Does everything work in 64-bit OS's these days??

355F1512TR · 22 Jul 2007 at 12:46

I'm getting very tempted by an upgrade to a C2D system any time soon, but am wondering what's the best OS to go with it. Vista still seems a little too buggy for me, so it'll probably come down to either 32-bit or 64-bit XP. Obviously with a 64-bit CPU, it makes sense to have a 64-bit OS to go with it, but last I heard was that lots of software wouldn't work under 64. Is this still the case?

NathanE · 22 Jul 2007 at 12:57

It was only ever drivers that were a bit problematic but that was years ago. Software, in 99% of cases, has been fine.

355F1512TR · 22 Jul 2007 at 13:02

Ah, thanks for that. I must have been a little mis-informed. I take it there's no (or little) performance hit running 32-bit stuff on a 64-bit OS either?

m4cc45 · 22 Jul 2007 at 18:28

Not really. Most software has 64-bits updates or patches now.

Theres 32-bit emulators thrown in with Windows 64-bit anyway. Personally from now on my operating system will be 64-bit. I can see, before too long, that there will only be a 64-bit of the next Windows Operating System. Some of the tools are 64-bit only (i.e. Exchange 2007) which is a pretty good indication.

M.

Glaucus · 22 Jul 2007 at 18:29

unless your running a handful of programs, like older versions of autocad, then 64bit is fine.

Squarehed · 23 Jul 2007 at 10:31

One program of note that does not work is iTunes - but it's not like that's unreplaceable, i have.

EDIT - iTunes does not work fully - some features are broken in 64 bit iirc.

fumbles · 23 Jul 2007 at 11:20

Squarehed said:
One program of note that does not work is iTunes - but it's not like that's unreplaceable, i have.

I'm running that under Vista x64 now. I ran it under XP64 perfectly a couple of years ago.

IMO stay with 32 unless you have more then 3GB of mem (yes 3).

I think this fud about Vista being buggy is complete and utter rubbish. Vista detected all my hardware and had the drivers ready out of the box. Had no problems with drivers (no really I didn't have to install anything) or other errors. Haven't had one issue. XP even with SP2 would give me random BSoD (Machine Check Exemption). Now I know Vista will be a bit more dodgy on different hardware, but I am indeed impressed. If you are going to buy a new computer why get old software? WWJD? It's even biblical!

Participant · 23 Jul 2007 at 11:39

Vista x64 > XP x64

No point going for XP-64 now imo as it's even less well supported in the driver hardware front than Vista x64 (which for me, apart from my five year old canon scanner, has been a.o.k. by the way).

fumbles · 23 Jul 2007 at 13:36

Robbie G said:
Vista x64 > XP x64

No point going for XP-64 now imo as it's even less well supported in the driver hardware front than Vista x64 (which for me, apart from my five year old canon scanner, has been a.o.k. by the way).

Yeah what he said. XP64 sucks. Very buggy very unstable, know from eXPerience

EDIT: as for iTunes, I think those problems which were discussed above are gone with the latest update. I do remember there being issue with it, but that was before I started using Vista.

m4cc45 · 23 Jul 2007 at 15:18

Just thought I should say that I have been running XP 64 bit now for around a year and had no problems (at work). I don't think I've restarted it in a good few weeks either.

I would, however, purchase Vista as that is going to be supported longer.

M.

Matteysan · 23 Jul 2007 at 15:35

fumbles said:
Yeah what he said. XP64 sucks. Very buggy very unstable, know from eXPerience

EDIT: as for iTunes, I think those problems which were discussed above are gone with the latest update. I do remember there being issue with it, but that was before I started using Vista.

Please tell me what is so buggy & unstable with xp64? cause i haven't come across an issue yet really?

[edit = well apart from there not being a 64bit version of flash (which is not needed anyways as 32bit IE7 works fine)