Is Vista 64bit really any faster than 32bit?

[bsobel]

If the maker of a 64bit OS cannot even support it 7 years after it was first released ...

Yes, clearly if one team at Microsoft hasn't ported their printer driver yet (and one of the developers on the team posts a workaround) then by definition Micorsoft doesn't support 64 bit computing.

Hmm, since the new version of exchange requires a 64bit system, does that mean Microsoft doesn't support 32bit computing based on your stupid logic?

 

[Nothinman]

I would say you are pretty new to computers ... and let me guess. You are 12 years old?

Off by a couple of decades but not a bad guess considering the rest of your posts.

MS can't support 64bit 7 years after they released a 64bith OS?
That means 64bit still is not ready for primetime in my book.

So MS determines what you can and can't do? I've been running a pure 64-bit Linux machine at home for probably close to 5 years now with no issues and 64-bit has been ready for primetime for at least 4 of those 5 years.

Here's two suggestions. Use Onenote under 32bit and compare that to the "solution" offered here.

I can honestly say that I've never used OneNote despite the fact that it's installed on my work laptop.

If the maker of a 64bit OS cannot even support it 7 years after it was first released ...

If a supposeldy technical computer user can't follow a 2 step process to work around 1 small bug...

 

[coloumb]

I've got 2 hard drives [drive bay setup] in a system with 4gb of memory - one with vista business 32 bit and one with vista premium 64 bit. There really isn't any noticeable difference in speed in general usage, gaming, surfing, office, etc.

What I do notice is that Minolta/Konica hasn't released 64 bit drivers for my expensive laser printer and most programs are installed in the x86 directory [which means they are 32 bit correct?] on the drive with vista 64.

Quite honestly - I think it's just more of nerdy bragging rights to say you're running 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit.

 

[Nothinman]

Quite honestly - I think it's just more of nerdy bragging rights to say you're running 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit.

Maybe 10 years ago when the only 64-bit machines were Alphas, Sparc64, etc but 64-bit hardware is a commodity today so anyone bragging about it is pretty confused.

 

[Cogman]

32 bit applications don't run slower in a 64 bit OS. So my question is, Why wouldn't you go with a 64 bit operating system. It is going to the standard within a few years (all new hardware, even the crappy Atom are 64 bit), it is just as workable as a 32 bit operating system, and you get the added benefit of being able to upgrade your ram for probably as long as the current stream of OS's are around (I don't see exabyte ram before vistas EOL).

Speed benefits, there aren't really any (unless you count being able to use extra memory), However, the pitfalls are just as non-existent.

coolvariable - I have no Idea what the heck you are blabbering on about MS not supporting 64 bit. With 64bit vista it is about as prime time as it is going to get. Just because every windows app in the world isn't compiled in 64 bit doesn't mean that it isn't primetime yet. By that standard 32bit really wasn't primetime until 64 bit windows came about as there where still quite a few 16 bit applications floating around. Like pm said, sometimes a straight compile of the same source will result in slower code in 64bit programs (cache misses from bigger code ect).

Personally I haven't had any problems since I installed 64 bit vista.

 

[pcslookout]

Yeah it is a lot faster in multitasking with 8 GB of ram or more. You can't do that on a 32 bit windows OS. I would love to see you try. Running demanding games and alt tabbing out of them while having many other applications open in the background is not a good idea to do with less than 4 GB of ram. Technically you could have almost 4 GB of ram in a 32 bit windows OS but even then why risk it when you have 4 GB of ram or more for the future.

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: coloumb
Quite honestly - I think it's just more of nerdy bragging rights to say you're running 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit.

Yup.

And the mental state of 64bit users like Nothinman only supports that argument.

YHPM

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[bsobel]

Quite honestly - I think it's just more of nerdy bragging rights to say you're running 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit.

That is often true of individual applications. It really doesn't matter if notepad.exe is 32 or 64bit. But 64bit is definitely the way to go for new OS installs if you have 2gig or more (this way you dont need to reinstall to add memory later).

Also, hardware is surpassing the ability of 32bit os's to support. I simply can't run a 32 bit OS on a few of my boxes and take any advantage of their capabilities.

 

[Nothinman]

And the mental state of 64bit users like Nothinman only supports that argument.

Why? Because I'm not saying "OMG run away!" because of one small, missing feature with a simple work around for one application that virtually no one uses?

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by:bsobel

Quite honestly - I think it's just more of nerdy bragging rights to say you're running 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit.

That is often true of individual applications. It really doesn't matter if notepad.exe is 32 or 64bit. But 64bit is definitely the way to go for new OS installs if you have 2gig or more (this way you dont need to reinstall to add memory later).

Also, hardware is surpassing the ability of 32bit os's to support. I simply can't run a 32 bit OS on a few of my boxes and take any advantage of their capabilities.

:thumbsup:

 

[Continuity28]

Hey, I'm not here to change anyone's opinions, because I couldn't care less what others do and don't do... but I'll say my bit and move on.

---For me---, there are three clear benefits to using a 64-bit operating system today.

1. I do have some 64-bit programs that run better than the 32-bit versions.
2. I can take advantage of my high system/video memory.
3. I have had some 32-bit games CRASH due to exhausting virtual address space on 32-bit operating systems that NO LONGER CRASH when using the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag in a 64-bit operating system. Games like "The Witcher", for example, will result in an eventual crash on a 32-bit operating system, but work perfectly once modified to take advantage of the full 4GB of 32-bit virtual address space that only a 64-bit operating system can allow. 32-bit Windows by default only allows 2GB (because the space is split between user and kernel) or up to 3GB when using a special switch, which The Witcher (and some other games, like Supreme Commander) can exhaust. As time goes on, more and more games will be exhausting this 2GB limit, if they aren't already. You can call it sloppy programming or whatever, for them to use this much virtual address space, but hey, I'm interested in the results since I loved the games. Saying "Well, those games are just poorly coded" does nothing beneficial for me, whereas using a 64-bit operating system to get around the problem does.

I don't have any programs that refuse to work because of my 64-bit operating system, so I have nothing to lose personally. Others' mileage will vary...

 

[hazeman]

I've been running Vista 64 SP2 for a whole 3 days now.
Only gripe with the setup was only a 'quick' format option. No big deal if you plan ahead.

Since then, all the apps I've used and been using for quite sometime with XP run the same, if not faster and more stable. I've been using avast! Home for several years (as well as others for comparison) and the first thing I noticed is that the AV engine initializes with Lightning Speed! Literally, there was a 2-3 sec delay just to initialize the engine in XP. Overall, not a single problem that was not easily rectified.

Problem 1: Needed OEM drivers off CD-ROM for integrated Realtek NIC card, after that Windows Update took care of the rest.

Vista 64 SP2 is by far the most superior OS MS has released to date. (More of what it supposed to be originally)
The eye candy is nice, but the components under the hood are what impresses me. note: Been using Windows since 3.1

Will I go as far as saying Mac OS killer? No. Will I say that Vista 64/7 are the landmark OS's that will keep people from switching to Linux (or make them come back)? Maybe.

All-in-all, the 32-bit apps run the same, if not better. Ad-aware/avast!/uTorrent/etc... have been recently updated with 64-bit optimized code. Does this mean these apps as well as others are true b4-bit? Not necessarily, but not one BSOD, Client crash, or any words from Dr. Watson...

 

[AdamK47]

I've been running 64-bit since January 07 and still wonder why you guys went with 32-bit in the fist place.