any reason not to go 64bit?

Dark_Angel · 24 Mar 2009 at 09:53

bledd. said:
vista blows goats with only 2gb, there's no scope for superfetch with so little free ram

This

Meatball said:
No.

This too.

We need a sticky with the title "get 64 bit windows for the love of god"

freddie64 · 24 Mar 2009 at 10:44

_Jimlad_ said:
mine is the student/teacher home prem upgrade.

I got this to, sent for 64bit disc and installed ok.

Burnsy2023 · 24 Mar 2009 at 11:54

Mattf121 said:
What are the other specs of your machine? Also do you use aero? All machines I have ever seen vista on with 1GB RAM have been painfully slow so I wuld never inflict a machine with 1GB RAM (or less) with Vista. Then again, they've all been early P4s or slower so your machine may be different.

I've had Vista 32 on a Athlon xp 2000+ (which has no SEE2), 1GB of RAM and an Fx5500. Worked fine for tinterwebs and Office 2007, and ran areo.

NathanE · 24 Mar 2009 at 12:06

Five_Star said:
As said above, some apps don't work. Sandboxie is one I know doesn't and thats a shame because it's a useful app. This is due to the fact that all x64 drivers have to be signed. This causes a problem with some network monitor apps too.

Software that doesn't work on x64 is probably software you probably really don't want on your system in the first place.

philjohn · 24 Mar 2009 at 13:34

NathanE said:
Software that doesn't work on x64 is probably software you probably really don't want on your system in the first place.

And if you really do need to run them, use virtualisation.

DAS · 26 Mar 2009 at 19:30

Mattf121 said:
What are the other specs of your machine? Also do you use aero? All machines I have ever seen vista on with 1GB RAM have been painfully slow so I wuld never inflict a machine with 1GB RAM (or less) with Vista. Then again, they've all been early P4s or slower so your machine may be different.

Apolgies for the delay in replying.

Athlon 64 3400+ 2.2 Ghz, ATI Radeon 1600 with 512MB video RAM.

I do use Aero and it works fine.

I think the graphics make a big difference as I also have a laptop with 2 GB of RAM. Obviously it's much better in terms of open applications, but the poorer graphics make the laptop seem much slower when doing video based operations (eg games).

Kua · 26 Mar 2009 at 20:28

AcidHell2 said:
Plenty of reasons not to go 32bit and no reasons not to go 54bit. Unless you know you have some special software or old devices that wont work in 64bit But those are very rare.

Not to download but on the Microsoft website you can pay around £7 and get the 64bit dvd. Not sure what the link is though. Both retail and oem links have been posted before but not sure where.

Huh. I wonder if this applies to XP. If it has done for a while I'd be ****ed. But in any case I should make the jump to Vista. I'd love to try the 7 beta but I seem to have missed that particular boat.

Kua · 26 Mar 2009 at 20:30

bledd. said:
vista blows goats with only 2gb, there's no scope for superfetch with so little free ram

When you get into the realms of 6 and 8GB is there a noticeable difference in Vista 64-bit? Also is there some kind of limit like the one on 32-bit XP? Would I actually be limited to 7.5GB for ex?

_Jimlad_ · 27 Mar 2009 at 09:57

so apart from the memory limits can you expect any other advantages from 64?

zytok · 27 Mar 2009 at 13:19

well there's little if any performance benefit but generally feels much more stable and should be a bit more secure. A few 3rd party apps that run at startup might be a bit tricky to get working. Most stuff seems to work fine.