Vista artical ..

jamjar · 14 Jan 2007 at 16:16

Hi there this might be of help ,seems to be interesting ..

Windows Vista:To install 64-bit or 32-bit Version? (x64 vs x86)
Jump to Comments

Deciding which Vista version to install can be a difficult decision and can really limit what you can do with your system. Here are practical hints which should help a user decide which version to install.With the gaining popularity of 64-bit chipsets/processors, many users now have the ability to run either 64-bit versions (x64) or 32-bit versions (x86) of software and operating systems.You can only install the x64 version of Vista if you have a 64-bit processor.

For those with 64-bit processors, it seems obvious that installing the x64 version of vista would be ideal. The x64 version has increased security based around the 64-bit structure and programs compiled for 64-bit processors will likely run faster.
What's the problem with installing Vista x64 on a 64-bit system?

1. Most hardware does not currently have 64-bit drivers.
Out of all the boxes that I have installed x64 Vista on, I could always get it to boot up. However, the lack of 64-bit drivers for many hardware devices typically left me without any chance of burning DVDs or listening to audio. Networking devices and card readers were frequently not supported as well. Vista x64 is pretty but it's not very fun without network access or audio.

2. In Vista x64, any driver that is not properly signed will not be able to enter the kernel and will fail to load.
Think how many times you have ignored that warning that a certain hardware driver is not properly signed. With vista x64, if your driver has not be blessed by Microsoft, it will not work. Forget about it.
3. Vista x64 currently does not backward support most x86 (32-bit) drivers.
For the most part 64-bit systems run 32-bit applications very well. However, vista x64 doesn't run x86 drivers… at least at this stage.4. Vista x64 does not support 16-bit software.
You may think that you never, ever run 16-bit software. However, XP actually handles this legacy fairly well.

5. Very little x64 software currently exists.
x64 software runs better on a x64 system with an x64 OS. Currently, however, there is very little x64 software out there. If you have that magical combination, you do get a nice performance boost. Currently, however, this combination is way to far ahead of the curve.

Conclusion:

Most users with 64-bit hardware should install the 32-bit (x86) version of Vista. Vista x64 is the turning point for operating systems as they transition to 64-bit. Currently, however, the majority of users will be very disappointed by installing Vista x64. The lack of 64-bit drivers for most current hardware will be very disappointing and frustrating to most users. Why push for 64-bit now anyway? The performance gains promised by 64-bit will not be seen for years until 64-bit compiled versions of software is the norm.

Burnsy2023 · 14 Jan 2007 at 16:28

Driver support will be a lot better once it's actually released to the public.

All WHQL signed drivers will be both 32 and 64 bit, so it won't be long before that arguement is obsolete.

You can run pretty much all 32bit software on a 64bit platform.

There's really not much point staying with 32bit.

And btw, there's plenty of threads on this, so why not search and post in there?

Burnsy

jamjar · 14 Jan 2007 at 17:04

burnsy2023 said:
Driver support will be a lot better once it's actually released to the public.

All WHQL signed drivers will be both 32 and 64 bit, so it won't be long before that arguement is obsolete.

You can run pretty much all 32bit software on a 64bit platform.

There's really not much point staying with 32bit.

And btw, there's plenty of threads on this, so why not search and post in there?

Burnsy

yeah true ,and i agree so i take it your going with x64 or with ..?

Slam62 · 14 Jan 2007 at 17:23

A lot of people havent even made drivers for 32bit vista yet.

Do all drivers for vista have to be cwhql if not, why would they bother with 64

jamjar · 14 Jan 2007 at 17:43

Slam62 said:
A lot of people havent even made drivers for 32bit vista yet.

Do all drivers for vista have to be cwhql if not, why would they bother with 64

Yeah agree i think most people will go with x32 bit and upgrade when x64 is more popular or the drivers are available . :rolleyes:

NathanE · 14 Jan 2007 at 17:58

The information stated in the OP regarding driver signing and WHQL is mostly misinformed. Yes it is based on fact however there are some errors. For example, the presented belief that all 64-bit drivers must be "blessed by Microsoft".

I posted this in another thread recently, but I'll paste it here:

There are two swords to the signing process in Vista. Let me explain:

The first is Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL) signing. This is basically where the hardware vendor sends its drivers to Microsoft to be tested and they in return receive a code signing certificate to attach to their driver. This prevents Windows from displaying the annoying "This driver is uncertified... do you still want to install it?" message from appearing.

The second is with, and only with, Vista x64. This OS will only load signed drivers. They do not have to be WHQL certified, just simply signed by their author. A signed driver of this type does not mean it has been tested or authorised by Microsoft at all. It simply means the driver file itself contains a valid code signing certificate and thus provides an assurance to the OS that it has not been modified since it was published and that the author who created it can be easily identified.

This concept is much the same as when you download a .EXE file, and run it for the first time, Windows XP SP2 and Vista will display a dialog saying who published the file - this is great because it allows you, as a user, to make a security trust decision. E.g. "Erm, I just downloaded a Microsoft hot fix and it this dialog says "Unknown publisher"... that's not good, I think I'll goto the Microsoft website to get a proper one..." See where I'm going with this?

In Vista x64 a similar process is performed with drivers. Except that it isn't the user making the trust decision, it is the OS. The OS simply does not trust unsigned drivers. Period.

The reason for this is security. Malicious hackers who make root kits cannot afford a relatively expensive (~£500) code signing certificate from Verisign. Any legitimate company wishing to distribute its driver can. If there is a hacker out there that can afford it (god he must be sad!) then Microsoft can blacklist the certificate and thus prevent the OS from even attempting to load the rogue driver.

Also note that actual kernel drivers of this kind are going to be increasingly uncommon soon. The only time you actually need to develop a kernel driver with Vista is for a graphics card. ALL other types of hardware or software can use a user-mode device driver. User mode device drivers do not require signing at all because they are, of course, not loaded into the kernel. Microsoft is increasingly trying to dissuade the development of kernel-mode device drivers - unless you're Nvidia or ATI they simply aren't required anymore. Yes it will probably take several years until this becomes a reality (points figure at lazy vendors like Creative...) but it will eventually happen. With every Windows release from XP x64 on, Microsoft is making it harder and harder to put your code in the kernel.

And here's a few other statements I feel compelled to correct:

However, vista x64 doesn't run x86 drivers… at least at this stage

At this stage? :confused:

It will never support 32-bit drivers. Ever ever ever. Ever. Period.

Think how many times you have ignored that warning that a certain hardware driver is not properly signed

Translation: Think how many times you have compromised your computer's security and stability, delibrately, by clicking OK to a driver certificate warning dialog.

x64 software runs better on a x64 system with an x64 OS.... <snip>

OK so the point here is? :confused:

x64 can run 32-bit software just fine with no performance penalty what so ever. There is no rush to produce x64 compiled software, although it will come in time, and in certain markets (high-end workstation applications, games etc) it will come sooner.

GraemeUK · 14 Jan 2007 at 18:06

Jamjar, that is so BS :rolleyes:

jamjar · 14 Jan 2007 at 18:23

GraemeUK said:
Jamjar, that is so BS

What is BS my last comment or the thread ?

VeNT · 14 Jan 2007 at 18:28

jamjar said:
ZOMG 64BIT VISTA WON'T BE SUPPORTED BY ANYONE AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IN THE FACE

dude
that was ace rimmer
we're lucky to be alive!!

on a more sensible note. perhaps you should wait before commenting on Vista till after its released. if this was talk about a movie then this thread would have been nuked from orbit for talking about somthing thats not available to 100% of the population.

jamjar · 14 Jan 2007 at 18:34

if the world ends does that mean no more VISTA ?

VeNT said:
dude
that was ace rimmer
we're lucky to be alive!!

on a more sensible note. perhaps you should wait before commenting on Vista till after its released. if this was talk about a movie then this thread would have been nuked from orbit for talking about somthing thats not available to 100% of the population.

Thanks and just remember this is a free country to talk about whatever we want ,however stupid it might be to others ,after all we are only just talking not invading Iraq, think thats been done !

Tute · 14 Jan 2007 at 18:47

I'm going to put one point across which, in my opinion, makes it more than worthwhile to buy the x64 version.

That point is: The support for 4GB RAM.

How long is Vista expected to last for? We're talking years given the lifespan of XP. Within a year, or maybe less, we're going to see computers with 4GB RAM as standard, given that currently 1GB seems to be the minimum, with 2GB being recommended.

If a company codes a program that has a recommended requirement of 4GB RAM, then surely they will have to provide x64 support, otherwise it really makes no sense.

Hence support will grow.

jamjar · 14 Jan 2007 at 18:52

Tute said:
I'm going to put one point across which, in my opinion, makes it more than worthwhile to buy the x64 version.

That point is: The support for 4GB RAM.

How long is Vista expected to last for? We're talking years given the lifespan of XP. Within a year, or maybe less, we're going to see computers with 4GB RAM as standard, given that currently 1GB seems to be the minimum, with 2GB being recommended.

If a company codes a program that has a recommended requirement of 4GB RAM, then surely they will have to provide x64 support, otherwise it really makes no sense.

Hence support will grow.

Yes i agree ,thats a very good point ,and i take it you will go x64 bit when Vista is released or are you now on Beta ?

Tute · 14 Jan 2007 at 19:07

I was on beta, however I lost my CD so i'm back to XP x86 for now.

Planning on picking up OEM HP x64.

Of course, if you're buying retail then my argument is null and void, as you can just try both (or use x86) if you like with no penalty if you decide to go x64.

jamjar · 14 Jan 2007 at 19:29

Tute said:
I was on beta, however I lost my CD so i'm back to XP x86 for now.

Planning on picking up OEM HP x64.

Of course, if you're buying retail then my argument is null and void, as you can just try both (or use x86) if you like with no penalty if you decide to go x64.

yes agree with that ,and what are yoour views ,is it wise to go x64 or wait until the dust settles ? :confused:

Tute · 14 Jan 2007 at 19:35

jamjar said:
yes agree with that ,and what are yoour views ,is it wise to go x64 or wait until the dust settles ?

From what i've read here, WOW64 should be able to run all your old apps with very little or no performance loss.

The only stumbling point for now is drivers, although I expect this to sort itself out very soon.

You could always have a google for drivers for your hardware, and see if they exist. If they do, then it's peace of mind. If not, then you might either have to bodge your way around or make do without, at least for now.

jamjar · 14 Jan 2007 at 19:39

Tute said:
From what i've read here, WOW64 should be able to run all your old apps with very little or no performance loss.

The only stumbling point for now is drivers, although I expect this to sort itself out very soon.

You could always have a google for drivers for your hardware, and see if they exist. If they do, then it's peace of mind. If not, then you might either have to bodge your way around or make do without, at least for now.

yeah good point ,when you say bodge your way round ,what do u mean ? would some xp drivers work on some hardware ? :confused:

Tute · 14 Jan 2007 at 19:56

jamjar said:
yeah good point ,when you say bodge your way round ,what do u mean ? would some xp drivers work on some hardware ?

Well, you could try generic drivers and hope, or replace the hardware concerned. There's also been rumours that some Vista x86 drivers *may* work, although this is far from a good solution, and is rare.

Guinny · 14 Jan 2007 at 20:24

jamjar said:
Hi there this might be of help ,seems to be interesting ..

Windows Vista:To install 64-bit or 32-bit Version? (x64 vs x86)
Jump to Comments

Deciding which Vista version to install can be a difficult decision and can really limit what you can do with your system. Here are practical hints which should help a user decide which version to install.With the gaining popularity of 64-bit chipsets/processors, many users now have the ability to run either 64-bit versions (x64) or 32-bit versions (x86) of software and operating systems.You can only install the x64 version of Vista if you have a 64-bit processor.

For those with 64-bit processors, it seems obvious that installing the x64 version of vista would be ideal. The x64 version has increased security based around the 64-bit structure and programs compiled for 64-bit processors will likely run faster.
What's the problem with installing Vista x64 on a 64-bit system?

1. Most hardware does not currently have 64-bit drivers.
Out of all the boxes that I have installed x64 Vista on, I could always get it to boot up. However, the lack of 64-bit drivers for many hardware devices typically left me without any chance of burning DVDs or listening to audio. Networking devices and card readers were frequently not supported as well. Vista x64 is pretty but it's not very fun without network access or audio.

2. In Vista x64, any driver that is not properly signed will not be able to enter the kernel and will fail to load.
Think how many times you have ignored that warning that a certain hardware driver is not properly signed. With vista x64, if your driver has not be blessed by Microsoft, it will not work. Forget about it.
3. Vista x64 currently does not backward support most x86 (32-bit) drivers.
For the most part 64-bit systems run 32-bit applications very well. However, vista x64 doesn't run x86 drivers… at least at this stage.4. Vista x64 does not support 16-bit software.
You may think that you never, ever run 16-bit software. However, XP actually handles this legacy fairly well.

5. Very little x64 software currently exists.
x64 software runs better on a x64 system with an x64 OS. Currently, however, there is very little x64 software out there. If you have that magical combination, you do get a nice performance boost. Currently, however, this combination is way to far ahead of the curve.

Conclusion:

Most users with 64-bit hardware should install the 32-bit (x86) version of Vista. Vista x64 is the turning point for operating systems as they transition to 64-bit. Currently, however, the majority of users will be very disappointed by installing Vista x64. The lack of 64-bit drivers for most current hardware will be very disappointing and frustrating to most users. Why push for 64-bit now anyway? The performance gains promised by 64-bit will not be seen for years until 64-bit compiled versions of software is the norm.

Thats exactly what I said

I'm installing 32bit Vista and going to enjoy a new OS without all the pain until X64 drivers are available wich being realistic will take 6-12 months!

I don't posses a single programme that would run better in Vista 64 and probably won't this year!

I also no for fact that one particular main ADSL router manufacturer will not have a 64 bit Vista driver until 3rd quarter 2007!
And no I can't disclose who or how I know

Burnsy2023 · 14 Jan 2007 at 20:27

jamjar said:
yeah true ,and i agree so i take it your going with x64 or with ..?

32bit, but not from choice; I'm still running a x86 platform

Burnsy

danieln1 · 15 Jan 2007 at 00:00

think the 64bit and 32bit is down to the pearson pc

I check my system and printer and scanner drivers are built in to vista and rest drivers i have check and they have 64 bit now oor said they be out on 30th when vista gos live..

there few Apps that are comming out 64bit that i wont to use auto cad etc etc

few games are comming out 64 bit too

So for me 64 bit vista is the choice for me

but if your thinking 64 bit then check hardware first then decide what your doing but it should be far more easy then xp64 because if they make 32 bit drivers they have to make 64 bit drivers to.I would say microsoft are doing this because the next big OS is said to be 64 bit only and this give ppl time to move over to 64 bit instead of just cuting of 32bit support