64-bit vs. 32-bit Vista

RetroEvolute · January 24th, 2007, 12:26 AM

Okay... I've been using Vista [32-bit (Beta 2 and RTM)] for about 2 months now and I definitely like it. I'm planning on buying it as soon as it's released and I'm pretty sure I'll be getting OEM, seeing as it's cheaper. Here's my question...

Should I go with the 64-bit, or the 32-bit. All my drivers are supported by 64-bit drivers with the exception of a lesser needed driver for a peripheral. However, I've read that some people have been having trouble installing non-vista specific 64-bit drivers (aka WinXP 64-bit/2000 64-bit). Some of my possibly needed drivers are these kind... Anyone know anything about this to clue me in?

Also, my current PC, which I'm planning on upgrading sometime around this summer is a Socket 754 Athlon 64 3400+. I know that the processor states that it is 64-bit, but I'm not sure if the socket actually fully supports it. I'd heard of some problems installing Vista 64-bit on some PCs and I'm a little worried.

I'd be cool with installing 32-bit Vista Home Premium, but if possible, and if the upgrade to 64-bit is not hell, I'd like it. Seeing as it is the future.

Anyone willing to spread some wisdom across my lightly toasted mind? Thanks.

EDIT-

Okay, well... I didn't really give you guys any time to respond, but I've come to a conclusion. What I'm going to do is, come Jan. 30th, I will be buying the Vista 32-bit Home Premium Edition. It will run well and suit me right. While I'm running this, the 64-bit version will get all the kinks worked out, and when it's the end of summer and I am upgraded the hardware in my PC, I can just go out and grab the OEM 64-bit version. Seeing as OEM technically does not allow its owner to transfer the version from motherboard to motherboard, anyway.

However, don't necessarily end this thread here. Discuss 64-bit vs. 32-bit, your experiences, etc.

If you have any questions about my experience with Vista, I'll also be happy to help inform you. So far, I'm very happy and very stoked. Not to mention that my Birthday is about an hour and fifteen minutes away.

Sixpac_XP · January 24th, 2007, 12:33 AM

Well, I've be dabbling in the 32 vs. 64 bit area for some time now. I was on the XP 64bit beta test (and bought the upgrade) and also I have installed the 64 bit of Vista Business edition.

I don't see any benefits right now for 64 bit Windows Vista. The lack of driver and software vendor support is steering me away from the 64 bit versions for now. (no speed increases with any apps as far as I can see).

So right now I am running Vista Business 32bit and its working not to bad so far.

I think though during the weekend I will go back to Windows XP 32 bit.

JPMiller · January 24th, 2007, 12:36 AM

Don't bother with 64Bit unless you stock up on Aspirin...
Its more of a headache than its worth, and isn't supported widely enough to make viable mainstream yet

RetroEvolute · January 24th, 2007, 12:48 AM

I really would not doubt that Vista will help make 64-bit much more widespread, though. I mean, imagine. Some PC vendor is going to be all like... "Hm, well, let's sell 64-bit cpu pc's with vista 64-bit, I mean... Hell, it's the way of the future."

Then some poor 'ole sap that does know close to anything about computers will get it and have to deal with all the 64-bit stuff. But it won't just be ONE poor 'ole sap, it'll be a whole bunch. And they'll get to complaining and eventually, the companies with products requiring drivers will start to support it more and more. While this is happening, Microsoft will be milking out updates left and right to make sure that the people don't come complaining to them and sooner or later, 64-bit will be fully adapted and wide-spread.

Hence, one reason I've made my decision.

And yes, kids... I am going to purchase Vista. I'm tired of all this Genuine Advantage work-around stuff... Although it's worked quite nicely for the time being.

Sixpac_XP · January 24th, 2007, 01:58 AM

Vista alone won't make 64 more wide spread then it already isn't.

Apps and apps alone will make 64 bit more wide spread.

So until application developers start making applications (that people purchase on mass and need to use in mass) for 64 bit.. then people will continue to use 32 bit and thus 64 bit won't go any further.

Sixpac_XP · January 24th, 2007, 01:58 AM

oh and happy birthday RetroEvolute

RetroEvolute · January 24th, 2007, 02:06 AM

Why thank you, Sixpac_XP. As of a few minutes ago, I am legally an adult.

Jeordiewhite · January 24th, 2007, 08:20 AM

I have been running a 64-bit operating systems for a fair while now, windows server 2003 x64 and windows xp 2003 x64. I know drivers can be a bit of an issue for some devices. However this complaint against 64-bit applications isn't a problem as everyone makes it out to be, which usually I find that the complaint comes from those who don't use a 64-bit operating system.
The support for emulating 32-bit applications is actually quite good from what I have seen. I haven't had any major issues with installing anything except for adobe and they had a simple work around since the installer didn't support the characters (). So I had to change the installation directory from \Program Files(x86)\ to \Progra~2\ which solved the problem which has later been resolved with their newer media. The 64 bit editions of windows support both 32-bit and 64-bit applications. I fortunately have been able to have my firewall and antivirus software being produced for 64-bit windows, like symantec antivirus and outpost. However I have had to use microsoft antispyware instead of ewido(avg antispyware now) and not install spysweeper. While spysweeper didn't sadden me too much as it they made new innovations to it to make it slower and resourceless efficient. I hardly get spyware any more, tho I do hope thats not due to windows defender not doing it's job.

I think the greater and more logical concern with any upgrade is with applications being compatible with vista, antispyware, antivirus and firewalls and similar programs will all need to be made to run on vista. There probably isn't a lot of OS dependant programs that average people run that won't install that probably hasn't been updated for compatibility to windows xp x64 2003 that I have seen. Anything that requires a driver like many of the cd/dvd authoring programs have been updated and supported for awhile too. Which is one type of program that would matter.
Since it supports both 32-bit and 64-bit applications side by side, it's not a problem and I do have vmware workstation installed, I can install 32/64 bit operating systems if needed. Which I do have vista ultimate x64, windows xp x64 and server 2003 x64 installed. Fortunatly installation through vmware is pretty quick too.

I guess most people do expect windows x64 to be quite faster with everything they do. Which usually it doesn't impress people when it's minimal, however I find it like raid. Many people claim the benchmarks aren't great and the performance isn't worth it. However everything I do does feel faster than before. Which I find is often true with windows x64. Which my O&O disk defragmenter x64 does perform quite a bit better if thats an improvement to x64 itself lol. I even find myself using Internet Explorer 7 x64 quite a bit more now too since that runs pretty well for a lot of my browsing.

I have quite a few applications that were either made natively for 64-bit or had support where it can take advantages of 64-bit. Not in it's entirety, but being able to utilize higher yields of memory and other support which I believe adobe creative suite 2 has and CS3 will further iterate on that.
I even have few games I have installed and tried in native 64-bit like unreal tournament 2004, half-life 2, farcry. I have been meaning to find others to try like Shadow Ops: Red Mercury, however I don't play a lot of different games, mainly steam based games, so it was kind of a novelty thing to try farcry in 64-bit. Half-Life 2 and Unreal Tournament 2004 are quite good games which were fun to try in 64-bit mode which it seems valve had taken a big step further in making 64-bit HL2 which they had converted and made a pretty large GCF file you have to download to play. Unreal Tournament 2004 just replaces an executable. However it runs pretty smooth anyway.

I guess I am lucky most of my hardware works under 64-bit windows, which is another reason I like purchasing nvidia motherboards, creative labs sound blaster cards. They both creative drivers for their products if a new version of windows comes out. Which I think is quite nice of creative labs to do so. They have updated many of their cards to even support EAX4 like audigy 1 and 2, and even release drivers for the new operating systems. The only thing I have had a problem with as printer drivers for my HP officejet, which has 64-bit drivers, but they have been in beta for a long time. However hopefully they will eventually finish them since they support a wide range of products. While when vista is being sold, they should hopefully have products like printers that have support for both versions of vista.
I simply use another computer and have the beta drivers installed so I can do printing over the network.

I guess there are other drawbacks, but it hardly degrades any productivity or gaming that I do. If anything, I can alt tab out of steam games faster

RamonGTP · January 25th, 2007, 03:19 AM

I personally think Vista x64 is going to be the way to go. I was running the 64bit version of the beta and RC and didn't have a problem with them on my hardware. I don't think the support for Vista x64 is going to be as scarce as it was with XP x64. The good news, for me anyway is that I'm not upgrading to Vista right away so I'll get to "wait and see" what happens.