32 or 64 bit vista?

johnycat · 16 Feb 2009 at 16:34

Hi, I am getting a pc with 4 gig of ram. Is it right that it I should get 64 bit Vista and why?

Thanks John

Admiral Huddy · 16 Feb 2009 at 16:35

Yes, so it can address the full amount of physical RAM

Due to an architectural decision made long ago, if you have 4GB of physical RAM installed, a 32bit Windows OS is only able to report a portion of the physical 4GB of RAM (ranges from ~2.75GB to 3.5GB depending on the devices installed, motherboard's chipset & BIOS).

This behavior is due to "memory mapped IO reservations". Those reservations overlay the physical address space and mask out those physical addresses so that they cannot be used for working memory. This is independent of the OS running on the machine.

There is no reason why you shouln't be buying a 64bit OS now days but check all your exisiting software supports it first.

BloomerzUK · 16 Feb 2009 at 16:36

I would use x64 bit for the reason of utilizing the whole 4GB of RAM that you have. 32bit will only use 3.2GB IRRC.

There is no woes with x64 version of Vista anymore.. it's stable as a rock.

johnycat · 16 Feb 2009 at 16:36

Thanks

Thanks very much, that was quick. 64 bit it is then.

theheyes · 16 Feb 2009 at 16:37

Plus you may as well go for x64 these days given the choice anyway as it has a few extra under the hood goodies.

johnycat · 16 Feb 2009 at 16:38

Thanks again -sorted

cjmUK · 16 Feb 2009 at 16:44

BloomerzUK said:
There is no woes with x64 version of Vista anymore.. it's stable as a rock.

Anymore?

x64 has always been the most stable because it requires signed drivers. While whiners would blame Vista when their old scanner/printer/camera/whatever wouldn't install on x64, they then blamed Vista when is didn't work very well on x86, often taking their machine down.

Beyond a bit of over-aggressive overclocking, I've never had a BSOD in Vista x64, which was a weekly event in XP (x86 and x64).

CurlyWhirly · 20 Feb 2009 at 23:11

cjmUK said:
Anymore?

x64 has always been the most stable because it requires signed drivers. While whiners would blame Vista when their old scanner/printer/camera/whatever wouldn't install on x64, they then blamed Vista when is didn't work very well on x86, often taking their machine down.

Beyond a bit of over-aggressive overclocking, I've never had a BSOD in Vista x64, which was a weekly event in XP (x86 and x64).

On XP, I had terrible trouble with unsigned soundcard drivers.

I tried installing a Philips soundcard which caused a BSOD when going through the installation so I returned the sound card!

Also Creative drivers used to occasionally crash my PC usually when in the middle of a game :mad:

p.s. now running x64 Vista and it's as stable as a rock.

XCougar · 21 Feb 2009 at 00:05

Well I personally went from Vista x64 to XP Pro x86, main reasons being some games only supported XP Pro because they had to use anti piracy drivers that would not work with my Vista (cant think what they were called), and also because x64 had no 16 bit support, =|

cjmUK · 21 Feb 2009 at 03:55

CurlyWhirly said:
On XP, I had terrible trouble with unsigned soundcard drivers.

I tried installing a Philips soundcard which caused a BSOD when going through the installation so I returned the sound card!

Also Creative drivers used to occasionally crash my PC usually when in the middle of a game

p.s. now running x64 Vista and it's as stable as a rock.

Sadly, your voice is so little heard.

XCougar said:
Well I personally went from Vista x64 to XP Pro x86, main reasons being some games only supported XP Pro because they had to use anti piracy drivers that would not work with my Vista (cant think what they were called), and also because x64 had no 16 bit support, =|

Which games?

Why would Vista require 16bit support? You get Virtual PC for fee - what more do you want??

XCougar · 21 Feb 2009 at 11:14

Splinter Cell comes to mind.

16 bit for games, like cnc gold, TA, etc. Virtual pc cannot run these.