• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

vista x64

N

ncage

Golden Member
Ok i know im going to get some slack from this but i dont' care. I am running Vista x64. I have been running it since it was RTM and i gotta say i love it. Most of the applications i had problems with initially have been fixed (VS 2005) and to tell you the truth this is the most stable version of windows i have yet to run. I've only had a few crashes and i never shut my computer down. Also this is on a highly OC system (e6400 c2d at 3.8ghz) which makes it even that more amazing. You year those moans and groans about vista is only windows xp with new flashy interface (aero) which is BS.....i know because im a programmer and there is a world of possibilities with vista. Yes vista does use a lot more memory but i think some of that memory is used to make your system more responsive. What good is memory that is not being used? Microsoft has been getting better and better with thier OSs. It started getting Better with Windows 2000, then xp was a little better than 2000 (especially with sp2), and now i agree with them that this is the best version of windows yet. I read an article on slashdot something to the sound of "vista is the most unstable version of windows yet" which i KNOW is BS. What kind of crap hardware would they using? Of course what more can you expect from a linux lover news site. I am not downing Unix/Linux or the varients because i also like linux/freebsd/openbsd/ect and they definably have their uses but this this bickering back and forth between MS and Unix variant is just not helpful at all and i look at all these "studies" with a grain of salt.

Ncage
 
Yep,

Vista 64 is awesome. I don't know many ppl that switch back. I also run Vista 32 on my laptop. It seems more sluggish and jittery than my desktop running Vista 64. It could just be the hardware it's running on (But realy, a 1.73 Ghz Core Duo + 2 GB RAM should be plenty for Vista 32)

If your stuff has drivers for Vista 64, I don't know why one would pick the 32 bit version.
 
While I like the look and feel of Vista, I swiched back. Nvidia drivers are very lacking for Vista, lost 1080p support, so my monitors native resolution is no longer supported. Still no drivers for my sound card, not even Beta. Too many issues for it to even be usable to me.
 
I love my Vista x64 too,excellent stability ,no compatibility problems plus I have all the 64 bit drivers for my hardware,can't get much better then that ,until DX10 games arrive 😉.
 
I am considering switching my version of Vista32 to Vista64, since I Have a new machine on the way. Is it true that applications use more memory in vista64 than they would in the 32bit version? It seems I remember reading that somewhere here.

The new system will have 4gigs of ram instead of the 2gigs I am running now, but I am just curious.
 
I am enjoying my Vista x64 experience. Other than some minor driver-related glitches in the beginning, everything has worked properly. Vista's improved caching makes it more responsive and quicker than XP x64 on my system. Thanks to the caching, the 4GB of RAM is put to much better use during the 90% of the time that I don't have a 800MB layered PSD open in Photoshop. 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top