windows vista 32/64 bit
- Thread starter Doox
- Start date
Soldato
It's very simple. People presume that because most stuff works in 64bit OS there is actually advantage of running such OS.
That's not quite right. It's not the way it works.
First - let's get it out of the way - the drivers issue. x64 needs signed drivers, safe drivers, slow drivers. A year on from introduction of Vista most x64 drivers lag behind 32 bit counterparts by a mile.
Secondly. The 64bit. What do you actually have that truelly, properly, works as 64bit code, under 64bit OS and provides any advantage by doing so? 99.9% of everything you run in your x64 Vista is very, very sloppy, unoptimized 32bit code without as much as multiprocessor support, let alone 64 bit memory addressing etc. It's just that this time around you run in in compatibility mode under emulation. And those emulated apps will not and can not use any more memory than they could under 32bit OS, don't take any notice of the larger 64-bit address spaces and couldn't care less for wider 64-bit CPU registers.
So what exactly is the advantage of x64 OS on your desktop in 2007, bar potential compatibility problems, slowdowns related to running bigger OS overheads, slow drivers and rushed, lame betas of 64 bit apps? Games are slower. Apps are slower. One or two benchmark progs runs tad faster. You want apps and games to run faster, you don't have any programms that need to use more than 3Gb of memory then 32bit is still the OS to go for. For that to change you need programmers and coders actually willing to do something with 64bits and market to have need for it. And neither at the moment care about 64bit. Even Microsoft don't plan to optimize stuff like Office 2007 for 64bit at any point in the near future...
So yes. You can run 64bit Vista, and it will run stuff. But you will not see any factual advantages of running 64bit system for at least next 5 years. And 32 bit equivalent, despite memory limits, will be faster in most applications. By default.
Last edited:
Soldato
Well, it's not native in strict sense of the word - Window on Windows is still effectively 32-bit emulation layer, which is partially why you can't run 32bit drivers under Vista x64 or, for example upgrade 32bit Vista to 64bit "on the fly".
Last edited:
cpu's run 32bit natively.. Yes x64 drivers need to be signed unless you disable it. But there not slow or sloppy. you get no noticiable drop in 32 bit applications.
And yes I do run 64bit software
7-zip
Paint .net
Avast
SQL server
Visual studios
But thats not the main point. as time goes on more and more will be 64bit. So either you buy retail or you will have to but another os in a few months/years. Depending when you need to make the switch.
I'm also pretty sure Winamp has an Ipod plugin.
It's about future security, while having next to no difference currently.
And yes I do run 64bit software
7-zip
Paint .net
Avast
SQL server
Visual studios
But thats not the main point. as time goes on more and more will be 64bit. So either you buy retail or you will have to but another os in a few months/years. Depending when you need to make the switch.
I'm also pretty sure Winamp has an Ipod plugin.
It's about future security, while having next to no difference currently.
Unlike you I don't swallow what people say. I find out first hand. some thing perhaps you should try.
Soldato
64 bit, 32 can limit your ram to even below 3gb if you have 4, for me a 32 bit os limits me to 2096 mb of ramn, hardly more than my 2x1gb.
64 bit is a bit faster if an app is made for it, and not slower otherwise.
Noticed to real problems except for my cheap*** sweex webcam wich lacked 64 bit drivers. 32 bit is just plain annoying as I have 2 of 4 gb standing around doing nothing.
Since drivers only get WHQL if they work for 32 and 64 bit Vista, I see no reason why anyone should pick 32 bit instead of take this oppertunity to upgrade to 64.
Apple users shouldn't go for 32 because of this, but should instead, massively complain & demand for drivers to Apple.
The difference is negligable though, and 4 GB is needed in some instances, Supreme commander in some occasions on big maps needs to have the .exe edited so it can use more as 2 gb ram, and this is only possible in 64 bit mode, otehrwise you will notice hdd lag.
Also you seem to mention 3gb, well, I can't get more as 2096 mb in XP coz of the stupid 32 bit limitation.
And I do occasionally run out of ram space having to use slow virtual ram on my hdd's.
64 bit is a bit faster if an app is made for it, and not slower otherwise.
Noticed to real problems except for my cheap*** sweex webcam wich lacked 64 bit drivers. 32 bit is just plain annoying as I have 2 of 4 gb standing around doing nothing.
Since drivers only get WHQL if they work for 32 and 64 bit Vista, I see no reason why anyone should pick 32 bit instead of take this oppertunity to upgrade to 64.
Apple users shouldn't go for 32 because of this, but should instead, massively complain & demand for drivers to Apple.
The difference is negligable though, and 4 GB is needed in some instances, Supreme commander in some occasions on big maps needs to have the .exe edited so it can use more as 2 gb ram, and this is only possible in 64 bit mode, otehrwise you will notice hdd lag.
Also you seem to mention 3gb, well, I can't get more as 2096 mb in XP coz of the stupid 32 bit limitation.
And I do occasionally run out of ram space having to use slow virtual ram on my hdd's.
Last edited:
Soldato
Far Cry (although old) has a 64-bit version available, think WoW also is if supported.
Probably the best example of some games being 64-bit is Source-based games like HL2. I'm sure there are more than just those 3 mentioned, however I wanted to prove that even games developers are starting to take 64-bit architecture seriously now.
Probably the best example of some games being 64-bit is Source-based games like HL2. I'm sure there are more than just those 3 mentioned, however I wanted to prove that even games developers are starting to take 64-bit architecture seriously now.
Soldato
Some of us like to multitask & 2GB of ram = swapout to HD & is slow & unresponsive.
Even AltTab out of some games take an age on XPPro before you could do anything else.
But on Vista64 & 4GB of ram..boom its done.
Soldato
This is 7 months old now so the gap will be even closer now.
from the first page of the Vista v XP tests & more further on
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/431/19/
Last edited:
Soldato
No reason to not get 64bit. 
Soldato
Being a bit pedantic, but without looking through the entire article, at no point on that page does it state whether the Vista benchmark is done on x64 or x86.
When I use Vista x64 the ATi drivers were fine. Exactly as in XP. There might be a few frames out of a hundred dropped, but I'd never ever tell without benchmarking.
The only application which I use which doesn't work properly in Vista x64 is Sony Vegas 7. That's it. And that's because of a Microsoft system (MSDE).
Wasn't aware iTunes doesn't work though - that's completely unforgivable. Still, there are ways to install it by the looks of it. Why Apple hasn't simply muddled their way around it I've no idea. Even my sister could do this, so it's got to be simple enough to do through Windows Installer, surely?
Last edited:
Associate
Don't understand the iTunes not working bit. My daughter got an iPod for Christmas and I downloaded iTunes and it works just fine unless I am missing something.
iTunes won't work on vista 64 bit. You are most likely using a 32bit version of vista.
I run Vista x64 Business here; iTunes works fine (v7.5) with my iPod Nano (3rd gen) 8gb.
Does spit an error about CD burning on start-up, but clicking OK just bypasses that...
Soldato
I have an old socket 939 system which I am pushing to the max, hoping to avoid an upgrade as long as possible
I currently run XP Pro 32 bit and 4gb of ram. It only detects 3.2Gb or so. I have an opteron X2 64bit and am tempted to get an OEM copy of vista 64 so that I will be both able to use the full 4gb and also will have a nice OS to take along to my next system build.
However, remember reading ages ago that OEM copies can only be licenced on one machine....if you rebuild you have to re-buy the OS. Is this still correct? If I buy the OEM version of Vista 64 ultimate and install it on my 939 machine will I be stuffed if I want to rebuild my PC with a whole new setup?
I currently run XP Pro 32 bit and 4gb of ram. It only detects 3.2Gb or so. I have an opteron X2 64bit and am tempted to get an OEM copy of vista 64 so that I will be both able to use the full 4gb and also will have a nice OS to take along to my next system build.
However, remember reading ages ago that OEM copies can only be licenced on one machine....if you rebuild you have to re-buy the OS. Is this still correct? If I buy the OEM version of Vista 64 ultimate and install it on my 939 machine will I be stuffed if I want to rebuild my PC with a whole new setup?
Soldato
Well they're not presuming that, it is quite simply a fact. x64 is more secure, faster and more stable.v0n said:
It is more secure because of both enhancements to the kernel support of AMD64 (i.e. the NX bit) but also because of new features such as Address Space Layout Randomisation (a new kernel-based security feature in Vista).
It is faster because it has a 64-bit word length, allowing large number calculations to be performed in a single clock cycle rather than the 2 (and sometimes 4) that are required on 32-bit operating systems/processors. It supports more physical memory allowing better performance and caching of data.
It is more stable because of enhancements done to the kernel's object manager. No longer is it limited to giving out USER, GDI and KERNEL handles up to 65535. It can now go all the way up to the 64-bit word length. So gone are the days that the Windows desktop breaks because you have got too many applications/windows open. I suspect you've never heard of this problem - Google it. It's actually surprisingly common.
It's also more stable because it only allows signed drivers to be installed. So it prevents people installing drivers for every dodgy little freeware application they find which is liable to crash their PC.
Whewww, slow down there. Why did you just post-fix those two points (safe and slow) to the fact that it needs signed drivers? I trust you know what a signed driver actually is and aren't just spurting crap you've pick up and pieced together from many dodgy websites? Let me explain. A signed driver is no different to any other driver. They are written in the same way. Hell it might even be a beta unstable driver. But before they publish it on their website, they sign it with their code signing certificate (usually obtained from Verisign). This is effectively an encrypted signature to provide an authenticity check at the client PC to prove that the driver hasn't been tampered with and that it comes from the correct publisher that the user is expecting.v0n said:
Signed drivers don't affect performance at all. Yes at boot up the kernel checks each driver that it loads to ensure that it is correctly signed and validated. This takes about 0.05sec per driver, if that. Assymmetric encryption is very fast these days.
That's correct. 32-bit applications under 64-bit Windows will not really see any gain. But nor do they see any loss. It isn't emulation that is being performed. At least not the type of emulation that people relate to being "slow". Windows On Windows 64 (WOW64) is more of a wrapper than an emulator. Basically the key thing that it does is that when a 32-bit thread needs to be scheduled to run on the processor it will set the processor back into 32-bit mode (using a AMD64 instruction), then the thread is allowed to execute, and then when it has finished or its quantum has expired it will revert the CPU back to 64-bit mode (again, using a AMD64 instruction to do so).v0n said:
This has no performance impact on the executing code whatsoever. AMD64 was designed to work in this way.
Where did you pluck that wierd and misinformed fact from? Many users are seeing the advantages of 64-bit Windows right now, TODAY! Yes there is still a swamp of 32-bit software out there and that isn't a problem. Microsoft are in no rush to release a 64-bit version of Office simply because there is no need to. I don't know why people think all the software on your PC has to be 64-bit before you start noticing any gains. That simply isn't the case and never has been.v0n said:
When the day comes that Office can see an advantage from being compiled to 64-bit then I'm sure that Microsoft will do so. But you are quite right in that 64-bit offers little benefit to CERTAIN applications - not all, but some. It tends to be applications which don't really have any strict performance requirements.
Games though are a different matter. Games are always on the forefront of performance and that is why so many games now are being released with 64-bit versions as well. Although usually a little later than the main 32-bit release - presumably for the extra testing required.
Sorry but I don't really see what he said well at all. He mostly posted misinformation and FUD about what he believes 64-bit Windows is and what it can't do for people. Please read above.badbob said:Well said von.
It is native. As said before it simply switches the CPU into 32-bit mode, allows the 32-bit thread to execute and then switches it back again to 64-bit when it has finished executing. This is a feature of the AMD64 instruction set.v0n said:
32-bit code runs at NATIVE SPEED on 64-bit Windows. Period.
The reason you can't use 32-bit drivers has nothing to do with WOW64. It is a fundamental limitation of the AMD64 instruction set. The ability to switch the CPU into 32-bit mode is only provided whilst executing in ring3 (user mode). Not ring0 (kernel mode). That really is the simple reason.
Upgrading Windows from 32 to a 64-bit edition is more a logistical problem than anything fundamental. Microsoft simply didn't offer it because of the complications in backward compatibility and the installation process in general.
Soldato
IMO if you have a 64bit CPU go for x64 Vista, personally in general with 64bit and 32bit applications alike there was pretty much no difference in performance with media/games/photo manipulation/graphics work. But I also did not encounter any compatibility problems with x64 either, so you mayaswell futureproof yourself.
Associate
I'm running Vista 64 bit businessiTunes won't work on vista 64 bit. You are most likely using a 32bit version of vista.