Vista Question

[flexy]

Ok, keep this short:

New build soon, 2CD, Vista, dual channel of course.


a) Vista32 bit 2x2GB ram and only 3.12GB addressable by OS, but better compatibility

b) Vista 64bit 2x2GB ram and all 4GB used by OS....but lower compatibility and lower performance in Games...

What would you do ?

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: flexy
Ok, keep this short:

New build soon, C2D, Vista.


a) Vista32 bit 2x2GB ram and only 3.12GB addressable by OS, but better compatibility

b) Vista 64bit 2x2GB ram and all 4GB used by OS....but lower compatibility and lower performance in Games...

What would you do ?

Just don't do it.

 

[MrChad]

Search

 

[SandEagle]

64bit. vista funs great with 4gb. 64bit drivers are becoming more and more available........

 

[corkyg]

There are several threads on this topic in the past week. Here's one:

X64

Makes yourself a matrix. Put the plus and minuses of each on ity and weigh the net advantange or disadvantage. A lot depends on exactly how you use your computer.

 

[brencat]

@ flexy

I just put together the system in my sig 2 days ago and I too had to make a choice. Right now, I'm using Vista 32 (retail version, not OEM) to guarantee maximum compatibility and may request the 64 bit disks later next year once SP1 is released.

I have to say so far I like Vista a lot more than I thought I would. My PC boots really fast (OCing helps too) and annoyances are minor. Turned off UAC and automatic updates right after the OS was installed. Haven't started gaming yet as am testing system and trying to get OC stable first.

 

[ZappDogg]

64 bit. Don't turn off updates, there are quite a few that update compatibility and stability.

If you can find drivers for all of your devices, there's absolutely no reason to NOT go 64 bit.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: ZappDogg
64 bit. Don't turn off updates, there are quite a few that update compatibility and stability.

If you can find drivers for all of your devices, there's absolutely no reason to NOT go 64 bit.

I agree. If you can find drivers for your hardware, 64bit is the way to go. It's hardware driver support where 64 bit has compatibility issues. I haven't run into any software issues as of yet.

I moved to 64 bit last month when I upgraded my PC. No problems at all and it's been extremely stable.

Btw, Vista 64 doesn't run games any slower than Vista 32.
http://www.firingsquad.com/har...nce_update/default.asp

I've been starting to read reports that Crysis runs faster under 64 than 32 as well.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: ZappDogg
64 bit. Don't turn off updates, there are quite a few that update compatibility and stability.

If you can find drivers for all of your devices, there's absolutely no reason to NOT go 64 bit.

More or less true,however remember you can't install or use any 16 bit software in Vista x64, for most users including myself this is not an issue.

I would go Vista x64(infact I did back in January) providing you have the drivers for your hardware and are not going to use any very old 16 bit software.

Side note : game wise speed between Vista x64 and x68 is within a few frames so not an issue .

 

[Noema]

I've been using Vista 64bit for six months and it's very solid. Performance in games is just a hair behind XP.

As far as compatibility with devices goes, my only problem is my Line 6 guitar modeling hardware, which has no 64-bit drivers (XP64 is out of luck too). Other than that everything works like it should.

 

[flexy]

i had (still have) vista 64bit on a partition on my HD on the current old PC...but this was some time ago when it just came out RC, drivers were sparse there and buggy....i expect them better now.

My main concern actually is gaming performance. Will do some searches there and see what i come wup with.

 

[emfiend]

I had an old Photosmart 1xxx series printer that HP no longer supported. Yet I still went with x64 and bought a new pixma printer that costs less than I paid for the photosmart and will be cheaper to use (more/cheaper inks). 4GB is nice if you can use all of it. It seems if you're willing to spend the money on an entirely new computer, the few accessories that would be incompatible are easily replaced. Besides, the replacement would probably offer a significant performance/cost advantage over the old stuff anyway.

 

[KeypoX]

people seem to assume that the problem with 64bit vista is windows fault. The problem is not everyone has taken the time to make their stuff compat with 64bit. Only problem i found was that my VPN software didnt work which was a deal breaker oh and my mobo not happy with 4 slots taken up

 

[VirtualLarry]

Just remember that Vista x64 doesn't run any 16-bit software. Many old apps use a 16-bit installer executable, unfortunately. IMHO, MS made a big mistake leaving out 16-bit compatibility. It's not like it would have cost them anything. (Both Vista x86 and x64 are based off of the same code base, and Vista x86 still has 16-bit compatibility.)

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Just remember that Vista x64 doesn't run any 16-bit software. Many old apps use a 16-bit installer executable, unfortunately. IMHO, MS made a big mistake leaving out 16-bit compatibility. It's not like it would have cost them anything. (Both Vista x86 and x64 are based off of the same code base, and Vista x86 still has 16-bit compatibility.)

32bit apps took over about 13 or so years ago. I dont think I've used a 16-bit app in about 10.

If you're still using a 16-bit app, youre probably well aware of it. I cant think of any 16-bit apps that are even slightly relevant but perhaps an internal custom program.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: flexy
i had (still have) vista 64bit on a partition on my HD on the current old PC...but this was some time ago when it just came out RC, drivers were sparse there and buggy....i expect them better now.

My main concern actually is gaming performance. Will do some searches there and see what i come wup with.

I can say from my own experience that there is zero *perceptible* difference in performance between 32 and 64 with today's drivers. You might be able to benchmark a slight difference here or there, but its absolutely nothing that you'll actually notice while playing.

Believe me, I am a total frame rate whore, I can even tell the diff between 50fps and 60fps by eye. I'd never even consider x64 or even Vista in general if there was a real difference.

 

[Build it Myself]

I'm running 64bit with 4gigs and i'm very pleased, the occasional crash here and there, but hey, this is Microsoft, what do you expect.

Go with 64, it's the future

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Build it Myself
I'm running 64bit with 4gigs and i'm very pleased, the occasional crash here and there, but hey, this is Microsoft, what do you expect.

Honestly, no crashes.

Do you get a bluescreen and a reboot when you get the crashes? If so, read my website, go to the Bluescreens section, and download the Microsoft debugger and analyze your dumpfiles. If you like, post the results of '!analyze -v' here and we can tell you why your box is crashing (assuming you don't already see.)

 

[nerp]

Been running Vista since Jan 31 and haven't had a single crash. None.

 

[flexy]

k..i think this settles this thx!!

 

[Build it Myself]

let me correct that, not system crashes with the BSOD, just "program stopped responding, checking for solutions" that kind of stuff. Typically with games or IE (though the 64bit IE has never crashed on me yet).

Sorry for the misinformation.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Build it Myself
let me correct that, not system crashes with the BSOD, just "program stopped responding, checking for solutions" that kind of stuff. Typically with games or IE (though the 64bit IE has never crashed on me yet).

Sorry for the misinformation.

If applications are crashing (and IE shouldn't crash; I'm guessing it's a third party plug-in; that would be easy enough to test) how is that the fault of Microsoft?

I'm all for blaming if blaming's due, but most if not all of that doesn't sound like Microsoft's fault.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: dclive

Originally posted by: Build it Myself
let me correct that, not system crashes with the BSOD, just "program stopped responding, checking for solutions" that kind of stuff. Typically with games or IE (though the 64bit IE has never crashed on me yet).

Sorry for the misinformation.

If applications are crashing (and IE shouldn't crash; I'm guessing it's a third party plug-in; that would be easy enough to test) how is that the fault of Microsoft?

I'm all for blaming if blaming's due, but most if not all of that doesn't sound like Microsoft's fault.

I have to agree,personally its very hard for my Vista x64 to crash since I have only seen it crash in two of my games ie "The Witcher"(well known problem so not Vista's fault),you have to take into account I have over 40 games installed and various software programs too,so that says a lot for Vista's stability.

Game wise its normally either driver,overclocked video card or game itself like for example "The Witcher" here. (Side note I fixed my Witcher problem by running in Windowed mode).

If you're still using a 16-bit app, youre probably well aware of it. I cant think of any 16-bit apps that are even slightly relevant but perhaps an internal custom program.

Having no 16 bit legacy support makes Vista x64 less bloated and more stable from what I have read,personally I 'll be amazed if people still run 16 bit software,end of the day 99% of the old 16 bit software has been upgraded to 32 bit version over the years.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Mem
Having no 16 bit legacy support makes Vista x64 less bloated and more stable from what I have read,personally I 'll be amazed if people still run 16 bit software,end of the day 99% of the old 16 bit software has been upgraded to 32 bit version over the years.

Seriously. You cant have 15+ year software and hardware backward compatibility and not have bloat.

I personally wish theyd start over nearly completely from scratch like OSX, but at the end of the day, thats only practical when you have such a closed hardware ecosystem like apple.

People would have a much bigger problem with a total lack of hardware support than higher mem usage and a few bugs that need to be ironed out.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: BD2003
I personally wish theyd start over nearly completely from scratch like OSX, but at the end of the day, thats only practical when you have such a closed hardware ecosystem like apple.

Apple did it right, but they did keep Classic (MacOS 9) support around until fairly recently, and they *still* have PPC emulation for OS X applications running on Intel.

And bear in mind that OS X itself is borrowed, in huge, massive chunks, from several Unix variants.