Vista 32 vs 64

neminator · 30 Jan 2007 at 22:48

Is it time to unlocked the 64bit power of my X2? I was going to get the 64bit edition, but does that mean games/applications not written for 64 bit will not work?

My hardware would be in the same boat too I take it, as im sure that there would be even less drivers for Vista 64 than 32?

32 vs 64, whats everyone going for, whats the differences?

Hxc · 30 Jan 2007 at 22:52

Am in the same boat, but am opting for 32 because of driver issues with 64bit, and how it prevents unsigned drivers, or so I've heard.

Tute · 30 Jan 2007 at 23:00

There is absolutely no point in going with 32-bit Vista.

A lot of people hear about the shocking driver support there was for XP64 and assume it will be the same. But it won't. Both x86 (32-bit) and x64 prevent unsigned drivers, it's just that the x86 protection can be ignored. But even then, you don't want to be installing unsigned drivers anyway. And it's not too hard to create x64 drivers, the x86 drivers just have to be recompiled to x64, an easy process, I don't think the manufacturers are going to risk the backlash when it's so easy to support x64 Vista.

As for performance, well, your processors have x64 support, yes, however they also support x86 as standard too. That means that in Vista x64, there is NO PENALTY to performance when running an x86 program. Your processor can execute code at full speed, as if you were running it in Vista x86.

Those, as well as support for x64 programs, and >4GB RAM, means that Vista x64 is the best choice for operating system. When programs start supporting x64, you'll really see some nice performance gains. For now, it's just as good as x86.

rapid64k · 31 Jan 2007 at 07:26

"One of the primary benefits of using an x64-based version of Windows Vista is that these versions provide dramatically improved security features when compared to their 32-bit counterparts. Most dramatically, the Windows Vista x64 versions include a new secret security feature that will virtually eliminate remote system attacks for the first time on the Windows platform".

All the above and i belive you can use more ram but yes drivers may be an issue.........but for how long!

neminator · 31 Jan 2007 at 07:38

I have 2GB ram, should be enough?

SteveOBHave · 31 Jan 2007 at 07:38

Tute said:
When programs start supporting x64, you'll really see some nice performance gains. For now, it's just as good as x86.

Then why are so many people installing it - getting fed up and installing the 32bit version? In theory you're right, in practice, the 64bit version is one headache after another... Microsofts driver signing policy is hobbling it at the moment, and especially since there just isn't a particularly large number of 64bit apps out there.

If the question asked is 32bit or 64bit, I don't believe you should be throwing a generic answer at it. Personally I'd start asking questions like:

- What do you expect to get out of vista installing this early on?
- How aware are you of the pitfalls of being an early vista adopter?
- Are you aware that SP1 is already in testing?
- Which version of vista did you purchase and does it give you an either/or choice in which install you use.

Microsoft made two versions for a reason (other than to make lots of cash) and part of it is in that the 32bit version is less like pulling teeth when you install it. The 64bit version is the version for the future of Vista but you will have to be prepared for a number of things to not work and also be prepared for errors untill the right drivers are signed.

Stonedofmoo · 31 Jan 2007 at 07:51

There is absolutely no point in going with 32-bit Vista.

lol don't talk nonsense

WHEN the support and driver base is at the same quality level as 32bit that will be true. That is at least a year away however

At the moment there is frankly NO point in going for 64bit unless you run large programs such as AutoCAD or graphics editing that could benefit from the large memory it supports

Games do not benefit from 64bit, desktop applications do not benefit from 64bit & the majority of utilities do not benefit from 64bit.

NathanE · 31 Jan 2007 at 07:59

Stonedofmoo said:
lol don't talk nonsense

WHEN the support and driver base is at the same quality level as 32bit that will be true. That is at least a year away however

At the moment there is frankly NO point in going for 64bit unless you run large programs such as AutoCAD or graphics editing that could benefit from the large memory it supports

Games do not benefit from 64bit, desktop applications do not benefit from 64bit & the majority of utilities do not benefit from 64bit.

I think you're missing the point. So what that x64 doesn't have much software that is compiled for it - it doesn't matter. x64's main advantages are with security and 128GB memory support.

Drivers aren't a problem. WHQL drivers are required to be a combined 32-bit and 64-bit binary. Hence any company that wants their driver to be WHQL signed (and that is the majority of mainstream vendors) will have to provide a x64 driver as well. Hardly a major inconvenience... it takes a programmer an additional few minutes to knock out a x64 build. Obviously it will only perform the same as the 32-bit driver... but if he wanted he could spend a day optimising it for x64. Also don't forget about Vista's new user-mode driver model (UMWDF)... it doesn't matter if drivers of these type are 32 or 64-bit, they will work on either operating system regardless.

Then why are so many people installing it - getting fed up and installing the 32bit version? In theory you're right, in practice, the 64bit version is one headache after another... Microsofts driver signing policy is hobbling it at the moment, and especially since there just isn't a particularly large number of 64bit apps out there.

Probably because Vista was only launched yesterday and there are hardly any drivers for it, period... 32 and 64-bit alike. Give it a month or two and the driver landscape will be completely different.

Programmers like to take things one step at a time (and I might add that most programmer's will be running x64 themselves...). Once they're confident in their 32-bit driver's stability they will start pushing out 64-bit builds to test those as well. Trust me, 64-bit drivers are coming. It was highly unreasonable for people to expect them to be there on launch day. It don't half show here that Vista is the first time many people here have experienced a Windows release cycle.

Tute · 31 Jan 2007 at 08:31

I was going to provide a more detailed response but I think NathanE covered most of the points.

SteveOBHave · 31 Jan 2007 at 09:00

NathanE said:
It was highly unreasonable for people to expect them to be there on launch day. It don't half show here that Vista is the first time many people here have experienced a Windows release cycle.

Why??????

After 5 years is it unreasonable for us as the consumer to expect a properly working operating system on it's release date? Doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.

I have experienced every Windows release cycle from 3.11 onwards, and without fail it has generally been a mistake to take on the new OS at such an early stage. The rule of thumb is wait for for SP1 to come out and then see how it goes. But to suggest that this is right and what we should expect as a consumer just strikes me as being wrong.

Stonedofmoo · 31 Jan 2007 at 09:06

I don't think it's unreasonable at all. Unlike all the other previous operating systems Windows Vista has been freely available as a public beta for at least 6-9 months direct from the internet. Companies would have got it sooner still

In the old days where broadband internet was a luxary it might be more reasonable as many people would not have tested a new OS and even less reported back on it

But with Vista they really have no excuse, especially when it's been RTM for 2 months or more.