V32 or V64?

[pharma]

I'm building a new rig based on an Intel quad core CPU and 4 gig ram. I'm a bit confused as to which OS I should go for. What are the advantages/disadvantages of V64? ( I do run a number of freeware and older applications.) Thanks.

 

[rudder]

How old are you talking? 16 bit programs don't work on XP64 so I do not think they would run on Vista64. But there is always Virtual PC. Vista64 is nice if you have the ram and you can actually utilize it. There are few 64 programs out there that will. I use 8gb ram for running photoshop, which is a 32 bit program. It has its own 32 bit memory limitations even though it is run on a 64 bit OS, but I can utilize the extra RAM in other areas and the overall performance of photoshop is improved.

You just have to decide whether that is worth the hassle. I run XP64 and I have run into a couple of issues such as my filezilla and quicktime for IE not working. But there are other ftp programs that do work and 3rd party solutions for quicktime. With Vista64 there maybe those issues, but I think it is the future. More development for Vista64 than xp64. I have even heard Photoshop cs4 will be 64 bit.

I have got a copy of vista64.. and hopefully I can get some time to installing it here in the near future.

 

[gpse]

I Would go 64-bit Vista, I'm running it and i love it. It's more future proof, and can take advantage of 4gb+ ram. I also find it crashes less and seems peppier than 32bit vista

 

[Scotteq]

In My Humble Opinion - The cries about Vista 64 (Vista in general, really) are based mostly on misunderstanding, disinformation and the ever present "Little Chicken Syndrome". Yes, it had some teething problems - (and these are/were nothing compared to XP at release, but that's a longer span of time than the Internet's collective memory, apparently) - and at release there were some key vendors who didn't step up with reliable/working drivers. Top examplese here are that Creative didn't release any that worked for a year, nVidia's drivers could cause problems, and many were just plain inefficient to begin with - causing performance loss. But a year and a half and a service pack later, these have been ironed out to great extent.


A little reality:

If you have very old programs and/or accessories around, you may have problems getting them to work with Vista (whether 32 or 64 is irrelevant here). For new programs/peripherals, to get the Microsoft label, they *must* run on both V32 and V64.

16 bit programs and programs with a 16 bit installer will not run on Vista. Support for 16 bit programming has been removed from the OS. So this is a no-go, unless you have some good virtualization software that can do that for you.

32 bit programs with 32 bit installers WILL run. Occasionally, you may need to specify a compatibility mode (Right click, Properties, etc...).

User Access control is annoying, but can be shut off.

If you like to play with shareware/freeware, Vista 64 requires signed digital certificates and will not allow a program to run without one.

There is still no 64 bit version of Flash Player, but you can run the 32 bit version perfectly well in a 32 bit browser (I use Firefox)

There aren't a lot of native 64 bit applications around. But Vista 64 runs 32 bit apps perfectly well. I have yet to install one that *didn't* work, though like other posters here I don't use old versions/software.


I've been running Vista 64 for close to a year now, and ran Vista 32 before that for a couple months - In my experience, 64 is clearly the more robust operating system. The simple example there being that no application failure has ever taken 64 bit Vista down since I made the change.

 

[George P Burdell]

Do a search, there are several threads on this forum that have already discussed your question.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: George P Burdell
Do a search, there are several threads on this forum that have already discussed your question.

more like several hundreds.

 

[toadeater]

Originally posted by: gpse
I Would go 64-bit Vista, I'm running it and i love it. It's more future proof

Vista's EOL is 2010, no matter which version you use. Maybe MS will offer an upgrade of some sort like they usually do.

 

[tallman45]

You may as well use V64 as you have 4gb ram, it will actually use all the 4gb's, Vista 32 will not

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: toadeater

Originally posted by: gpse
I Would go 64-bit Vista, I'm running it and i love it. It's more future proof

Vista's EOL is 2010, no matter which version you use. Maybe MS will offer an upgrade of some sort like they usually do.

No more EOL than XP was when Vista came out. They may stop selling Vista 18 months after Windows 7(middle of 2011). But patches and updates will continue for years after.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Scotteq
16 bit programs and programs with a 16 bit installer will not run on Vista. Support for 16 bit programming has been removed from the OS. So this is a no-go, unless you have some good virtualization software that can do that for you.

A minor correction to that statement: support for 16bit programs has indeed been dropped, but for 16bit installers in particular it's not that clear. Microsoft has accounted for 16bit installers since they were (stupidly) used with 32bit applications, and as a result Vista64 can run some (less than "most", more than "a few") 16bit installers by replacing them with a working installer. Any major 32bit apps that came with a 16bit installer should install just fine.