OS for new rig?

[imported_Race]

I recently finished building my new rig, and now I'm ready to buy the OS and get up and running.
Now.....the guys at the local computer parts shop have confused me a bit.

I had pretty much decided to go with Vista Home Premium 64 for these reasons: ultilizing all 4 gigs of ram installed, and I just can't see spending $185 for Vista Ultimate to use it for a year until Windows 7 is released. (Unless there is a good reason for using Ultimate over HP)

One of the guys is telling me that I should just go with Vista 32bit because the ram limitation was resolved with the release of SP1, and also to avoid the extra issues associated with 64bit. (drivers, older programs, etc.)

I've read many threads on ram limitations, but need to know the bottom line: I know that Vista SP1 32bit will show 4 gigs of ram installed, but does it USE the full 4 gigs? (Same guys at the shop say that 32bit will use up to 8 gigs)
Secondly...it seems lots of people are using 64bit Vista, and my new system probably won't be running older programs, and all hardware is fairly new, so doesn't it make better sense for me to go with 64bit?.....and does the DVD drive care as far as 64bit goes? (will it work)
Someone please help me decide which way to go, so I can get on with it!
Thanks very much..

 

[owensdj]

Vista 32-bit will still have a "hole" in the 4GB of memory due to device I/O being mapped into the limited 4GB address space. You'll end up with something like 3.2GB of memory available to Vista. If you use a 64-bit version, Vista will have access to the full 4GB because the 64-bit address space is huge, for now.

It's a matter of opinion, but I don't think it's worth using a 64-bit version unless you want to use *more* than 4GB of memory. If you plan on going to 8GB or more in the near future, go ahead and get a 64-bit Vista.

It doesn't matter to the DVD drive whether you install the 32-bit or 64-bit version.

Keep in mind that you can get an OEM version of Vista because this is a new computer. The OEM versions are much less expensive than the Retail versions.

 

[Otrant]

Vista 32bit will not utilize more than ~3GB of RAM. I built the system in my signature just a few weeks ago and was going through the same debate, and I'm very glad I chose to install Vista x64. Unless you are using some really obscure software where it's hard to find a replacement (i.e., some customized commercial/business solutions), there really isn't any reason not go x64 on a new system. I haven't had any driver or software issues at all, and with RAM prices the way they are, I'm tempted to upgrade to 8GB.

Cheers!

 

[Mem]

It's a matter of opinion, but I don't think it's worth using a 64-bit version unless you want to use *more* than 4GB of memory. If you plan on going to 8GB or more in the near future, go ahead and get a 64-bit Vista.

4GB and up plus better security are some good reasons why to go Vista x64,remember it'll still run most 32 bit software so its not like you can't install those.

I'm using Vista x64 HP on main PC and Vista x86 HP on my lappy and actually prefer Vista x64.

 

[accguy9009]

Go 64 bit. Unless you are using some very old apps you will be glad you
chose the 64 bit version. I believe your computer guy may be a bit under informed on this subject. I
originally used a 32 bit version of Vista Home Premium then bought the 64 bit DVD from MS for about
$ 10.00 shipped and reinstalled using my original key. Not one issue have I experienced since the upgrade.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: accguy9009
I believe your computer guy may be a bit under informed on this subject.

x2

Yes he is under informed. Vista 32 will "show" the 4GB but it cannot use it. Vista64 is great. I've had it for little over a month. Had no compatibility issues with anything. UAC can be a little annoying but it's there to protect you so I just leave it on. It's much snappier than XP. Superfetch works great.

 

[bsobel]

've read many threads on ram limitations, but need to know the bottom line: I know that Vista SP1 32bit will show 4 gigs of ram installed, but does it USE the full 4 gigs? (Same guys at the shop say that 32bit will use up to 8 gigs)

Show it yes, use it no.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: bsobel

've read many threads on ram limitations, but need to know the bottom line: I know that Vista SP1 32bit will show 4 gigs of ram installed, but does it USE the full 4 gigs? (Same guys at the shop say that 32bit will use up to 8 gigs)

Show it yes, use it no.

It is especially bad on my friends desktop. He left his Vista64 key at school and so when it came time to reformat had to use Vista32. His desktop has 4GB of RAM, and dual 8800 Ultras each with 768MB. Since the VRAM is counted towards the total, he only has like 2.5GB or less usable.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: Race
Someone please help me decide which way to go, so I can get on with it!

Thanks very much...

I have a variety of machines on my LAN (3 routers, 1 gateway, and about 10 machines at any particular time - servers, desktops, game machines, Slingbox, blah, blah, blah).

I'm in my SOHO right now, using my 4GB Toshiba A215 lappy via WiFi. It's a x86-64 machine. I'm dual booting this machine with Windows Vista HP x86 and openSUSE 11.1 KDE 4 x86. Works great!

The 4GB limitation, so called, is a 'math problem', if you will. 32-bit operating systems can only address so much memory. In Window Vista's case - as mentioned above - it DOES use all 4GB, however, MS has wisely chosen to map I/O to memory instead of disk, sooo... you'll end up with a varying amount of 'useable' memory, depending on the architecture of your machine.

In the case of my lappy, I *think* I ended up with 3.4GB of 'usable' memory - I'm running in openSUSE right now, and don't feel like rebooting to Vista SP2 beta. openSUSE is reporting:

• Total memory (RAM): 3.3 GB
  Free memory: 2.5 GB (+ 567.4 MB Caches)
  Free swap: 2.0 GB

I'm also dual booting W2K Pro/openSUSE Gnome on an OC'ed Intel P4 Extreme Edition x86 machine (the System Rig in my sig). Works great!

And, I have another dual boot machine - an 2GB AMD x86-64 machine with 32-bit XP and 64-bit Ubuntu 8.10 installed. It works great too!

All these machines work GREAT, but the 64-bit Ubuntu 8.10 is the hands-down winner, performance-wise! And, it only has 2GB RAM...

So, I would judge the OS to be the deciding factor, NOT the amount of RAM!

If it was me - if I had just built a new x86-64/x64 machine - I would install Windows Vista x64 and Linux x64 - pick your flavor(s).

One of the considerations is the 'Flash Player' dilemma. AFAIK Adobe doesn't make a x64 Flash Player for Windows, however they do make one for Linux. I'm running it in Firefox on Ubuntu x64.

Personally, I would do a dual boot install of Windows Vista HP x64 and Ubuntu 8.10 x64.

That way, you got all your bases covered! :thumbsup:

 

[bsobel]

it DOES use all 4GB

No, it does not.

One of the considerations is the 'Flash Player' dilemma. AFAIK Adobe doesn't make a x64 Flash Player for Windows

Nice non issue to bring up since 32bit IE is included and the default.

 

[VinDSL]

It's funny how fast things change...

Truth be told, I have no interest in Windows any more!

In reality, I'll probably never install Windows again - kinda sad really - watching the passing of an old friend...

However, I'll stand by my recommendation(s), no matter how much you wish to parse my statements.

BTW, Happy New Year, bsobel!

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: bsobel

it DOES use all 4GB

No, it does not.

Good job reading. What you quoted out of context is not correct. If you went back and read what he said, it is correct.

 

[Nothinman]

The 4GB limitation, so called, is a 'math problem', if you will. 32-bit operating systems can only address so much memory. In Window Vista's case - as mentioned above - it DOES use all 4GB, however, MS has wisely chosen to map I/O to memory instead of disk, sooo... you'll end up with a varying amount of 'useable' memory, depending on the architecture of your machine.

The only thing MS chose to do was limit their PAE implementation to not go above the 4G mark, the rest is all the fault of hardware. If MS let their 32-bit OSes use that memory it would work fine.

In the case of my lappy, I *think* I ended up with 3.4GB of 'usable' memory - I'm running in openSUSE right now, and don't feel like rebooting to Vista SP2 beta. openSUSE is reporting:

If openSuSE comes with a 32-bit kernel that supports PAE you can get that other ~600M of memory back.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: sswingle

Originally posted by: bsobel

it DOES use all 4GB

No, it does not.

Good job reading. What you quoted out of context is not correct. If you went back and read what he said, it is correct.

You are also incorrect.

 

[bsobel]

If openSuSE comes with a 32-bit kernel that supports PAE you can get that other ~600M of memory back.

If your hardware supports 36bit+ addressing, remember many older and many laptop chipsets dont.

 

[Nothinman]

If your hardware supports 36bit+ addressing, remember many older and many laptop chipsets dont.

True, laptops do have strange hardware sometimes. But he said it's an AMD64 laptop so I would hope it supports 36-bit addressing too, but even if it doesn't he could just install a 64-bit kernel and leave userland 32-bit to be able to use the rest of his memory.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: VinDSL
I'm running in openSUSE right now... openSUSE is reporting:

• Total memory (RAM): 3.3 GB
  Free memory: 2.5 GB (+ 567.4 MB Caches)
  Free swap: 2.0 GB

I just installed openSUSE x64 on my lappy. Here's the difference:

• Total memory (RAM): 3.7 GB
  Free memory: 25.0 MB (+ 3.2 GB Caches)
  Free swap: 2.0 GB

[/quote]

 

[Nothinman]

I just installed openSUSE x64 on my lappy. Here's the difference:

3.7G? Do you have shared video memory or something?