why did MS release Vista 32?

[NathanE]

I think that the media and public reception is half built on not having tried it, and incorrect facts. The worst thing is when people moan about incompatability. You have an OS (Windows) which supports a massive amount of devices, and an almost infinite combination of setups. In that respect, it performs amazing.

Most things I have read about Vista seem to be from people who are manic Mac OS fanboys or people who haven't actually tried it.

In a household with Mac OSX Leopard, XP and multiple Vista machines, I always, always prefer to use Vista. It is 100% stable on all machines I have it on.

Yep. I just think that if Vista was the "launch platform" for 64-bit desktop computing then the public reception would have been very very different. Yes there would still be people slating it but I think average joes would have been talking about "64-bit" quite a bit more. It would be the whole "Nintendo 64" discussion point all over again. If people knew that Vista was the only way to get their 64-bit CPU working in 64-bit mode then they would probably look at it in a more positive light.

Obviously it's all too late now. But retrospectively...

Just IMHO though.

 

[Baz]

Probably had this thread a year or so again. But searching vista 32 obviously brings up far to many matches to read through.

But why the hell did MS release Vista 32?

Surly it must have extended the time needed before release. Compromised 64bit programming add unnecessary code.

But more importantly I thing it destroyed the public's opinion of vista. Driver development time only focused on 32bit at the beginning, why does bios show 4gb but vista only show 3GB. The general confusion that vista 32 is every bit as good as 64 apart from the ram. When this isn't the case.

So why did MS decide to go back on what they said and release a 32bit system.

And why did most of the manufacturers pre install 32bit. all there does seem to of been a shift recently with more computers coming pre-installed with 64bit.

At work I have 64 bit CPU's on clients but they all run 32bit Windows, saves me a headache of finding all the drivers I need... Plus there isn't much point.

 

[BillytheImpaler]

If people knew that Vista was the only way to get their 64-bit CPU working in 64-bit mode then they would probably look at it in a more positive light.

I don't understand what you're saying. Vista is not the only way to get a 64-bit CPU working in 64-bit mode. XP-64 has been around for years as has Windows Server 2003. In addition to those you also have the myriad of wee competing OSes that have had support for x86-64 procs since they became available.

 

[NathanE]

XP x64 and Server 2003 x64 aren't consumer OSes. Driver support is also poor in comparison to Vista x64 (although admittedly it seems to have improved since Vista x64 came out...)

Non-Windows OSes aren't usually attributed to "average joes"... Mac OSX maybe... but aren't we going off topic here?

Wasn't expecting to be explaining basic stuff like that :/

PS: Everyone seems to missing the point that I am speaking retrospectively... I am saying "IF Microsoft had done things this way... then..."

 

[BillytheImpaler]

Then I'll trouble you no longer with my deplorable lack of basic knowledge. Thanks.

 

[NathanE]

Sorry didn't mean it like that :/ Bloody internet...

 

[Edinho]

But Windows has such a monopoly people would have changed over regardless, especially as MS tried to make it extremely hard to get xp pre-installed.

And 64bit processor have been about for years and any computer capable of running vista will have 64bit processor.

If it was up to MS we would have had 64bit 5 years ago. The problem came from software developer idleness.

Going straight to 64 wouldnt have worked and 32 used as a sort of go-between.

 

[Phil2008]

Well I am usiing 32bit version of vista on my system(see in sig) and Im perfectly happy with performance, and Im not even missing the memory im loosing out on.. But honnestly I cant see why the hell vista 64 would be faster then the 32bit version? more secure yeah, but speed diff between, im finding that hard to figger out why the hell it would be faster?? Basically if I chaged to the 64bit version, would I notice any diff in speed??

I perfer 32bit verson of vista at the mo, cos I can still run "stronghold 1" and "rally championship 2000", plus you cant run zonealarm on vista 64bit yet. Basically for me vista32 is perfectly fine untill games start using all of the 3.3gb of memory, then I will have to get the 64bit version to release the rest of my memory, and prob upgrade to 8gb while Im at it

 

[Ethics]

plus you cant run zonealarm on vista 64bit yet.

See? it does have some very nice features.

 

[Dark_Angel]

See? it does have some very nice features.

True

 

[stopstartstall]

See? it does have some very nice features.

haha win.

 

[bledd]

Well I am usiing 32bit version of vista on my system(see in sig) and Im perfectly happy with performance, and Im not even missing the memory im loosing out on.. But honnestly I cant see why the hell vista 64 would be faster then the 32bit version? more secure yeah, but speed diff between, im finding that hard to figger out why the hell it would be faster?? Basically if I chaged to the 64bit version, would I notice any diff in speed??

I perfer 32bit verson of vista at the mo, cos I can still run "stronghold 1" and "rally championship 2000", plus you cant run zonealarm on vista 64bit yet. Basically for me vista32 is perfectly fine untill games start using all of the 3.3gb of memory, then I will have to get the 64bit version to release the rest of my memory, and prob upgrade to 8gb while Im at it

you're slating it without having used it!

and zonealarm is the root of tons of problems

christ


you're just holding your hardware back, you've spent a lot on it, why hamper it with a duff os

 

[tripitaka]

I run Vista 64 at home, and 32 at work.

In my experience, 64 is a lot more stable.

 

[dirtydog]

I honestly believe that if there was only a Vista x64 then the public and media reception of Vista would have been entirely different.

Why? The problems I and many others have with Vista are design, functionality and usability decisions MS have taken with their OS. Those issues are identical whether 32-bit or 64-bit.

 

[markyb]

I think most of the problems still root back to when Windows XP x64 came out.

Driver problems, program & game compatibility with the OS. a lot of my customers who requested for the 64bit OS when it came out soon reverted back to 32bit.

I think Consumers/PC Suppliers still think that they are going to have these kind of problems which plagued XP x64.
Lets face it most of the General Public would not notice any difference between the two.

 

[NathanE]

Why? The problems I and many others have with Vista are design, functionality and usability decisions MS have taken with their OS. Those issues are identical whether 32-bit or 64-bit.

Doesn't your list have about 2 things on it though?

I'm just saying that if Vista was x64-only from launch day then it would have basically been another "pillar" for free. It would have replaced the void left by WinFS for many people. Microsoft could have had a completely different marketing approach too.

 

[Columbo]

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.

 

[Phil2008]

you're slating it without having used it!

and zonealarm is the root of tons of problems

christ


you're just holding your hardware back, you've spent a lot on it, why hamper it with a duff os

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??

 

[nightmare99]

Ok I'm going to stick my neck out an blame Intel

As already mentioned they were very late getting EMT64 into thier mobile CPUs.

Desktop wise you should be pretty much sorted if you don't have a 64 capable CPU you probably shouldn't be running vista.

But yes there is this stigma floating around 64 bit os from the Initial launch od XP64, so now everybody believes Vista 64 has the same issues and has really bad driver support which is clearly not the case.

I'm from the stable that believes MS should not have bothered with 32 bit Vista, it just adds confusion when really they sould have been a lot more focused.

My 2p don't shoot me.

 

[Phil2008]

I run Vista 64 at home, and 32 at work.

In my experience, 64 is a lot more stable.

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????