PDA

View Full Version : Vista 32-bit vs. Vista 64-bit


Pages : [1] 2

Kain
04-21-08, 12:57 PM
I'm sure this question has been asked before but I wanted a poll version. :p

Revs
04-21-08, 01:00 PM
I see no benefit using 32bit at all. There's nothing I use that doesn't work as well or better with x64 over x86.

Absolution
04-21-08, 01:07 PM
why bother with 32bit anymore? Only if you have 4gigs plus though

XDanger
04-21-08, 01:08 PM
yeah 64, might as well.

mullet
04-21-08, 01:14 PM
64 FTSHWIN.

einstein_314
04-21-08, 02:40 PM
Sigh...how many of these 32bit vs 64bit threads do we need? Sure a poll is nice......

I voted 64bit. Microsoft was stupid to even make a 32bit version. I mean....who doesn't have a 64bit processor these days.....that's right. Nobody. And if they don't, they wouldn't be able to run vista anyways because their computer is too dated. Sure 64bit uses a bit more RAM, but that's the cost of progress. That's how it has always been.

mcolbourn
04-22-08, 02:55 AM
I went over to 64bit last November when I upgraded to 4GB. But I have just moved my Wife’s PC over to Vista and went straight for the 64bit version. I have found no problems with running a 64bit OS and in fact I am sure it is more stable and I have always been able to get out of a crashed 32bit program without having to reset the whole PC.

nekrosoft13
04-22-08, 06:29 AM
i been testing 64bit vista since early 2006, once vista went RTM i moved my main PC to vista 64bit and never looked back

releasing 32bit vista was a big mistake

dxx
04-22-08, 07:16 AM
Agreement with all the 64bit voters.

The only killer feature of Vista for me, and I guess a lot of the guys who are like me in that they run apps that utilise obscene amounts of memory, is its ability to address more than 3.25GB of RAM in its 64bit format. The rest of the features (which basically amount to some trivial and largely irrelevant security tweaks and a flashier UI) are nice, but none of it is worth the performance hit. Without 64bit, Vista isn't a step forward, more just a (very expensive, troublesome, and altogether pointless) step to the side. I can only guess that they released 32bit Vista to soften the transition and to sell double the licenses ultimately, since with 4GB costing as little as £44 (and probably the same but in dollars in the US), a lot of people are going to be upgrading well beyond the limits of 32bit.

ViN86
04-22-08, 08:11 AM
i hate that you have to use digitally signed drivers with Vista 64-bit. so i voted 32-bit.

Wolfhound
04-22-08, 08:19 AM
Since I installed Windows Xp x64 and after Vista x64 upgrade, I had never returned to 32 bits, my linux partition is 64 bit too.

mcbacker
04-22-08, 08:20 AM
64 cause i need 4GB available...

MC

nekrosoft13
04-22-08, 08:37 AM
i hate that you have to use digitally signed drivers with Vista 64-bit. so i voted 32-bit.

i only see a problem with peerguardian. everything else works

ViN86
04-22-08, 09:49 AM
i only see a problem with peerguardian. everything else works
i still dont understand why only vista 64 needs digitally signed drivers.

Nza
04-22-08, 09:58 AM
I agree MS should have stuck to 64bit only, but on the other hand, they DO have a product to sell - Vista has been received poorly enough with 32bit out there, imagine if all anyone had was 64bit and its well documented driver issues for some devices (particularly initially). Vista would have started even worse.

Sure, they could have taken one for the team by making it 64bit, effectively speeding up the mainstream PC industry's take of 64bit as a standard, but making a 32bit variation obviously made economical sense to them - minimal effort, for a better return than if they went 64bit only.

I heard "Windows 7" will also have a 32bit variation, but I guess any details this early about that are to be taken with a grain of salt.

Yaboze
04-22-08, 10:06 AM
I was a bit apprenhensive about going with Vista Ultimate x64, but I did it a few months ago and haven't looked back.

I just can't see going with Vista 32bit on a AMD X2 or Intel Core 2 Duo/Quad system, you're better off going with good old XP for speed and compatability.

So for me, the only real choice (aside from the Linux fans out there) is Windows XP 32bit or Vista 64bit. There's nothing that Vista 32bit does that 64bit can't.

brady
04-22-08, 12:21 PM
64's FTW. As an aside, I just got my Technet subscribtion today! Technet FTW!!!

jcrox
04-22-08, 12:32 PM
I agree MS should have stuck to 64bit only, but on the other hand, they DO have a product to sell - Vista has been received poorly enough with 32bit out there, imagine if all anyone had was 64bit and its well documented driver issues for some devices (particularly initially). Vista would have started even worse.

Sure, they could have taken one for the team by making it 64bit, effectively speeding up the mainstream PC industry's take of 64bit as a standard, but making a 32bit variation obviously made economical sense to them - minimal effort, for a better return than if they went 64bit only.

I heard "Windows 7" will also have a 32bit variation, but I guess any details this early about that are to be taken with a grain of salt.

There are still a lot of people out there with Pentium 4 processors, a real lot. If they went 64bit only that would exclude all of the P4 people from using it wouldn't it??

x64 all the way 4 me :)

Bman212121
04-22-08, 12:49 PM
There are still a lot of people out there with Pentium 4 processors, a real lot. If they went 64bit only that would exclude all of the P4 people from using it wouldn't it??

x64 all the way 4 me :)

This is true, but chances are if you only have a P4 that isn't x64 compatible you probably have 512MB of ram or less, so Vista won't run well anyway. I just looked it up and Intel started putting x64 on their P4 6xx series (3GHZ+) over 3 years ago.

Redeemed
04-22-08, 01:01 PM
i been testing 64bit vista since early 2006, once vista went RTM i moved my main PC to vista 64bit and never looked back

releasing 32bit vista was a big mistake

Really? How so? It seems that you're implying MS would have sold significantly more copies of Vista and it's overall adoption would have been a lot greater if they didn't release the 32-bit version... which is 100% unrealistic and couldn't be further from the truth.

When Vista first released, a large portion of OEM's computers only had 512MB of RAM... can you imagine how sluggish it'd be with Vista x64? Now most OEMs offer no less than 1GB of RAM. Even at that Vista x64 would be far from responsive. If MS hadn't released a 32-bit version then Vista would have been the biggest flop in the history of personal computing. People dog it now, there be no end to the complaints from average Joe's. Heck, I've got people on a daily basis coming into the store asking if I can install Vista on their rig that's running Windows98. It's already hard enough explaining to the why it wouldn't work and that they'd be best suited getting a new computer.

If Vista were released as 64-bit only, it'd have been a niche product for a niche market. It'd never have become mainstream.

tjohn
04-22-08, 01:15 PM
If Vista were released as 64-bit only, it'd have been a niche product for a niche market. It'd never have become mainstream.

I Agree completely

ViN86
04-22-08, 02:41 PM
This is true, but chances are if you only have a P4 that isn't x64 compatible you probably have 512MB of ram or less, so Vista won't run well anyway. I just looked it up and Intel started putting x64 on their P4 6xx series (3GHZ+) over 3 years ago.
yes, Intel began implementing EMT64 on its processors a while ago, starting in the P4 era.

Redeemed
04-22-08, 03:59 PM
yes, Intel began implementing EMT64 on its processors a while ago, starting in the P4 era.
Most consumers (at the time of Vista's release) didn't have one of the EMT64 P4s. And even for those that did, having a 64-bit capable processor does not guarantee that a 64-bit OS will run smooth as butter. When Vista was released most new computers came with 512MB of RAM. Take the fastest of x64 processor and bottleneck it with only 512MB of RAM... it'll be very unresponsive in a 64-bit environment just doing the most basic of tasks. Forget gaming, or even the slightest hint of multi-tasking. Not gonna' happen.

Though I do understand why ya'll want a flat out 64-bit OS that isn't 32-bit at all... it just isn't practical... yet.

By the time Windows7 is out it just might be feasable. But it's purely rediculous to think it'd be logical to make Vista purely 64-bit without at 32-bit version.

Ya'll gotta' look beyond the confines of forums like this one. Most computer users don't even know what a "computer forum" is.

MattWrenn
04-22-08, 04:09 PM
Most computer users don't know what x64 is for that matter.
Sure the pros outweight the cons with x64, but soon enough x86 will be burried with the 386 486 PI II III IV's of the day.

boxterduke
04-23-08, 11:45 AM
What's best to get?, ultimate 64 or home premium 64?
And if you recoment ultimate, is it worth the extra cost?
Thanks