Soldato
Worked a treat on server 2008 x64iTunes won't work on vista 64 bit. You are most likely using a 32bit version of vista.
windows vista 32/64 bit
- Thread starter Doox
- Start date
I'm running Vista64 and I've experienced problems when downloading the latest version of itunes, it downloads and then fails when its half way through installing. I've got itunes 7 installed and that is running fine
you would have thought they would have tweaked it so itunes 7.5 would install OK.
Associate
I'm running iTunes 7.5 but like garyh it throws an error about CD burning but other than that it's fine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,857
If you have a processor that is capable of handling 64-bit instructions then their is no reason to go for the 32-bit edition. You won't see a massive performance increase going from a 32-bit to a 64-bit operating system as of yet since many programs have been written for 32-bit architectures. However this will be changing in the future because with 64bit being more recognized, more and more programs will be written under 64-bit architectures. When programs are released that are written specifically for 64-bit, you will then start to see a performance increase from 32-bit applications.
There is also no noticeable performance loss in running 32-bit applications on a 64-bit system as already stated, quite clearly by NathanE.
As far as computability goes, the majority of the main manufacturers out their have now released 64-bit drivers for their hardware. Please take into account that Windows Vista 64-bit cannot run 16-bit coded applications and also some decidedly 32-bit applications actually have an inclusion of 16-bit code in the installers. However that's very far and few between and really isn't something you need to worry about unless you specifically know of anything that you use that is 16-bit encoded in any way.
You will also be able to address up to 128GB of Ram depending on the edition that you purchase as opposed to 4GB when using a 32-bit Operating System. Which is actually cut down to around the 3GB mark depending on your hardware configuration. Depending on how you use your system, this could have quite a big effect on you.
Their is a lot more to 64-bit other than being able to address more memory. If you are interested, then have a read through this article. It's a fantastic read.
A little quote from the end of that article:
Hello v0n, If it was really that sloppy, their would be a massive performance hit when running those 32-bit applications. The truth is though, their isn't, far from it actually.
Hey badbob, comparing Windows Vista 64-bit to Windows XP 32-bit is clearly not a conclusive way to find out if 64-bit is better or worse since they are different Operating Systems. Now comparing Windows Vista 32-bit and Windows Vista 64-bit is a lot more conclusive. Check the article below.
No they are not. Have a read through this article and compare the unnoticeable loss between Windows Vista 32-bit and Windows Vista 64-bit when running games.
Most applications do not quite reach the 2GB barrier of a 32-bit Operating System, yet anyway. However, you could still want to be running a number of copies of the same application and if this is the case, then more memory would be beneficial.
Why some people have this "hatred" (So to speak) towards a 64-bit Operating System now is beyond me in my opinion.
There is also no noticeable performance loss in running 32-bit applications on a 64-bit system as already stated, quite clearly by NathanE.
As far as computability goes, the majority of the main manufacturers out their have now released 64-bit drivers for their hardware. Please take into account that Windows Vista 64-bit cannot run 16-bit coded applications and also some decidedly 32-bit applications actually have an inclusion of 16-bit code in the installers. However that's very far and few between and really isn't something you need to worry about unless you specifically know of anything that you use that is 16-bit encoded in any way.
You will also be able to address up to 128GB of Ram depending on the edition that you purchase as opposed to 4GB when using a 32-bit Operating System. Which is actually cut down to around the 3GB mark depending on your hardware configuration. Depending on how you use your system, this could have quite a big effect on you.
Their is a lot more to 64-bit other than being able to address more memory. If you are interested, then have a read through this article. It's a fantastic read.
A little quote from the end of that article:
bit-tech said:
Hello v0n, If it was really that sloppy, their would be a massive performance hit when running those 32-bit applications. The truth is though, their isn't, far from it actually.
Hey badbob, comparing Windows Vista 64-bit to Windows XP 32-bit is clearly not a conclusive way to find out if 64-bit is better or worse since they are different Operating Systems. Now comparing Windows Vista 32-bit and Windows Vista 64-bit is a lot more conclusive. Check the article below.
No they are not. Have a read through this article and compare the unnoticeable loss between Windows Vista 32-bit and Windows Vista 64-bit when running games.
Most applications do not quite reach the 2GB barrier of a 32-bit Operating System, yet anyway. However, you could still want to be running a number of copies of the same application and if this is the case, then more memory would be beneficial.
Why some people have this "hatred" (So to speak) towards a 64-bit Operating System now is beyond me in my opinion.
Last edited:
Soldato
I have an old socket 939 system which I am pushing to the max, hoping to avoid an upgrade as long as possible
I currently run XP Pro 32 bit and 4gb of ram. It only detects 3.2Gb or so. I have an opteron X2 64bit and am tempted to get an OEM copy of vista 64 so that I will be both able to use the full 4gb and also will have a nice OS to take along to my next system build.
However, remember reading ages ago that OEM copies can only be licenced on one machine....if you rebuild you have to re-buy the OS. Is this still correct? If I buy the OEM version of Vista 64 ultimate and install it on my 939 machine will I be stuffed if I want to rebuild my PC with a whole new setup?
Can anyone confirm this at all?
Soldato
It's all nice, but all of you pressing hard on MS marketing - where are those advantages of running x64? The link to firing squad test practically proves there is not a single game that would run faster on x64 than it does on 32bit XP, people offer 64bit 7zip as a golden token like they were zipping stuff all day long. In the meantime, in real world it's all irrelevant.
I get how you might not understand what emulation layer is and insist on something running natively when it's just emulation wrapper in runmode 3. Please understand - 64 bit is not new idea, many of us dealt with proper, true 64 bit systems and believe me - it will be years before you actually see something on desktop level taking any advantage of 64bits and being faster. And until then any guy with old 32 bit XP will get his nice beta drivers, stable software and fixes for latest game or app the same morning while all of you will be beta testing badly coded crock again and again and wait for another set of stable drivers (and they are slower, it's how it works, you don't get to install optimized drivers or stripped betas). Because at this stage x64 is minority market share excercise - it's like Windows games for Linux or cross platform applications.
It's not that x64 bit is unusable, as you all said - stuff works on it - just not as blazingly fast as it should be, with 64 bit being in theory better platform. It just doesn't have any real advantages to home user and it's not going to change for years. I appreciate your optimism, but please do realise, if it wasn't that much faster in year one after release, it's not going to get any faster in year two.
I get how you might not understand what emulation layer is and insist on something running natively when it's just emulation wrapper in runmode 3. Please understand - 64 bit is not new idea, many of us dealt with proper, true 64 bit systems and believe me - it will be years before you actually see something on desktop level taking any advantage of 64bits and being faster. And until then any guy with old 32 bit XP will get his nice beta drivers, stable software and fixes for latest game or app the same morning while all of you will be beta testing badly coded crock again and again and wait for another set of stable drivers (and they are slower, it's how it works, you don't get to install optimized drivers or stripped betas). Because at this stage x64 is minority market share excercise - it's like Windows games for Linux or cross platform applications.
It's not that x64 bit is unusable, as you all said - stuff works on it - just not as blazingly fast as it should be, with 64 bit being in theory better platform. It just doesn't have any real advantages to home user and it's not going to change for years. I appreciate your optimism, but please do realise, if it wasn't that much faster in year one after release, it's not going to get any faster in year two.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,857
Hey Youstolemyname, sorry, I missed this post of yours.
If you purchase the OEM license of Windows, you can change any system component in your system as many times as you wish apart from the motherboard and you will still be licensed. Now you may have to re-activate Windows Vista after a hardware and/or configuration change either by the online process or if it fails for various reasons, you will have to ring them up. If you do have to ring them up and speak with a Microsoft Agent, just tell them the truth, what exactly has happened and they will happily re-activate your copy of Windows for you. You will not be violating the EULA and you are still within your rights to use Windows Vista.
Now if you change your motherboard for a performance upgrade (We are not talking about replacing your motherboard under warranty), then I am afraid you will have to purchase a new copy of Windows Vista (License). If you wish to use the same copy of Windows Vista with your brand new motherboard, the only way you are going to get Windows Vista re-activated is if you ring up Microsoft. You now may be activated but you are certainly no longer licensed and would have just broken the EULA.
Last edited:
What a load of cack vOn. 64bit is faster for os related stuff as it's 64bit and everything deisgned in the OS is also 64bit. Thats pretty much all the processes at launch.. 32bit software will run just as fast as on a 32bit operating system. And some of them will run faster due to using q-words.
Again your sprouting rubbish and looking at it the wrong way.
Why stay with 32bit? what advantages does 32bit give? 64bit gives lots of advatages with next to no drawback. The same can't be aid about 32bit.
Again your sprouting rubbish and looking at it the wrong way.
Why stay with 32bit? what advantages does 32bit give? 64bit gives lots of advatages with next to no drawback. The same can't be aid about 32bit.
I run a dual boot of XP64 and Vista64.
Games run at pretty much the same performance (any difference is negligible). Admittedly I use XP64 more than Vista but that's down to Vista problems that are also present on the 32-bit version.
As has been repeatedly explained, there is no reason to go for the 32-bit version of Vista when buying new. In fact, whenever I see anyone using Vista 32-bit, I feel a bit sorry for them! 
Games run at pretty much the same performance (any difference is negligible). Admittedly I use XP64 more than Vista but that's down to Vista problems that are also present on the 32-bit version.
As has been repeatedly explained, there is no reason to go for the 32-bit version of Vista when buying new. In fact, whenever I see anyone using Vista 32-bit, I feel a bit sorry for them!
Soldato
AcideHell2, you gotta chill dude. Stop being so blinded.
64bit has no advantages over 32bit sysem at the moment. Unless you run SQL, CAD or beta test some massive memory hogs - none. no one really cares if calculator opens faster on x64 (not that it actually does anyway), but for a guy on XP his 32bit stuff, majority of all he does all day long will be faster than your 32bit emulation layer on x64. Because running unoptimized 32bit code on 32bit OS will always be faster than running unoptimized 32bit code on emulator within 64bit. His drivers will be faster and fixes readily available. He will be able to stick any old hardware into his box regardless of whether the manufacturer of the cheap chinese knock off card can bothered to invest in 64bit driver and certification procedure. His 32bit apps and games will be faster than their 64bit counterparts even if only because as majority market they will be debugged and tested better. He will be prioritized for patches and fixes.
As for the OS running faster - prove it - gimme one good benchmark - two boxes with 4Gb memory and prove that 64bit with all overheads run relatively faster than x86 using 3.2Gb of memory to even bother.
At the moment x64 has only drawbacks. The only good thing it does is emulating 32bit in fairly good and fast fashion. And even then it hits incompatibilities from time to time.
Even Microsoft agrees 64bits are not for everyone. Against all your "cacking" and "rubbishing" from foaming mouth. I couldn't care less what you use - if you find it soothing, stay with x64 - but be realistic, give credit where it's due.
64bit has no advantages over 32bit sysem at the moment. Unless you run SQL, CAD or beta test some massive memory hogs - none. no one really cares if calculator opens faster on x64 (not that it actually does anyway), but for a guy on XP his 32bit stuff, majority of all he does all day long will be faster than your 32bit emulation layer on x64. Because running unoptimized 32bit code on 32bit OS will always be faster than running unoptimized 32bit code on emulator within 64bit. His drivers will be faster and fixes readily available. He will be able to stick any old hardware into his box regardless of whether the manufacturer of the cheap chinese knock off card can bothered to invest in 64bit driver and certification procedure. His 32bit apps and games will be faster than their 64bit counterparts even if only because as majority market they will be debugged and tested better. He will be prioritized for patches and fixes.
As for the OS running faster - prove it - gimme one good benchmark - two boxes with 4Gb memory and prove that 64bit with all overheads run relatively faster than x86 using 3.2Gb of memory to even bother.
At the moment x64 has only drawbacks. The only good thing it does is emulating 32bit in fairly good and fast fashion. And even then it hits incompatibilities from time to time.
Even Microsoft agrees 64bits are not for everyone. Against all your "cacking" and "rubbishing" from foaming mouth. I couldn't care less what you use - if you find it soothing, stay with x64 - but be realistic, give credit where it's due.
Last edited:
Soldato
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,857
Hey v0n, if we are going to compare 32-bit to 64-bit, we have to at least use the same Operating System and in this case Windows Vista. Windows Vista against Windows XP is a whole different ball game.
Now comparing Windows Vista 32-bit to Windows Vista 64-bit, there are a few games that are slightly faster on the 64-bit platform then the 32-bit platform and vice versa. Now either way it's only a matter of a few frames per second difference which would quite honestly go unnoticed. However, you said:And the survey saids:
I stated that article because you said the above which isn't quite true, going by the firingsquad article.
Last edited:
I reply how I get spoken to. Fair enough all the cacks might not of been needed and It was probably badbob who started it. For that I apologize.
But you are still mistaken about 64. especially as the OP has asked about vista 32 or vista 64. So there's no point even bringing xp into it.
Read the article fire wizard posted for a start. then read what people running vista 64 have said. First hand experience is often better than tests.
But you are still mistaken about 64. especially as the OP has asked about vista 32 or vista 64. So there's no point even bringing xp into it.
Read the article fire wizard posted for a start. then read what people running vista 64 have said. First hand experience is often better than tests.
Soldato
Again, besides testing procedure being slightly funny, as they used signed drivers for both Vistas thus proving nothing beside drivers being equally limiting to the point of benchmarking differences being at error margin levels - I still don't see the advantage - take the 8800 card in 1600x1200:
Bioshock - x64 is 0.6 frames slower
Oblivion - x64 is 0.2 frames faster
Stalker - x64 is 0.7 frames slower
CoH - x64 is 0.5 frames slower
FEAR - x64 is 1 frame slower
ET:QW - x64 is 0.2 frames faster
Firing squad conclusion being - x64 is mostly as fast as 32bit Vista. Is that supposed to be advantage? That kind of stuff is where you take first set of 32 bit beta drivers and bash x64 back under rock. Obviously it's still running 32bit binary, but hell - 64bit system should be much faster from kernel level up. In this case, it is clearly not working. If "as good as" or "as fast as" is the best it can do then why even bother?
Last edited:
No but it shows it's equal. combine that with what else x64 gives you. And it makes for a much more logical and future proof system.
If they run at the same speed why buy 32 when x64 runs more ram, is more secure and will run software faster in the near future as well as being future proof.
Deleted member 64478
D
Deleted member 64478
Just remember, most of you have 64bit enabled CPUs. Most applications do work with Vista 64bit but however as I mentioned in another thread Vista still needs developing just like XP did back in the time XP was released. Once SP1 has been released hopefully many problems for people will be solved and things will have calmed down with 'Should I get Vista x32 or x64' Or 'Should I stick with XP' Or 'What'.
Calm ya pants down and get what feel you would benifit from just becuse its the latest release e.t.c doesn't mean you have to get it.
For example, music production, gaming, office, learning curve e.t.c
I bet around 95% of people on this forum don't even push the hardware to its limits and software and just have the hardware/software because they can. They just have bigger systems so they can say "I got the best - My cpy clocks to xxxx mhz e.t.c.
Chill the F out.
Calm ya pants down and get what feel you would benifit from just becuse its the latest release e.t.c doesn't mean you have to get it.
For example, music production, gaming, office, learning curve e.t.c
I bet around 95% of people on this forum don't even push the hardware to its limits and software and just have the hardware/software because they can. They just have bigger systems so they can say "I got the best - My cpy clocks to xxxx mhz e.t.c.
Chill the F out.
Soldato
He isn't blinded at all. In fact he understands what he is talking about and isn't just piecing it together from things he may have heard from misinformation sites like "Neowin".
Yes you keep on saying that and everybody here is saying you are wrong. When will you start to listen?v0n said:
There are plenty of every day applications that benefit. Just compressing or decompressing files will be much faster on x64.v0n said:
It probably does open faster actually due to optimisations elsewhere in the x64 NT 5.1 and NT 6.0 kernel's surrounding thread creation. You may not care about small gains like that, but the rest of the world does. It's called progress.v0n said:
Please read my previous post as to why this is complete FUD that you are sprouting.v0n said:
It's not ******* emulator! Please read my damn posts. Who is the blind one here?v0n said:
x64 drivers were a problem to start with when XP x64 came out. But the Vista wave set that straight because vendors that want WHQL signing are forced to submit a combined 32 and 64-bit driver package. Failure to do so is an immediate failure.v0n said:
I'd wager that any "new" hardware you can buy right now today that doesn't also have a 64-bit driver isn't worth buying. It was clearly developed by a monkey without the care in the world about product quality or support. I'd also wager that the 32-bit driver will bSOD your system very quickly.v0n said:
More FUDv0n said:
A 64-bit driver can be generated simply by setting a flag at compile time. There is no need to maintain 2 seperate code bases. So when they test the driver it doesn't matter whether its a 32 or 64-bit system. Although I know for a fact that driver developers these days are all running 64-bit Windows. So by your logic the 64-bit driver should be more stable as that is what they are developing it on 
Why should we spend time running benchmarks for someone who is clearly just going to spit them back at us when he still doesn't agree? Why don't you try running a Google on the subject. How about these keywords: "32-bit vs 64-bit performance comparison 2007"? Just make damn sure the article you are reading is from 2007 before coming running back to this thread with a big grin on your face as though you have found evidence contrary to what we are saying.v0n said:
Woah? A minute ago you were saying the emulation was crap and slow?v0n said:
Ah damn that didn't last long. Well I'm pleased to tell you that this is also FUD. I've been using 64-bit Windows for 2 years now and am yet to find any significant compatibility issues with any software. Yes it's possible some software doesn't work but we are talking about figures below 1% here - certainly not worth worrying about nor deserving of the "from time to time" description.v0n said:
No? Microsoft has stated that 64-bit is their future and all future OSes will be 64-bit only.v0n said:
Soldato
But what exactly is it that x64 gives you - inability to speed up your games with optimized last minute drivers? Checking the boxes on hardware to see if manufacturer of a generic bluetooth dongle could be bothered to get his drivers signed for 0.1% of the market?
As I said - I would like to believe that - I would like to believe there is actually future for this toss of x64 on Windows. It didn't happen for NT, XP, would love to see that working for x86. But in the meantime something is stilll amiss - even when Crysis executable runs faster on x64 in x86 32 bit emulation layer than in does in native 64bit then this is still swan song. Either MS don't know how it should work or developers don't know what is it supposed to do. "It can do 32bit just as fast" can't be the only advantage at cost of inconveniences in every day life, no matter how small. If it actually performed much faster from kernel up, then you would have a case, but it's not the case right now, is it?