Home Premium x86 and Vista Ultimate x64.

At work, I have a Dell with 2.8GHz Pentium 4 w/ HT (Model 521 or so) with 1GB Single Channel memory. 5-6 applications open at the same time, working surprisingly fast, with no signs of overload or other slowdowns.

Windows XP Pro, since June 2006. Windows 2000 Pro prior.

An average computer user asked me a question today: "Soo... what's the advantage of Vista 64...?"

The answer, directed to an average user (let's say, 95% of "computing population") is basically... NONE!

Only "enthusiasts" care about what's under the hood. The rest doesn't care if they have 4, 6 or 8 cylinders - as long as it serves its purpose!

MS Word, AutoCAD and other applications worked perfectly fine in DOS, then Windows 95 and 98 and so on!

Explain what MORE can an avarage person do now, with our state of the art computers running 64-bit OS' with >4GB of RAM, that they were not able to do before...?