The 64 Bit question - Upgrade

clarkey01

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,419
1
0
I'm running the spec in my sig. I am currently working on a university placement, so I have some money spare, problem is when I go back to university I am going to be skint.

So I am tempted to upgrade now to 64 Bits..I know some of the horror stories, but for instance I have 4GB of ram but only see 3GB (I knew but still got it).

I am thinking of buying vista premium 64 bits and a q6600...So shall I perhaps wait for driver maturity? I was also thinking of getting 8GB of ram ( 4x2GB sticks)..

What do you guys reckon?
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Originally posted by: clarkey01
I'm running the spec in my sig. I am currently working on a university placement, so I have some money spare, problem is when I go back to university I am going to be skint.

So I am tempted to upgrade now to 64 Bits..I know some of the horror stories, but for instance I have 4GB of ram but only see 3GB (I knew but still got it).

I am thinking of buying vista premium 64 bits and a q6600...So shall I perhaps wait for driver maturity? I was also thinking of getting 8GB of ram ( 4x2GB sticks)..

What do you guys reckon?

Going Vista x64 is always down to your hardware and software you use,your hardware looks fine for Vista x64 so that leaves the software side,personally I don't have any issues with gaming or general software etc...do bear in mind that there's no 16 bit software support in Vista x64 so that may be a factor if you need to run any very old 16 bit software.

As to any specialized 32 bit software try and check beforehand if there's any compatibility problems.

Drivers are very stable or you could say excellent for me so that's not a factor in my case.

Last question you should ask yourself is do I need to go 64 bit now,if you want to use 4 or 8 GB then that might be enough reason for you,nobody here can really answer that question for you.


 

QuixoticOne

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,855
0
0
IMHO, get the 64 bit OS, it's free/cheap since you have a 32 bit license.

Get the 8GB of RAM, it's a lot better of a performance boost than readyboost, and
I'm sure more and more things will use more and more RAM.

You should have no serious driver problems with Vista 64; the X-Fi should be
the only really questionable thing, but that should work as well in Vista 32 as
Vista 64. I only mention it because Creative's drivers IN GENERAL are kinda
shoddy no matter XP or Vista.

Of course NVIDIA has its bugs too but probably nothing you'll really be bothered by,
and nothing really different than XP or Vista 32.

Keep up with the resent Chipset / SATA drivers for your motherboard and you
should have no real problem with LAN / SATA / etc. drivers under Vista 64.

I've run Vista 64 business and Home Premium on Q6600 / 8GB RAM / ASUS M/B and
it's been OK. No problems due to it being 64 bit.

There's a known problem due to some 32 bit mass storage drivers on the VISTA
install CD that can crash systems with over 3GB memory when you're doing the
initial install. There'a a patch for it once you get it installed, but it may be easiest
to pull the extra memory sticks to install with 2GB if you encounter it. Actually
I never did encounter the problem even installing with 8GB on a ASUS P5K-E motherboard.
The problem should be fixed in the VISTA with integrated SP1 Install DVD when
it comes out soon.

If you wait about a month the 64 bit DVD with the released version of SP1 should be
available for ordering ($10 or so), so that'll be be the most convenient choice for
you since otherwise you'll have to download a bunch of data through Windows Update
or whatever to get all the SP1 fixes if you install with a pre-SP1 DVD. No big deal,
though, just a few reboots and maybe a couple of hours to download / install it all.

64 bit VISTA makes it harder to install / use unsigned device drivers which are
kernel mode drivers. I've not run into the problem of having unsigned kernel
drivers yet, and you shouldn't do so either with your current hardware AFAIK.
Typically most drivers aren't kernel mode, or are signed and WHQL certified for
your major hardware like the NVIDIA card and stuff.

So "just do it".

Run MEMTEST86+ for 12 hours with the new RAM to make sure the CPU and RAM
are 100% stable with no errors at the clocks / voltages you run and that'll
eliminate any bad surprises of crashes due to memory issues in VISTA 64.

Oh yeah it'll by default make a PAGEFILE and HIBERNATE file EACH a little bigger
than your amount of RAM, so that'd be 16GB permanently used disk space
on C: for 8GB RAM, so allow something like a 50GB C: partition minimum assuming
you'll install most large programs / files on D:, otherwise make C: even much bigger.
Or just turn down the paging file to 1GB or something if you want.




I can't imagine wanting to run a 32 bit OS in the future given how
low the price of 4GB / 8GB of RAM is these days.

 

JustaGeek

Platinum Member
Jan 27, 2007
2,827
0
71
You have a fine system and a fine OS.

Leave it alone. There is NOTHING to be gained by going 64-bit and 4 core.

With the 64-bit Vista, you'll just shut the door on certain programs that might work on the 32-bit platform (Anti Spyware/Anti-Virus etc.)

Vista 32 is a fine OS - keep it.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
btw you can order 64bit version of your Vista from MS. It costs ~ 10 bucks for shipping and the discs are free(well included in the cost of the shipping). The Keys are interchangeable.

 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
There is NOTHING to be gained by going 64-bit and 4 core.

Actually there are gains to be had. Right off the bat he'll be able to use all 4G of his memory and run both 32-bit and 64-bit applications.
 

clarkey01

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,419
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
btw you can order 64bit version of your Vista from MS. It costs ~ 10 bucks for shipping and the discs are free(well included in the cost of the shipping). The Keys are interchangeable.

!!!!!????? How
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Originally posted by: Nothinman
There is NOTHING to be gained by going 64-bit and 4 core.

Actually there are gains to be had. Right off the bat he'll be able to use all 4G of his memory and run both 32-bit and 64-bit applications.

I would have to agree,personally I''m very impressed with compatibility/stabilty of Vista x64,think I covered the con's in my first post,however the pro's far outweigh the con's IMHO.
 

Griffinhart

Golden Member
Dec 7, 2004
1,130
1
76
Originally posted by: JustaGeek
You have a fine system and a fine OS.

Leave it alone. There is NOTHING to be gained by going 64-bit and 4 core.

With the 64-bit Vista, you'll just shut the door on certain programs that might work on the 32-bit platform (Anti Spyware/Anti-Virus etc.)

Certain programs, but not many are really problematic. I haven't had an issue with any mainstream products. And there are plenty of Anti-spyware and Anti-virus choices out there for 64-bit, there is also added security of 64bit over 32.

It should be easy enough to see if your software has any issues with 64bit. I haven't found a single modern game that doesn't work. All my regular apps work fine as well. Office, Paintshop Pro, Surething labeler, Vegas Movie Studio, Picassa, SimpleOCR, Skype.... All work with no issues.

Double check driver compatibility though.
http://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/


Vista 32 is a fine OS - keep it.

Vista 32 is fine, but my personal experience has been that Vista 64 is better and if he's planning up going 4+ GB of RAM, 64bit is the only way to go.

 

JustaGeek

Platinum Member
Jan 27, 2007
2,827
0
71
There is no commercial Anti-Spyware program that works on Vista 64, besides Defender and Spybot.

SpySweeper, Spyware Doctor, CA Anti Spyware do NOT work. Super AntiSpyware installs, but gives error messages in the Event Viewer, and is NOT compatible with Vista 64. Registry Mechanic does not work. Certain modules of Nero 6 work, but Express doesn't.

16-bit software does NOT work at all - and please don't tell me "who needs it", because some people do.

I am generally happy with my Ultimate 64, but every time I try to install something, I have to ask myself "but... will it work...?"

Does he need that hassle when he goes back to school...? He has to answer that question for himself.

Vista 32 to Vista 64 is not and upgrade today, in January 2008.

It is merely an "update for the future", rendering some software unusable. 99% of all the drivers, programs and processes work in *32 bit mode anyway.

That's my opinion after 1 month with Ultimate 64. I will keep my XP until I am certain I don't need it.

To the OP - if you want to "experiment" with Vista 64, get a separate copy for a dual-boot setup.


 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Originally posted by: JustaGeek
There is no commercial Anti-Spyware program that works on Vista 64, besides Defender and Spybot.

SpySweeper, Spyware Doctor, CA Anti Spyware do NOT work. Super AntiSpyware installs, but gives error messages in the Event Viewer, and is NOT compatible with Vista 64. Registry Mechanic does not work. Certain modules of Nero 6 work, but Express doesn't.

16-bit software does NOT work at all - and please don't tell me "who needs it", because some people do.

I am generally happy with my Ultimate 64, but every time I try to install something, I have to ask myself "but... will it work...?"

Does he need that hassle when he goes back to school...? He has to answer that question for himself.

Vista 32 to Vista 64 is not and upgrade today, in January 2008.

It is merely an "update for the future", rendering some software unusable. 99% of all the drivers, programs and processes work in *32 bit mode anyway.

That's my opinion after 1 month with Ultimate 64. I will keep my XP until I am certain I don't need it.

To the OP - if you want to "experiment" with Vista 64, get a separate copy for a dual-boot setup.

It's a known fact that 16 bit software does not work(I already posted more then once,check my first post ;) ),to be honest I'll be surprised if people still use old 16 bit software I know I don't, but yes a few people that are in the minority need to use it.....As to anti-spyware I use Spybot 1.5 and SpywareBlaster with Windows Defender disabled(I set mine to scan once a week),SuperAntiSpyware does work regardless of Event Viewer logs,end of the day anti-spyware software is not an issue since there are quite a few freebies that work with Vista x64 not to meantion paid ones in AV packages ie Kaspersky,Bitdefender etc..).


You can argue that some software companies for anti-spyware products are lazy,they have had over a year to get Vista x64 support so if anything they are the ones to blame not Vista x64,how much time do they need?

Also a known fact that Nero is compatible from Nero 7 version 7.5.7.0,Ashampoo Burning Studio 7 also works with Vista x64 so does Cyberlink Power2GO(yes I have used them all at one time).



Vista 32 to Vista 64 is not and upgrade today, in January 2008.


Depends how you look at it, for myself going to Vista x86 is going backwards,memory restrictions,inferior security,legacy 16 bit software in the OS that I don't need etc...




That's my opinion after 1 month with Ultimate 64. I will keep my XP until I am certain I don't need it.

1 month is not a long time,however you are entitled to your opinion,btw I have been using Vista x64 HP now for over 12 months , so in that time has seen more testing and patches/driver updates etc....


I like XP(still prefer Vista) which has had a very good run(its on my backup PC) but to be honest has become useless/redundant for me ,since my Vista x64 has been solid in all departments,I even installed Starforce drivers and other copy protection from TAGE,SecuROM etc.. and it still does not bat an eyelid.





















 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
16-bit software does NOT work at all - and please don't tell me "who needs it", because some people do.

Then those people should probably still be using Win95 on their P5s.

The only real 16-bit hold-out was some old Installshield installers but AFAIK those are pretty much gone too.

I am generally happy with my Ultimate 64, but every time I try to install something, I have to ask myself "but... will it work...?"

The same is true for 32-bit Vista since there were so many other changes since XP.
 

JustaGeek

Platinum Member
Jan 27, 2007
2,827
0
71
There is a lot of 16-bit installers used in the corporate environment. And a lot of "old" programs that we use at work, to calculate Wind Forces etc.

But that's not the OP's problem.

He wants to "upgrade" from Vista 32 to Vista 64.

IMO, it is totally redundant.

If he were to choose the OS for his brand new machine, I would probably say Vista 64.

But he is running Vista already - and if you can list the 64-bit drivers and programs working as a true 64-bit aplication, please do so.

Otherwise, it is just "cool" among us, geeks, to run the 64-bit OS. :)
 

JustaGeek

Platinum Member
Jan 27, 2007
2,827
0
71
An afterthought:


The best case scenario - the OP will not see ANY difference at all.

The worst case scenario - some of his programs will not work.


The choice is yours, clarkey01...
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
There is a lot of 16-bit installers used in the corporate environment. And a lot of "old" programs that we use at work, to calculate Wind Forces etc.

I can't say that I remember the last time that I've seen a 16-bit installer. But if you have old software that won't work on a 64-bit system you obviously want to stick to whatever environment in which the software does run.

He wants to "upgrade" from Vista 32 to Vista 64.

IMO, it is totally redundant.

It's not redundant, it's future-proofing his setup because chances are that sometime down the line, probably sooner rather than later, he'll have more reasons to run a 64-bit system.
 

Marty502

Senior member
Aug 25, 2007
497
0
0
Slight thread hijack:

Are there any utilities that will overclock an ATI video card in Vista 64? Nothing worked a few months ago for me, because of the required driver signing or whatever it was. Is there anything that can do it nowadays?
 

Griffinhart

Golden Member
Dec 7, 2004
1,130
1
76
Originally posted by: JustaGeek
There is no commercial Anti-Spyware program that works on Vista 64, besides Defender and Spybot.
Defender is actually pretty good. and combined with the sandboxing of IE, it helps a lot. Plus there are more as well. For Example:

Counterspy
AVG anti-spyware
Trend Micro's product
CA anti-spyware 2008

But yeah there is no commercial anti-spyware out there.


SpySweeper, Spyware Doctor, CA Anti Spyware do NOT work. Super AntiSpyware installs, but gives error messages in the Event Viewer, and is NOT compatible with Vista 64. Registry Mechanic does not work. Certain modules of Nero 6 work, but Express doesn't.

16-bit software does NOT work at all - and please don't tell me "who needs it", because some people do.

CA's does work with vista 64 now. Plus you already mentioned anti-spyware. Nero 8 works for it, however. Plus there are alternatives.

You are absolutely correct about 16-bit software not running under Vista 64 and some people still need that ability. I don't personally know anyone that does, but sure. 16bit programs started to be phased out 10 years ago?


I am generally happy with my Ultimate 64, but every time I try to install something, I have to ask myself "but... will it work...?"

Does he need that hassle when he goes back to school...? He has to answer that question for himself.

Vista 32 to Vista 64 is not and upgrade today, in January 2008.

It's not a big upgrade, I'll grant you that, but if he is going to run more than 4GB as he is planning to, Vista 32 is not the solution, period.


 

JustaGeek

Platinum Member
Jan 27, 2007
2,827
0
71
Defender just caused 2 bluescreens today - I just turned it on yesterday. Probably clashing with my NIS 2007. It happened when the computer was waking from sleep.

But that's not the "exclusive" 64-bit issue.

I asked for the applications running the true 64-bit code - no one answered.


I will now ask for the applications that are able to use more than 4GB of RAM.

I can stick 8GB in my MB - just so about 5GB will just sit there...?

Can you at least tell me if several 32-bit applications running simultaneously can venture in the area above 4Gb of physical memory...? Can the OS remap their "virtual" locaction, putting the 32-bit processes above the 4GB mark?

Does it really make sense to stuff your system with more than 4GB of RAM...?
 

Griffinhart

Golden Member
Dec 7, 2004
1,130
1
76
Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Defender just caused 2 bluescreens today - I just turned it on yesterday. Probably clashing with my NIS 2007. It happened when the computer was waking from sleep.

But that's not the "exclusive" 64-bit issue.

then why even bring it up? Of course it's not a 64 bit issue.

I asked for the applications running the true 64-bit code - no one answered.
You're right, there aren't many applications yet. Crysis is the only one that springs to mind at the moment. But, The option is there.

I will now ask for the applications that are able to use more than 4GB of RAM.

I can stick 8GB in my MB - just so about 5GB will just sit there...?

Can you at least tell me if several 32-bit applications running simultaneously can venture in the area above 4Gb of physical memory...? Can the OS remap their "virtual" locaction, putting the 32-bit processes above the 4GB mark?

Depends on the App. Photo editing software can. I often play Everquest 2, which will eat its share of RAM in windowed mode while running other applications. I do it all the time in fact.

Does it really make sense to stuff your system with more than 4GB of RAM...?

You don't even need to stuff a system with more than 4GB of RAM, Just 3. 4GB systems are becoming more and more common. If Vista 64 is as stable, possibly more than the 32 bit version, and he doesn't have any software or hardware compatibility issues, why would he waste the RAM by using a 32bit OS? Because a few Anti-spyware apps and 10 year old programs won't run?

I get it, you don't have a need for Vista 64. That's fine. But just because you feel that you wouldn't get a benefit from it doesn't make it useless. I've been running Vista 64 for about 4 months as my only OS, and I haven't run into a single problem due to running a 64bit OS. In fact, my experience has been that Vista 64 has been more stable than Vista 32. I have a friend that has shared the same experience.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
I asked for the applications running the true 64-bit code - no one answered.

Just about every package in Debian has a 64-bit port, that's over 20,000 packages right there. Which ones run on Windows, I can't say. But lack of 64-bit binaries isn't a reason to avoid a 64-bit OS since that OS runs 32-bit binaries just fine.

I will now ask for the applications that are able to use more than 4GB of RAM.

Any app that has a 64-bit binary so the questions are essentially the same.

Can you at least tell me if several 32-bit applications running simultaneously can venture in the area above 4Gb of physical memory...? Can the OS remap their "virtual" locaction, putting the 32-bit processes above the 4GB mark?

Of course.

Does it really make sense to stuff your system with more than 4GB of RAM...?

In most cases, yes. Even if you don't have apps that want that much memory yet the excess will be used by the filesystem cache.
 

ajwr

Junior Member
Nov 2, 2007
6
0
0
Just one comment on the abiltiy to get a 64 copy when you already have a 32...the OEM licenses are not interchangable, at least license-wise. So, if your Home Premium 32 is an OEM, then you would need to purchase a new license...MS will not give you a 64 DVD. If it's a retail copy, then yes, you can purchase for shipping costs a 64 DVD. I learned this the hard way from my PC manufacturer (Lenovo).
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Defender just caused 2 bluescreens today - I just turned it on yesterday. Probably clashing with my NIS 2007. It happened when the computer was waking from sleep.

But that's not the "exclusive" 64-bit issue.

I asked for the applications running the true 64-bit code - no one answered.


I will now ask for the applications that are able to use more than 4GB of RAM.

I can stick 8GB in my MB - just so about 5GB will just sit there...?

Can you at least tell me if several 32-bit applications running simultaneously can venture in the area above 4Gb of physical memory...? Can the OS remap their "virtual" locaction, putting the 32-bit processes above the 4GB mark?

Does it really make sense to stuff your system with more than 4GB of RAM...?

Hellgate London has 64 bit install option,Caretaker Antispam - 64bit software,O&O Defrag 10 has 64 bit version(I have it installed),7 Zip,nHancer 64 bit version,FAR Manager x64 version,Thunderbird 64 bit version,Firefox 64 bit version,SpeedCommander - x64 file manager,AutoIt x64 version,Window Clippings - x64 version,Free 64bit PDF Creator - PrimoPDF,O&O UnErase - 64bit version,Registry Clean Expert - x64,Domain Time II - 64bit version,LMCheck - 64bit version,I could go on etc.....

Anyway Start64 has all the 64 bit software download links. .


Defender just caused 2 bluescreens today - I just turned it on yesterday. Probably clashing with my NIS 2007. It happened when the computer was waking from sleep.


You can disable Defender real time scan,everybody knows Norton is so bloated and has had issues with operating systems period,I won't comment on the latest version since I don't use it,I never had a BSOD caused by Defender,infact can't remember what a Vista BSOD looks like.
 

QuixoticOne

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,855
0
0
Re: the usefulness of 64 bit.. well, of course if you have more than 3GB RAM
then it can probably help.

Re: 32 bit software running on a 64 bit OS gaining benefit, well, of course,
the main benefit of the RAM in a PC is mostly to cache the data that
would otherwise be read from or written (slowly) to disk. In that capacity
it speeds up the process just as a L2 cache speeds up a computer's CPU
versus having to read/write from the slower RAM all the time.

Of course SOME individual programs need to use several gigabytes of
memory BY THEMSELVES, and it's obvious that having 4GB+ memory and
a 64 bit OS can help in those cases. Photoshop, 3D rendering stuff,
large databases, whatever.

Spyware: Check out the free personal use versions of AVAST, as well as
COMODO, among others. They both do more than just basic "anti virus"
tasks, so they certainly help prevent against and detect spyware of various
kinds. They're both Vista 64 compatible AFAIK, i.e. they worked for me.
They probably do more "anti-spyware" type stuff than one would
suspect from their product descriptions, really, try and see.
The line between anti-malware / anti-spyware / anti-virus / firewall
is pretty blurry really and you have to see if individual programs
really are doing as good of a job as you expect they'll do.

Also the built in Windows Defender is probably decent enough for most
people's uses.

Let's face it if you do something really STUPID and
intentionally run a malware program on your PC, it's UNLIKELY any
Anti-Virus or Anti-Spyware program is going to save you from your own
foolishness.

If you are unlucky enough to get exploited by one of the
many malware programs out there that AV and AS tools DON'T detect,
again, you're done for.

By the time you even NEED anti-spyware
programs, that means you've ALREADY run malware code on your PC,
and whatever defenses of prudence / email protection / web protection /
whatever have ALREADY failed, and it's LIKELY you're going to get damaged
SOMEHOW by the malware even if it doesn't rootkit your whole PC, it
could cetainly already have erased all YOUR files or whatever by that time.

So IMHO Anti-Spyware is less important than having a good secure
browser / email / firewall suite, safe browsing / software installation habits,
good backups of your data, and good reduction of the amount of sensitive
data you do keep on your PC. If you're saying you really need something
much BETTER than Windows Firewall or Windows Defender to save you
on a routine basis, you're doing something very wrong to get to that point
of vulnerability.

For commercial (paid) solutions, check Kaspersky Internet Security,
and also Avast's Pro. product, for instance.

Again, I'm running 8GB RAM on Vista 64, and while I have a long list
of grievances against Vista in general, I can't complain that it's working
poorly in 64 bit, because it's working well and using my memory as
well as I'd expect it to be able to do so. Certainly better than a 32 bit OS!

Vista is using around 2GB of RAM just sitting there without much any
software loaded, just the OS and its services after the machine has been
used a bit. It's certainly not uncommon for me to be able to push 3GB or
4GB in use with a web browser, some office programs, PDF readers, and
so on in serious use. Firefox 2.x alone can use like 1GB if you have a bunch
of stuff open.

4GB of DIMMs is about $75, and not much more
expensive than buying big ReadyBoost flash drives or extra-fast hard
discs, and the memory overall is much more effective as speeding routine
workflow up than either of those other options would be.

Of course doing heavy GIMP / Photoshop / Blender / PovRay /
SQL database / etc. stuff will happily use as much memory as you
could possibly provide, the more the better.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/1033/ordermedia
That's where you can get the 64 bit install media disc from Microsoft
if you already have a retail / upgrade version of the 32 bit Vista.
IDK in what circumstances that may be useful / available for OEM
software versions.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: Nothinman
There is a lot of 16-bit installers used in the corporate environment. And a lot of "old" programs that we use at work, to calculate Wind Forces etc.

I can't say that I remember the last time that I've seen a 16-bit installer. But if you have old software that won't work on a 64-bit system you obviously want to stick to whatever environment in which the software does run.
Unfortunately 16-bit installers stuck around far longer than they should have simply because they worked on 32bit systems and there wasn't a need for any of the Win32 API for "just" an installer. That said however Microsoft wasn't stupid and realized this. Vista x64 recognizes a number of common 16-bit installers and substitutes a working version on the fly, so applications using a 16-bit installer should still install correctly.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Re: the usefulness of 64 bit.. well, of course if you have more than 3GB RAM
then it can probably help.

Probably? Considering that your options are to either lose that memory or run another OS like a copy of 64-bit Windows, Windows Server Enterprise, Linux, FreeBSD, etc then I'd say yea, it'll help.

Again, I'm running 8GB RAM on Vista 64, and while I have a long list of grievances against Vista in general, I can't complain that it's working poorly in 64 bit, because it's working well and using my memory as well as I'd expect it to be able to do so. Certainly better than a 32 bit OS!

That's a poor conclusion to draw. The only thing Vista64 is doing better than it's 32-bit counterpart is allowing you to use the memory. If MS hadn't crippled Vista32 it would be able to use the memory just as well as Vista64.