Vista Ultimate 32-bit or 64-bit?
- Thread starter Vigor
- Start date
The best question here would be for a primary or secondary OS? Due to the software and game being saturated with 32bit applications and games you may want to consider staying 32bit if you are a regular gamer to avoid certain incompatibilty problems. On the other hand the difference and stabilty may prove better with a 64bit version just like 32bit prevailed over the old 16bit formulas seen with Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, and 95 prior to the OSR2 release.
While the 64bit version has a degree of 32bit compatibility like XP has with older 16bit programs it's like comparing XP to Linux at this time in some ways. It will still take several years before 64bit will ever become the actual standard with a volume of games and apps available.
While the 64bit version has a degree of 32bit compatibility like XP has with older 16bit programs it's like comparing XP to Linux at this time in some ways. It will still take several years before 64bit will ever become the actual standard with a volume of games and apps available.
Vigor
New Member
Thanks, I guess 32-bit fits me, if it has less issues and problems such.
The idea of 64bit is obviously a more stable OS there. In fact Linux also has one or more 64bit type distros. But where are the applications and games for 64bit versions? 
Even after the last few years with the 64bit version of XP Pro drivers for these versions are now becoming more available for hardwares and apps while softwares? For a second OS not primary at this time I may replace the surrent XP Pro installation with? That's the XP backup drive there. The second sata may see Mandriva dual boot with Solaris 10? You never know here!
Even after the last few years with the 64bit version of XP Pro drivers for these versions are now becoming more available for hardwares and apps while softwares? For a second OS not primary at this time I may replace the surrent XP Pro installation with?
That's the XP backup drive there. The second sata may see Mandriva dual boot with Solaris 10? You never know here! 
yea, future proof is the main thing to look at. i doubt cpu developers will put out any more 32bit CPUs, any new motherboards will probably support 64bit systems, i woulden't be suprised if soon companies start releasing only 64bit programs aswell due to the fact that 32bit hardware is now becoming obselete.
as for compatibility, i haven't yet had any problems running 32bit programs on 64bit systems. was using 64bit xp since i built this pc back in september and am now using 64bit vista.
looking at the other end of it...
the pc in your sig will run just as well with a 32bit os as it will with a 64bit os and there aren't many programs designed for 64bit systems *yet*. if your already running 32bit vista, there isen't really any need to upgrade to 64 bit yet unless you want to have more then 4gb of ram.
but, if your going to build a new pc, it'd probably be better to just put 64bit on it right away to save yourself the trouble in the future.
as for compatibility, i haven't yet had any problems running 32bit programs on 64bit systems. was using 64bit xp since i built this pc back in september and am now using 64bit vista.
looking at the other end of it...
the pc in your sig will run just as well with a 32bit os as it will with a 64bit os and there aren't many programs designed for 64bit systems *yet*. if your already running 32bit vista, there isen't really any need to upgrade to 64 bit yet unless you want to have more then 4gb of ram.
but, if your going to build a new pc, it'd probably be better to just put 64bit on it right away to save yourself the trouble in the future.
Last edited:
The amount of memory 4gb plus is stretching that a little. The 64bit version doesn't require anymore memory then the 32bit. 98 a newer 32bit version then the 16bit 95 didn't require more but simply supported more memory. And 98 was an upgrade not just another format there. Vista won't run more then 4gb like XP. The main difference is the higher level of stability while not being any faster.
Vista Basic 64 will run up to 8gb, Premium 64 will run up to 16gb and Ultimate-Enterprise 64 will run up to 128gb. All 32bit Vistas are the same as XP.
Last edited:
i didn't say that you had to have 4gb or more to use 64bit vista.
i basicly said if he wanted to use more then 4gb of ram he would need 64bit vista.
Last edited:
The Purple Champ
banned
i use 64 and i have no problems with it.
Running a 64bit OS like the XP Pro version or even the Linux 64bit version is like comparing 32bit to Fat16bit in that sense. Windows Server 2003 is known for 32gb. The drawback seen on the 32bit versions of both XP and Vista is the problems seen with 4gb of memory installed showing as low as 2.5gb in some cases.
For someone running CAD or some intense graphics design applications besides the video memory for that the requirement for a large amount of ram is then necessary. But for the average user with the usual games and desktop apps a good 2-3gb will smooth things out without waste. 64bit OSs are obviously running a different platform to start with.
The Question was should I run Vista 32 or 64, I just showed the difference in ram capabilities between the 2.
What does XP-Linux and Fat16 have to do with anything or the question?
shawn_selig29
New Member
only thing with 64 bit.. is not all programs are supported by it... i can't say i ran 64 before but i run a chat room and have heard some stories....it is suppose to be a bit faster then 32 bit... just by the sounds of it 64 causes more grief then 32 bit...
Besides the increase in memory capability that goes well with newer boards seeing 16gb capacity there. But unless you are running some LARGE CAD program where you actually need a large memory capable machine you have to look what the general requirements are for the average softwares in use on most 32bit systems. If a program only requires 512mb to run why would you need 8gb to 16gb? For other then a primary OS at this point then the decision would be to get familiar with what a 64bit OS could offer at some point over the next several years.
Up until XP after 95's initial release later seeing OSR2 you have been running 32bit versions of Windows. The current problem is the backward to 32bit support is somewhat limited in the new 64bit versions of Windows XP and Vista alike while the software companies are still promoting 32bit games and apps. 64bit will eventually prove to be a more efficient OS like 32bit compared to the older 16bit versions.
The main problem now is regardless of which edition you decide on Vista was only released at the end of january and still needs to see the improvement in driver/patch support. The Ultimate version does offer the hardware protection feature and the three others in the comparison chart seen at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx
Still has nothing to do with XP-Linux or Fat32. That whole statement sounds good but does not mean anything. The Question was (Should I get Vista 32 or 64) he was not talking about Fat 16-32, Linux or XP. He was not talking about dual booting or how much ram he needed! I think Microsoft made a mistake by releasing a 32 bit Vista anyways
Last edited:
its a well known fact that more ram = faster pc. you can't really argue against that.
you have less paging file access, you can run more applications if you need to, and it can also make up for having a not so good video card.
please don't tell me that you actually believe that a game will run just as fine with its minimum required ram as it will with double or triple its recommended amount of ram.
Oblivion only requires 512mb ram i believe.
when i had 1gb ram and 32bit vista ultimate, i had to play it on the lowest detail settings and it was still laggy.
when i added more ram, upto the usable 3.25gb in 32bit, i was able to play with the settings on high, got around 10fps. so it was still a bit jumpy.
when i upgraded to 64bit vista, my pc could then use the full 5gb of ram thats installed. granted that there compatible with my video card, i can now play games with the highest detail settings without any lag at all.
no matter what way you want to look at it. its still a fact, if he wants to use vista and wants more then 4gb of ram, he has to use the 64bit version. regardless of what he might be useing it for, and regardless of what the 'general requirements are for the average softwares' are (which have nothing to do with the topic in the first place)
Last edited:
I know from custom building here that just simply adding a large amount of memory by itself is all that is needed to increase overall performance. What was seen here when going from a matched pair note "matched" pair of Corsair xms series performance dimms to a pair of 1gb Kingston Value Ram DDR400 PC3200 dimms on the old Socket A board the games and other applications ran far smoother while not seeing any great degree of speed inscrease.
If you install 100gb of memory and have a crap video and sound setup the games you have will still run like... The best performance regardless of OS used is seen by the fine tuning of all hardwares overall. The initial boost is seen when going from 512mb to 2gb with the 32bit versions of both XP and Vista alike.
The 64bit structure is what allows for the larger amount of memory to be used without problems to a point. This is like comparing 98's 512mb limitation to XP's 4gb in that sense. But the main decision on which OS to use depends more on application and the type of system being used over what each will or won't support. The reference to minimum requirements refers to being able to run some program where there is only 512mb installed not how high various settings in a game are.
When you were running the 32bit version of the Ultimate edition was that the 1/31/2007 full release or the RC1 or RC2 "beta" versions? Beta and finished producr are two different things. Beta means "evaluation only" while a full release means the actual retail product with support(supposedly - whenever).
If you install 100gb of memory and have a crap video and sound setup the games you have will still run like... The best performance regardless of OS used is seen by the fine tuning of all hardwares overall. The initial boost is seen when going from 512mb to 2gb with the 32bit versions of both XP and Vista alike.
The 64bit structure is what allows for the larger amount of memory to be used without problems to a point. This is like comparing 98's 512mb limitation to XP's 4gb in that sense. But the main decision on which OS to use depends more on application and the type of system being used over what each will or won't support. The reference to minimum requirements refers to being able to run some program where there is only 512mb installed not how high various settings in a game are.
When you were running the 32bit version of the Ultimate edition was that the 1/31/2007 full release or the RC1 or RC2 "beta" versions? Beta and finished producr are two different things. Beta means "evaluation only" while a full release means the actual retail product with support(supposedly - whenever).