Vista 64 bit questions
- Thread starter Dye4Metal
- Start date
Geoff
VIP Member
why would you want to. i think you cant run as much with a 64 as with a 32 bit. I could be wrong but there is little benifet i think (correct me if i am wrong) but i think you would be ok runing it.
Why are you telling him that? If there is such little difference, why not go with the 64-bit?
Dye4Metal, DO NOT listen to brian. Buying the 32 bit version would be a huge mistake. With the 32 bit version you can not have more then 3.12GB of RAM (128GB with 64 bit), and in the future when 64 bit apps and games come out, you wont be able to play them, at least to their full potential. Because the price is or close to the same for both versions, get the 64 bit version.
TheMajor
New Member
Most processors starting from the original Pentium Pro support 36bit Physical Address Extension. Using a 32bit version of Windows XP, 2003 or Vista, this means the CPU can address up to 64GigaBytes of RAM.
However, most desktop motherboard chipsets do not support this extension and only go up to 4 or 8GB of RAM.
64bit Windows versions can address even more, but this is still quite useless because most desktop chipsets only support up to 4 or 8GB.
However, most desktop motherboard chipsets do not support this extension and only go up to 4 or 8GB of RAM.
64bit Windows versions can address even more, but this is still quite useless because most desktop chipsets only support up to 4 or 8GB.
Geoff
VIP Member
The most any 32-Bit Microsoft OS can support (besides server OS's), is 3.12GB, and the more devices you have, the less RAM you are able to use.
TheMajor
New Member
[-0MEGA-];701741 said:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx
Maybe you're right. At least the server versions do:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx
Crimsonite
New Member
64-bit OS is still not yet mature, few apps and games can run stable on it. Google it and look up 64-bit Windows Hardware/Software compatibility lists to see if there the apps/games you wanna run are on there. If not, I'd recommend that you hold off on it for now.
As for Vista, it still very buggy though MS has been releaseing patches weekly, it's still buggy. I would suggest that you check MS' Technical Bulletin and forums to see the bugs/issues that people have experienced/discovered, then decide whether you can justify risking the chance to have those issues on your system to occur. Some people don't mind, but a lot do.
And ThaGuy is right, you need to upgrade your memory to 2GB(2x1GB)to use Vista cuz Vista hogs memory like mad.
As for Vista, it still very buggy though MS has been releaseing patches weekly, it's still buggy. I would suggest that you check MS' Technical Bulletin and forums to see the bugs/issues that people have experienced/discovered, then decide whether you can justify risking the chance to have those issues on your system to occur. Some people don't mind, but a lot do.
And ThaGuy is right, you need to upgrade your memory to 2GB(2x1GB)to use Vista cuz Vista hogs memory like mad.
few apps and games run stable on it? lol.
i've not had any problems running any games or other apps on vista, even very old ones.
at least, not any problems that are vista specific.
most of the vista 'problems' aren't problems with vista at all. they are due to the people using it not upgrading the rest of there pc to work with it. like not adding more ram because they don't realize that vista uses 500mb compared to XPs 64mb and then thinking that vista is 'slow' when they were the ones who thought it'd run just as good on 768mb or 1gb ram as xp did. or not upgrading any of there drivers to vista drivers.
the least i can say is that before any of you say bad points of vista, you should use it. by use it i don't mean try it for an hour and then trash it, actually use it for a few weeks, every day, for everything you do/did with your other OSs.
i've not had any problems running any games or other apps on vista, even very old ones.
at least, not any problems that are vista specific.
most of the vista 'problems' aren't problems with vista at all. they are due to the people using it not upgrading the rest of there pc to work with it. like not adding more ram because they don't realize that vista uses 500mb compared to XPs 64mb and then thinking that vista is 'slow' when they were the ones who thought it'd run just as good on 768mb or 1gb ram as xp did. or not upgrading any of there drivers to vista drivers.
the least i can say is that before any of you say bad points of vista, you should use it. by use it i don't mean try it for an hour and then trash it, actually use it for a few weeks, every day, for everything you do/did with your other OSs.
Last edited:
Geoff
VIP Member
I've used both versions of Vista, and anything that ran stable on Vista x86 was also stable on Vista x64.
TheMajor
New Member
[-0MEGA-];701966 said:Heres a pretty useful chart I found from the link you posted:
As far as I know, the only reason why 32 Bit server OS's can support more then 4GB of RAM is because they can utilize multiple processors, which AFAIK, offer 4GB of RAM or so per each CPU.
Look like Windows Server 2003 SP1 Enterprise supports 8GB per CPU, then. It's PAE that makes it possible (if the chipset supports it).