why did MS release Vista 32?

[bledd]

re your reply : fair enough

i upgraded my media centre from 32bit Home premuim to 64bit home premium

it runs a lot smoother now (both were fully patched) and the more ram you have, the more windows will utilize

the only reason i'd consider going back is because there's no 64bit haali splitter out yet

 

[NathanE]

Im not slating it at all. I just asked would I notice a performace boost by upgrading to 64-bit?I have posted this question before in other thread, but no on can answer it, so it leads me to think this..........

I think a lot of you guys say the 64bit version is faster, just cos 64bit has got to be faster then 32bit, without testing both OS on a same spec system??

64-bit is faster usually by a margin of 10-20% but in some rarer tasks it can be 50-200% faster... usually multimedia encoding tasks can quite easily see this sort of gain in optimal conditions.

There are a number of detailed threads on this subject, do a search

 

[dirtydog]

If you have a 64bit capable CPU and are going to install vista, why would'nt you buy the 64bit variant? I just cant get my head around it.

I was an early adopter of Vista 64 Ultimate and am still loving it this day.
Forgot whats its like to have my PC crash.

Seems like a straw man... I've been using XP for years and have also forgotten what it's like to have my PC crash.

 

[dirtydog]

Is it more stabe tho,, you tried both OS with the same system?? its like with the speed thing, you got anything to say the 64bit is more stable then the 32bit version.. I want to hear peoples comments that has run both OS with the same spec system,, not ppl who think that vista 64bit should be this and that????

Quite. I've also seen people saying Vista is much more stable than XP, as if XP is somehow unstable or prone to crashing? Is it hell.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Quite. I've also seen people saying Vista is much more stable than XP, as if XP is somehow unstable or prone to crashing? Is it hell.

Yeah, XP is pretty damn rock stable for me... but Vista just seems a bit more likely to survive random program crashes, and seems to recover a little quicker from stuff.

But I don't really get many crashes on either.

 

[NathanE]

Quite. I've also seen people saying Vista is much more stable than XP, as if XP is somehow unstable or prone to crashing? Is it hell.

Vista gives a more polished user experience when programs do crash though (not the OS, but programs...) Mostly thanks to the Desktop Compositor actually... No longer when some program hangs do you get the "solitaire effect"... instead Vista just fades out the application but you can still drag it around as much as you like and it doesn't affect the redrawing of other applications. If the program starts responding again then Vista fades it back in...

Sometimes on XP an application crash can really bog down the whole OS. If it is a big application or it was using lots of memory before it crashed then it can often take XP a little while to get back into its normal state. In the meantime you are stuck with artifacts and half redrawn applications all over the screen. Remember when PC's got so bogged down that when the user minimized to the desktop you could see it visibly redrawing the desktop wallpaper line by line?

That is why Vista is often described as having "a more polished user experience" than XP. Stability is just another word for it.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Vista gives a more polished user experience when programs do crash though (not the OS, but programs...) Mostly thanks to the Desktop Compositor actually... No longer when some program hangs do you get the "solitaire effect"... instead Vista just fades out the application but you can still drag it around as much as you like and it doesn't affect the redrawing of other applications. If the program starts responding again then Vista fades it back in...

Sometimes on XP an application crash can really bog down the whole OS. If it is a big application or it was using lots of memory before it crashed then it can often take XP a little while to get back into its normal state. In the meantime you are stuck with artifacts and half redrawn applications all over the screen. Remember when PC's got so bogged down that when the user minimized to the desktop you could see it visibly redrawing the desktop wallpaper line by line?

That is why Vista is often described as having "a more polished user experience" than XP. Stability is just another word for it.

Thats actually what I meant in my post, its just yours said it better

 

[dirtydog]

Vista gives a more polished user experience when programs do crash though (not the OS, but programs...) Mostly thanks to the Desktop Compositor actually... No longer when some program hangs do you get the "solitaire effect"... instead Vista just fades out the application but you can still drag it around as much as you like and it doesn't affect the redrawing of other applications. If the program starts responding again then Vista fades it back in...

Sometimes on XP an application crash can really bog down the whole OS. If it is a big application or it was using lots of memory before it crashed then it can often take XP a little while to get back into its normal state. In the meantime you are stuck with artifacts and half redrawn applications all over the screen. Remember when PC's got so bogged down that when the user minimized to the desktop you could see it visibly redrawing the desktop wallpaper line by line?

That is why Vista is often described as having "a more polished user experience" than XP. Stability is just another word for it.

Yeah but if you push any OS hard enough, you can cause it to bog down in some way. Didn't someone demonstrate that if you opened enough windows in Vista, it pretty much froze up or something. I wouldn't criticise any OS for that because it isn't going to affect most users in normal usage

 

[NathanE]

That would make sense however the solitaire-effect/slow redraw etc was one of the biggest complaints Microsoft got about Windows.

 

[Glaucus]

Is it more stabe tho,, you tried both OS with the same system?? its like with the speed thing, you got anything to say the 64bit is more stable then the 32bit version.. I want to hear peoples comments that has run both OS with the same spec system,, not ppl who think that vista 64bit should be this and that????

I ran both at beta stage. The 64bit was smoother and felt faster. It also crashed a hell of a lot less.

 

[dbmzk1]

Is it more stabe tho,, you tried both OS with the same system?? its like with the speed thing, you got anything to say the 64bit is more stable then the 32bit version.. I want to hear peoples comments that has run both OS with the same spec system,, not ppl who think that vista 64bit should be this and that????

I have used, and still do use, both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista.

64-bit is more stable, faster and more secure. The only reason I'm still using 32-bit on one of my systems is it only has a 32-bit CPU.

Happy now?

 

[Glaucus]

Yeah but if you push any OS hard enough, you can cause it to bog down in some way. Didn't someone demonstrate that if you opened enough windows in Vista, it pretty much froze up or something. I wouldn't criticise any OS for that because it isn't going to affect most users in normal usage

It's not about pushing a system two hard. It's about how an os handles a crashed application. Vista does this very well. XP closed every application down before eventually restarting explorer. Not really taht good.

You have an unrational hatred for vista, so why don't you just stay out of threads with your FUD.

 

[Vertigo]

yeh I see your point. Still it would be nice if every know and then MS would just stop leggacy support and start from scratch again.

Backward compatibility is the largest single factor in Windows' success over the past two decades.

I think it's fair to say that Microsoft knows a darn site more about marketing than any of us.

 

[Senture]

Sometimes on XP an application crash can really bog down the whole OS. If it is a big application or it was using lots of memory before it crashed then it can often take XP a little while to get back into its normal state. In the meantime you are stuck with artifacts and half redrawn applications all over the screen. Remember when PC's got so bogged down that when the user minimized to the desktop you could see it visibly redrawing the desktop wallpaper line by line?

Yep, that is the sort of computer than work provided me with before my aptop was delivered lol.

I've not ran both 32bit and 64bit on the same machine ever, so I can't really comment on the differences

 

[OspreyO]

I haven't noticed much difference in crashing between Vista and XP. XP has been pretty good tbh.

I've tried Vista 32, 64 and now Server 2008. Vista 32 and 64 are a lot slower than XP, even when you tweak it. 64 I have driver issues with the graphics card. I can't use some resolution which I like for games. Server 2008 was as fast if not faster than XP. But again I had video driver issues which meant it had to come off. At this point I'm thinking of going back to XP. Its just faster and everything works.

 

[dbmzk1]

I haven't noticed much difference in crashing between Vista and XP. XP has been pretty good tbh.

I've tried Vista 32, 64 and now Server 2008. Vista 32 and 64 are a lot slower than XP, even when you tweak it. 64 I have driver issues with the graphics card. I can't use some resolution which I like for games. Server 2008 was as fast if not faster than XP. But again I had video driver issues which meant it had to come off. At this point I'm thinking of going back to XP. Its just faster and everything works.

That's strange as I have found Vista 64 faster than XP at everything but games. It is catching up with XP and even exceeds it in some games now too.

I've never had any driver issues at all. Even my old PCI Voodoo3 works fine.

 

[Adrianr]

Is it more stabe tho,, you tried both OS with the same system?? its like with the speed thing, you got anything to say the 64bit is more stable then the 32bit version.. I want to hear peoples comments that has run both OS with the same spec system,, not ppl who think that vista 64bit should be this and that????

I ran 32bit Vista on my older Athlon 5000 X2 with 4GB of ram for a while. Thought it was quite nice actually, though at the time reverted back to XP as there were a few overiding problems that meant i couldn't stay with Vista (Not seeing my external hardrive with ALL my stuff on it!). Had 0 problems with XP, just felt completely bored of the GUI to be honest.

Upgraded to a Q6600 system and ran Vista 32 again with all updates (Hardrive worked!) and did some mulling around, general use, photo editing, etc.

Switched to Vista 64 after maybe 2 months use. And i'm really hard pressed to find a real noticeable difference. A few things run smoother, but i can never tell if it's merely placebo effect. If you sat me down at an identical system (Bar the OS of course) and didn't tell me which was which, i really don't know if i could tell. One of the main benefits is being able to just put my PC in sleep.. I don't turn my system off for weeks at a time, and i could never do that with XP.

I've actually had 4 BSODs on this Vista 64 system.. Because i forgot to enable voltage damper in the bios

NathanE brings up a very important point about how the OS deals with problems, but more importantly how this is translated to the user. Needless to say for this Vista has brought a welcome change. If something doesn't work, it fades it out, either untill it starts again, or you tell it to stop trying. Doesn't seem to have an effect on anything else. Can also recover from display drivers crashing, which XP could never do (For me anyway).


Maybe the sheer fact you think the 64bit system will be more stable is enough to make it so. You glaze over things. I certainly don't see why you would ever install 32bit Vista over 64. Everything i need works and does so very well. Just feels a bit more like the future!

 

[dirtydog]

It's not about pushing a system two hard. It's about how an os handles a crashed application. Vista does this very well. XP closed every application down before eventually restarting explorer. Not really taht good.

You have an unrational hatred for vista, so why don't you just stay out of threads with your FUD.

Hehe no I won't stay out of threads because my opinions aren't to your liking.

As for FUD: no, XP does not 'close every application down' when one app crashes!

I'm not saying Vista doesn't have improvements over XP in any area, or that it doesn't handle app crashes a bit better. To make out XP handled app crashes really badly is not accurate though.

 

[dbmzk1]

Hehe no I won't stay out of threads because my opinions aren't to your liking.

As for FUD: no, XP does not 'close every application down' when one app crashes!

I'm not saying Vista doesn't have improvements over XP in any area, or that it doesn't handle app crashes a bit better. To make out XP handled app crashes really badly is not accurate though.

It is accurate though. While it didn't happen every time, it did happen, which it doesn't in Vista. If a programme crashes in XP it often makes other apps crash, takes explorer with it, locks up the system, or at least makes the system slow and generally unstable for a while or even until you restart. With Vista you get none of that at all. I've yet to have Vista itself fail or slowdown due to an application error. You simply can't say that about XP!

If there was one single feature that I would rate Vista as being significantly better than XP at, I would say it is the way it handles applications. Or at least it's up there in the top 5 anyway, depending on my mood!

 

[dirtydog]

It is accurate though. While it didn't happen every time, it did happen, which it doesn't in Vista. If a programme crashes in XP it often makes other apps crash, takes explorer with it, locks up the system, or at least makes the system slow and generally unstable for a while or even until you restart. With Vista you get none of that at all. I've yet to have Vista itself fail or slowdown due to an application error. You simply can't say that about XP!

If there was one single feature that I would rate Vista as being significantly better than XP at, I would say it is the way it handles applications. Or at least it's up there in the top 5 anyway, depending on my mood!

LOL. You make XP sound worse than Windows 95... yes an app can sometimes crash requiring explorer to restart. Explorer restarts within two seconds and all your other apps are still running unharmed. Let's not go down the revisionist historical route of making Vista look like a bigger leap from XP than it is, by pretending XP was that bad.