Vista x64 - reliable?

dave-lew99

dave-lew99

dave-lew99

Associate
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Posts
1,230
Location
Manchester
I'm heading for a new machine soon, and i want to run vista - primarily so i can learn to use it properly - i know xp and previous pretty much inside out, but vista has so far eluded me. I also need to be doing development work with the new multimedia APIs which obviously i cannot get with XP.

The reason i want to go 64-bit is for more ram support, but given how badly XP x64 was i'm wondering if vista has caught up - do most things 'just work' now or is it still a battle to get it to be reliable?

Cost isn't an issue as i'll get it either through technet or work's MSDN.
 
I use x64 Vista Ultimate and have done so since Vista's launch, I've never had a moments bother with drivers. It's stable as hell and has never let me down.
 
I've used it at home and at work for a couple of months and have no complaints regarding reliability.
 
Very recently done a full upgrade, and went with Vista x64 as an OS. It's fantastic. Solid as a rock, and quick in my experience.
 
I've been using Vista 64bit for a while on and off, I've fully converted to it now as I've now got 4GB of ram. Once I put the new ram in it is very fast indeed a lot faster than with 2GB. I've experienced no problems with it so far, will most likely use it as my main OS now on my primary machine.

I strongly recommend 4GB of ram, as it does really make a difference.
 
+1 for stable.

Ran it for the best part of a year now, and had no issues with it. If anything I find it faster than XP and certainly more stable. Ran BF2142 better than XP ever did.

(But dont let anyone hear that I said that, people call you a fanboi! :rolleyes:)
People who say they dislike it claim it is slower, crashes constantly, isnt compatible with anything, and invasive. Means they havent actually used it 75% of the time, or hate microsoft. (These same people like to also change the letters in microsofts name to a symbol, why, we dont really know . . . . . )
 
anyone running vista 64 with 2gb and says it 'performs well' is either deluded or lying, you need 4gb minimum

wish ms would release realistic recommended specs
 
bledd. said:
anyone running vista 64 with 2gb and says it 'performs well' is either deluded or lying, you need 4gb minimum
Click to expand...

I am neither and I still maintain that for a normal workstation that 2GB is plenty; in fact for normal office use even 1GB would be perfectly usable.

Burnsy
 
I haven't had a single blue screen/crash yet on vista 64 (as far as i am remember), i know this is strange as i am quite used to error messages and blue screens on xp. I think some people just get unlucky or some hardware might be incompatible with their copy of vista hence some crashes sometimes.

EDIT:
I went from 2gb to 4gb on my system and i see a huge increase in performance. I will never go for vista and 2gb of memory again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom