Should I go Vista 32bit or 64 bit?

[Scouzer]

I have an A8Js with a Core 2 Duo.

I can choose either, on Business version.

What should I choose?

I won't be installing Vista for a few months.

 

[Shawn]

Unless you have software that can utilize the 64bit version I'd just stick with 32bit for now.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Shawn
Unless you have software that can utilize the 64bit version I'd just stick with 32bit for now.

There's more to 64 bit version then that,it has better security then Vista x68 for one,this old AT thread should answer most of your questions.

 

[gizbug]

Use search.
This has been asked at least 15 times since Vista's release.

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: gizbug
Use search.
This has been asked at least 15 times since Vista's release.

if you knew anything, you'd know AT's search function is atrocious. but thanks for the nef.

 

[Brentx]

I just purchased an A8Js last week with XP Pro on it from Newegg. I went with the 32bit version because I know the headaches I had trying to get drivers for the 64bit version of Windows XP. I think Asus's website has most of the 64 bit drivers available for everything for the A8Js though.

I still think 64bit is not mature enough to migrate over. I'll wait until I need > 2GB of RAM to upgrade to 64bit, which will probably be few years or so. I'm running 2GB right now in my A8Js and main desktop machine.

 

[traderonline]

i tried the 32 bit RTM version with 1gb ram. worked flawlessly. 64bit version is mainly for servers with large memory volumes.

 

[Nothinman]

if you knew anything, you'd know AT's search function is atrocious. but thanks for the nef.

So that means ask a question again that's been asked almost daily since Vista's release, sure.

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

if you knew anything, you'd know AT's search function is atrocious. but thanks for the nef.

So that means ask a question again that's been asked almost daily since Vista's release, sure.

I don't read the OS forum, and the search function sucks. I'm sorry I don't read the OS forum. Prick.

 

[ta8689]

64 bit. Why the hell would you own a 64 bit processor if you don't want to utilize it?

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: traderonline
i tried the 32 bit RTM version with 1gb ram. worked flawlessly. 64bit version is mainly for servers with large memory volumes.

Wrong!.......btw my Vista x64 works flawlessly as well.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ta8689
64 bit. Why the hell would you own a 64 bit processor if you don't want to utilize it?

Please point to the widely available, non 64-bit capable processor that beats C2D and/or X2 in 32-bit computing😉

I can't believe 64-bit is so slow taking off, but I guess it's just a matter of memory requirements. If we keep going at the same pace, there will be a compelling need for 64-bit on the desktop in about 2-3 years. Until then, the number of users who are hitting the memory wall will be small enough that the 'world' won't migrate.

In a somewhat related question, have any companies manufactured 1.5GB dimms? Is this even possible? Given that that you can't use a full 4GB properly under 32-bit, that dual channel has basically taken over, and the performance benefits of fewer dimms in a system, it seems to me there would be a market for this, byt maybe i'm wrong.

 

[Nothinman]

I don't read the OS forum, and the search function sucks. I'm sorry I don't read the OS forum. Prick.

That's no excuse not to scan the first few pages of threads, it would have taken you a whole 30s.

64 bit. Why the hell would you own a 64 bit processor if you don't want to utilize it?

Because the benefits don't outweigh the hassles you go through running 64-bit Windows right now.

I can't believe 64-bit is so slow taking off, but I guess it's just a matter of memory requirements.

Actually it's a matter of compatibility. Since you need 64-bit drivers on a 64-bit OS and no one develops OSS drivers for Windows, you're at the mercy of the manufacturers to write new drivers and since most of them saw that XP64 had virtually 0 marketshare they saw no reason to waste time on 64-bit drivers. Now that Vista's out that's changing but it'll still take time for most of the manufacturers to catch up and even then there will still be a lot of unsupported hardware that will never get new drivers written.

If we keep going at the same pace, there will be a compelling need for 64-bit on the desktop in about 2-3 years.

Only in niche markets like gaming and CG, most apps are nowhere near hitting the current 4G VM limit and probably never will.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: Nothinman

if you knew anything, you'd know AT's search function is atrocious. but thanks for the nef.

So that means ask a question again that's been asked almost daily since Vista's release, sure.

I don't read the OS forum, and the search function sucks. I'm sorry I don't read the OS forum. Prick.

Quit being silly.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=34&threadid=2008984&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=34&threadid=2007303&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=4&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=6&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

IOW, you should go Vista 32-bit for now and survey the situation. If you're really worried about kernel security, then 64-bit is the way to go. As long as Vista doesn't become a virus beehive 32-bit should be secure enough for anybody.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I can't believe 64-bit is so slow taking off, but I guess it's just a matter of memory requirements.

Actually it's a matter of compatibility. Since you need 64-bit drivers on a 64-bit OS and no one develops OSS drivers for Windows, you're at the mercy of the manufacturers to write new drivers and since most of them saw that XP64 had virtually 0 marketshare they saw no reason to waste time on 64-bit drivers. Now that Vista's out that's changing but it'll still take time for most of the manufacturers to catch up and even then there will still be a lot of unsupported hardware that will never get new drivers written.

I.e. there's no compelling need for it, people aren't asking for it, and suppliers are listening, by not doing much about it.

If we keep going at the same pace, there will be a compelling need for 64-bit on the desktop in about 2-3 years.

Only in niche markets like gaming and CG, most apps are nowhere near hitting the current 4G VM limit and probably never will.

General use computing has gone past 512MB - it won't take much of a power user to like the idea of 4GB soon enough.

 

[Nothinman]

I.e. there's no compelling need for it, people aren't asking for it, and suppliers are listening, by not doing much about it.

People are asking for it, they just don't realize that it's virtually pointless for them.

General use computing has gone past 512MB - it won't take much of a power user to like the idea of 4GB soon enough.

I was talking about the 4G VM limit, you've been able to use more than 4G of physical memory in a 32-bit system since the Pentium Pro.

 

[mechBgon]

If you get a retail-boxed Vista, you can start with 32-bit, obtain the 64-bit DVD from yonder, and then use one or the other as you prefer. Ultimate comes with both DVDs in the retail box.

I still think 64bit is not mature enough to migrate over.

Reportedly, Vista x64 is based on 64-bit Windows Server 2003, so it ought to be mature enough insofar as that goes. Driver support may not be there for some hardware yet (and for some hardware, it never will be there), but I think people can assess most of that in advance by simply looking.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I.e. there's no compelling need for it, people aren't asking for it, and suppliers are listening, by not doing much about it.

People are asking for it, they just don't realize that it's virtually pointless for them.

They aren't asking too loudly - what were sales of XP-64 like? What about people choosing Turion over Pentium M / Core products because of 64-bitness. I sure didn't see much of it.

General use computing has gone past 512MB - it won't take much of a power user to like the idea of 4GB soon enough.

I was talking about the 4G VM limit, you've been able to use more than 4G of physical memory in a 32-bit system since the Pentium Pro.[/quote]

From everything I've read and heard, results for this are spotty at best.

 

[Job]

THe only problems ive had with vista 64 have been codecs - and that only took 30 mins or so of looking on the internet. With drivers, it was actually quicker installing that it was on xp as vista had most of the ones i needed built in - why bother sticking with 32bit? If you're goin to upgrade u might as well do it properly...

 

[Nothinman]

They aren't asking too loudly - what were sales of XP-64 like? What about people choosing Turion over Pentium M / Core products because of 64-bitness. I sure didn't see much of it.

Gamers have been asking for it for a while under the impression that it'll make their games run a lot faster. But they also got bit when they tried XP64 because of the crap hardware support and extreme lack of game developers releasing 64-bit binaries.

From everything I've read and heard, results for this are spotty at best.

It works just fine, performance isn't 100% and a single process is still limited to 4G of VM but it works.