Vista ---- the correct version ?

ca9phoenix · 20 Jan 2007 at 15:29

I've just got my copy of ultimate x64 back home, it has installed fine no issues with my mobo and now i've found the drivers for my 8800 everything is rinning smooth as! i don't see what all the fuss is about to be honest, i even installed it with my internet plugged in and didn't have to set that up it just worked!

MRBARKER · 20 Jan 2007 at 18:00

Vista seems to be a lot of stress ----- i might hold off for a while to see how people get on with he drivers ect , its putting me off

Jakus · 20 Jan 2007 at 18:05

OK are we saying the Vista 64bit can still run all the old (99.9%) 32bit PC Games ?......Obviously the 64 bit is faster than 32 bit, I have had 64 bit CPU's for Years but no full software support, I am still scepticle

gurusan · 20 Jan 2007 at 18:07

JAKUS said:
OK are we saying the Vista 64bit can still run all the old (99.9%) 32bit PC Games ?......Obviously the 64 bit is faster than 32 bit, I have had 64 bit CPU's for Years but no full software support, I am still scepticle

yeah you can run 32-bit applications no problem.

....and I had the x64 beta working and all the drivers were fine except the stupid nvidia ones gave me some problems. But they were beta and I'm sure the official ones will be just fine.

Jakus · 20 Jan 2007 at 18:17

I have heard this before, but unless someone does a sort of a list of games and apps tested I feel maybe or "should do" may be safer than Yeah !

But I appreciate the reply, Thanks

anyone else tried all the old quake 3 engined games and video editing on the 64bit vista ?

Jimbo · 20 Jan 2007 at 18:39

I fancy I will now get an OEM vista x64.

Dont see me changing my board for a couple of years anyway. I have 2 gig of ram, so will this be good with x64? not 4gig.

d.chatten · 20 Jan 2007 at 18:46

JAKUS said:
I have heard this before, but unless someone does a sort of a list of games and apps tested I feel maybe or "should do" may be safer than Yeah !

Vista Software & Hardware Compatibility List, for anyone that's interested

Hope this helps!

Lysander · 20 Jan 2007 at 19:46

Jimbo said:
I fancy I will now get an OEM vista x64.

Dont see me changing my board for a couple of years anyway. I have 2 gig of ram, so will this be good with x64? not 4gig.

2GB and you play games - get 32 bit

2GB and you don't play games - get 64 bit

4GB even if you do/don't play games - get 64 bit

Jakus · 20 Jan 2007 at 19:50

Thanks for the link,

Very helpful,

Meatball · 21 Jan 2007 at 12:46

Rather than start a new thread I'll post hear. I'll be building my new rig at the end of February with the following specs:

Core 2 Duo E6300 (Hopefully overclocking to 3Ghz)
2Gb GeIl DDR2 Dual-Channel
36gb raptor (Which is for Vista only)
200gb seagate (Taking from old rig, for documents and backups)
80gb Samsung (taking from old rig, for programs)
nVidia 7900GT 256MB (taking from old rig, For Aero and v.occasional games such as zoo tycoon)

I was going to purchase Vista HP OEM 64Bit but people keep saying there's no point with only 2gb? The computer listed will be used for media work and rarely an occasional game. is 64Bit ok for me? I might think of going to 4Gb at a later date

durbs · 21 Jan 2007 at 13:00

no point with only 2gb? - Thats ridiculous, it would run fine with 512MB so 2GB is easily more than enough.

Tute · 21 Jan 2007 at 13:03

Okay, let's put this straight.

For WHQL Certification, there must be x86 AND x64 drivers submitted. That means that unless both pass testing, NEITHER will be installable.

So both x86 and x64 will have the SAME driver maturity.

Also, Conroes are NOT Itaniums. They can execute x86 code with NO PERFORMANCE PENALTY whatsoever. This is what the WOW64 application does, it handles control of the CPU when it comes to executing 32 bit code.

In reality, they should have called x64 *x86 with x64 capability there if need be* because that is what it is.

The only reason not to go x64 is if your processor doesn't support it. Otherwise you're just setting yourself up for more expense when you upgrade to 4GB RAM.

Lysander · 21 Jan 2007 at 13:03

durbs said:
no point with only 2gb? - Thats ridiculous, it would run fine with 512MB so 2GB is easily more than enough.

Would it? Running 64 bit on 512MB RAM if you're playing games or doing any form of advanced graphicwork would be next to pointless.

Sure, Gibbo said Vista ran fine on 512MB but he didn't specify where this was 32 or 64 bit and I doubt he meant for gaming.

Jakus · 21 Jan 2007 at 14:16

You Know when it boils right down to it all I need is the DX10 support for the future, XP is a good solid OS and all the little apps I use may never be Vista Compatible 32 or 64 bit I can not see me without XP for a very long time

MRBARKER · 21 Jan 2007 at 14:53

Vista Software & Hardware Compatibility List, for anyone that's interested

So i guess ASUS A8N-SLI Socket 939 main divers works ok with Vista ?

durbs · 21 Jan 2007 at 16:01

Lysander said:
Would it? Running 64 bit on 512MB RAM if you're playing games or doing any form of advanced graphicwork would be next to pointless.

Sure, Gibbo said Vista ran fine on 512MB but he didn't specify where this was 32 or 64 bit and I doubt he meant for gaming.

But the question was the chap was asking whether 64 bit would run on 2GB of memory and the answer is that seeing as this is 4x the system requirement level then i'm sure it will fly with 2GB no matter what you are using the PC for.

Sniper123 · 21 Jan 2007 at 16:28

Am I correct in thinking Vista64bit uses a lot of system resouces loading background stuff that you *might* open up so it's faster.But when you load a game or another similar resource eater Vista free's it up and lets the application use all system resources available.If this is indeed the case I'm confused to why some of you are suggesting Vista will be a lot slower than XP and you need 4GB of ram :confused:

jamjar · 21 Jan 2007 at 16:29

Sniper123 said:
Am I correct in thinking Vista64bit uses a lot of system resouces loading background stuff that you *might* open up so it's faster.But when you load a game or another similar resource eater Vista free's it up and lets the application use all system resources available.If this is indeed the case I'm confused to why some of you are suggesting Vista will be a lot slower than XP and you need 4GB of ram

I,ve heard that both x32 and x64 are a lot faster ,or maybe i,m wrong ? :confused:

danieln1 · 21 Jan 2007 at 16:37

when comes down to the whole memory thing and ppl saying that no point unless u have 4gb+

BUT the memory not down to just RAM but GPU.RAM as well and Plus the ready bost memory (this was last time i read any way not expert on this memory adreesing 32vs 64)

so if you have 2gb vista and SLI cards running at 512 each or now days 768 each all adds up plus lot ppl i seen on here have said there upgrade to 3gb ram

so with 3gb of ram and ready boost and gpu.ram all adds up to 4gb+

so would it not be better to go 64bit now

jamjar · 21 Jan 2007 at 16:41

danieln1 said:
when comes down to the whole memory thing and ppl saying that no point unless u have 4gb+

BUT the memory not down to just RAM but GPU.RAM as well and Plus the ready bost memory (this was last time i read any way not expert on this memory adreesing 32vs 64)

so if you have 2gb vista and SLI cards running at 512 each or now days 768 each all adds up plus lot ppl i seen on here have said there upgrade to 3gb ram

so with 3gb of ram and ready boost and gpu.ram all adds up to 4gb+

so would it not be better to go 64bit now

true i,m thinking of buying 2 OEM versions and giving x64 a go ,if i get trouble will resert back,no point starting off with x32 and going to x64 best aim high first ! cheaper that buying i retail version too.. £157.72 OEM Retail is £215.00

Vista ---- the correct version ?

Capodecina

Capodecina