OS for new build

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
So my school offers us Vista Ultimate and XP-Professional discounted, but only in 32-bit versions. I'm throwing together a new PC with 4GB's of RAM and was curious how much a 32-bit OS would hurt my performance in real time (I can live with only 3-3.125GB's being displayed in the task manager). The main things I do are mostly music, graphic design, and light gaming.

Alternatively, I snagged a copy of W7 64-bit back when they were offering free downloads; 32-bit has been solid for me on my Core Duo laptop, so would this suffice my desktop for now? Are any of the updated builds more stable?

Thanks in advance!
 

randay

Lifer
May 30, 2006
11,018
216
106
you would get all 4gb in vista but then vista would eat about 1gb anyway, leaving you with 3 again. the only thing a 32bit os would do is not allow you to run 64bit programs. i think.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
60,929
11,263
126
What graphics card are you going to use? A 512mb gfx card will knock you down to about 3gb. A 1gb card, or sli can take a significant amount more.
 

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
Originally posted by: lxskllr
What graphics card are you going to use? A 512mb gfx card will knock you down to about 3gb. A 1gb card, or sli can take a significant amount more.

My new build will consist of:

AMD PhenomII X3 720
Biostar TA790GX 128M AM2+
4GB Corsair DDR2 800 XMS2
WD 640 (Blue)
Sapphire HD4830 512mb

I think what I'm really asking is will the stability of Vista-32 outweigh the performance I'd gain from using a beta 64-bit OS such as W7 (given my options).
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
60,929
11,263
126
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Originally posted by: lxskllr
What graphics card are you going to use? A 512mb gfx card will knock you down to about 3gb. A 1gb card, or sli can take a significant amount more.

My new build will consist of:

AMD PhenomII X3 720
Biostar TA790GX 128M AM2+
4GB Corsair DDR2 800 XMS2
WD 640 (Blue)
Sapphire HD4830 512mb

I think what I'm really asking is will the stability of Vista outweigh the performance I'd gain from using a 64-bit OS such as W7 (given my options).

Stability will be equal between them. Win7=Vista. When I went from Vista32 to Vista64, I didn't notice any change whatsoever. If somebody made the switch on me while I was at work, it would have taken me awhile to notice the difference.
 

KeypoX

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2003
3,655
0
71
Only problems i HAD was my schools vpn software. Since then i just used the vista built in vpn software to connect.

As other said vista will see all the 4GB but you wont be able ot use it all. 32bit only gives 4GB of addressing space which is needed for other stuff besides ram.

I would buy that cheap 32bit and wait for win7. Or do win 7 beta now. Its just a bad time to buy vista.
 

VinDSL

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,869
1
81
www.lenon.com
Depends on the machine I *suppose*...

I'm on my P4EE openSUSE box right now, so that doesn't count. However...

On my lappy (in the bedroom where my wife is sleeping - where no mortal man dares tread) I have both x86 & x64 OSs installed.

On the aforementioned 4GB lappy - Vista 32 has 3.3 GB available. Linux 64 has 3.5 GB available. Never paid any attention to W7 64, but it's undoubtedly in that same range too. I'll take snappies tomorrow morning, if you want.

And, I'll have to say, performance-wise, I don't notice an ounce of difference between Vista HP x86, W7 Ultimate x64, and Linux Mint 6 x64!

Generally speaking, 32-bit versions of anything tend to be more stable than 64-bit counterparts, despite what anybody on this site (besides me) will tell you. That's just a fact of life, as of this date n' time! Who knows what tomorrow will bring? 'They' are almost there, but not quite 100% yet...

Anyway, my recommendation to the OP is: Don't worry about it! Go with Vista Ultimate x86, if the price is right... ;)
 

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
Thanks for the replies everyone.

I ended up going for Windows 7 x64 (Build 7000), and thus far it has been pretty good to me aside from some minor tweaking of my wireless usb adapter. It definitely doesn't feel as smooth as W7 x86 on my laptop (Core Duo 1.83Ghz, 2.5GB RAM, x1400), but it hasn't hiccuped yet *crosses fingers*

I'll keep throwing programs at it and update along the way.

Also, any word on how the newer W7 x64 builds are compared to the original beta? Worth the hassle to update?
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Thanks for the replies everyone.

I ended up going for Windows 7 x64 (Build 7000), and thus far it has been pretty good to me aside from some minor tweaking of my wireless usb adapter. It definitely doesn't feel as smooth as W7 x86 on my laptop (Core Duo 1.83Ghz, 2.5GB RAM, x1400), but it hasn't hiccuped yet *crosses fingers*

I'll keep throwing programs at it and update along the way.

Also, any word on how the newer W7 x64 builds are compared to the original beta? Worth the hassle to update?

I did not like the 7000 build much on my testing PC rig,the 7068 build is better IMHO.

I would buy that cheap 32bit and wait for win7. Or do win 7 beta now. Its just a bad time to buy vista.

Not true,SP2 for Vista is due very soon so you can argue good time to buy Vista,besides Win7 beta does not offer anything I have seen so far that wants to make we wait for official version or buy it ASAP.

 

VinDSL

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,869
1
81
www.lenon.com
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Thanks for the replies everyone...

I'll keep throwing programs at [W7] and update along the way.
That's what I do, sort of - I keep throwing OSs at my machines "and update along the way"... :D

I made some screenies yesterday, but I didn't have a chance to upload them to my server until this morning.

You might find this interesting, since you were asking about memory recognition (4GB lappy, multi-booted):
As you can see (on my Toshy) there's only a .3-.5GB difference between 3 different x86 & x64 OSs... ;)
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
On the aforementioned 4GB lappy - Vista 32 has 3.3 GB available. Linux 64 has 3.5 GB available. Never paid any attention to W7 64, but it's undoubtedly in that same range too. I'll take snappies tomorrow morning, if you want.

As long as your BIOS supports remapping the lost memory you should be able to get all 4G out of Linux and 64-bit W7.

Generally speaking, 32-bit versions of anything tend to be more stable than 64-bit counterparts, despite what anybody on this site (besides me) will tell you. That's just a fact of life, as of this date n' time! Who knows what tomorrow will bring? 'They' are almost there, but not quite 100% yet...

I have to disagree. I've been running a full 64-bit Debian install for a few years now and I have no stability issues.
 

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Thanks for the replies everyone...

I'll keep throwing programs at [W7] and update along the way.
That's what I do, sort of - I keep throwing OSs at my machines "and update along the way"... :D

I made some screenies yesterday, but I didn't have a chance to upload them to my server until this morning.

You might find this interesting, since you were asking about memory recognition (4GB lappy, multi-booted):
As you can see (on my Toshy) there's only a .3-.5GB difference between 3 different x86 & x64 OSs... ;)

Interesting, good stuff Vin :thumbsup:

So thus far, I've gotten most of my main non-gaming apps up and running (Adobe Designer Premium flies on this thing!).

I also upgraded to the 7068 x64 build, which feels much smoother than the original beta. The only weird thing I've noticed is that Vista shows 3.75GB usable, as where the original beta showed all 4GB's there. I'll have to check my bios to see if my HD3300 is stealing some from me. I'll definitely find out when I get my HD4830 tomorrow.

More positive news to come hopefully.
 

Golgatha

Lifer
Jul 18, 2003
12,463
1,179
126
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
So my school offers us Vista Ultimate and XP-Professional discounted, but only in 32-bit versions. I'm throwing together a new PC with 4GB's of RAM and was curious how much a 32-bit OS would hurt my performance in real time (I can live with only 3-3.125GB's being displayed in the task manager). The main things I do are mostly music, graphic design, and light gaming.

Alternatively, I snagged a copy of W7 64-bit back when they were offering free downloads; 32-bit has been solid for me on my Core Duo laptop, so would this suffice my desktop for now? Are any of the updated builds more stable?

Thanks in advance!

If this is a retail boxed version with academic pricing, Vista Ultimate comes with 32bit and 64 bit install discs in the box. I imagine a key code for Vista Ultimate 32bit would allow an install of the 64bit version provided you can obtain the 64bit install disc.
 

alevasseur14

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2005
1,760
1
0
At my school you get an educational disc that is 32 bit only. However, it's trivial to find a 64 bit disk and use your legit CD key to install it. I bought Vista before going back to school and let my roommate use the 64 bit disk with his 32 bit key and it worked fine.
 

aceO07

Diamond Member
Nov 6, 2000
4,491
0
76
Originally posted by: alevasseur14
At my school you get an educational disc that is 32 bit only. However, it's trivial to find a 64 bit disk and use your legit CD key to install it. I bought Vista before going back to school and let my roommate use the 64 bit disk with his 32 bit key and it worked fine.

So, it's fine/legal to convert from 32bit to 64bit Vista using the 32bit edition key? I was just curious about this issue today. I have a laptop that came with Vista Business 32bit. If I upgrade my ram from 3gb to 4gb or 8gb, I'd definitely need 64bit.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
A Vista licence is a Vista licence... And Yes, it is perfectly acceptable/allowable to use your 32 bit Educational discounted key to activate a 64 bit install.