Why not to get vista!!

PC eye

banned
That's one argument I hear all the time about those stating that their games run in Ultimate 64 when I try explaining to someone that it's based on a different platform while being 32bit backward compatible to a degree. Just because the 64bit editions support upto 8gb doesn't mean that it runs faster then the 32bit editions for gaming purposes.

The games and most programs in general are still 32bit for the time being. Like mentioned on many prior occasions the transition from 32 to 64bit overall won't come overnight like seen with the 95/98 transition in one version there from 16 to 32bit. 32bit and support for it have been around since NT 3.1 and OSR2 for 95 with 95 PLUS! or the second edition seeing the service pack included there.

How long has 64bit been available compared to 32bit? At this time almost 18yrs. for 32bit while late 2004/2005 saw the XP Pro 64 edition along with Linux 64 around that time as well. The next desktop version due in 2009-10 will still see 32bit editions with more emphasis there towards Microsoft's planned abandonment of 32bit from that point on. 64bit will prove to be a better platform in the long run like 32 was over 16bit.

As far as Vista over any other version of Windows it's sees it's pros and cons like any other version depending on what you are doing with the OS. Some things to note:

higher minimum memory requirement = expected for any newer version after this amount of time. XP higher then previous versions like 98 was over 3.1/95.

Improvement in drive tools over what was seen in XP.

Set back with lack of option for performing an actual repair of current installation forcing a full reinstallation of Windows whether on same or new primary.

saves original folders in Windows.old while XP simply deleted all MS created.

longer loading time to desktop then XP confirmed. Last thing loaded here is the ATI ccc after everything else for some reason.

Better crash control over XP with ctrl-alt-del key combination in many ways while still can lock solid at times like any other version.

"eye candy" and new UAC annoyances for most regular users.
 

andy_mitch92

New Member
I never said (or tried to say at least) games would run better on a 64bit os rather than a 32bit one. I was simply trying to state that to me just running the os it self would be faster on 64bits rather than 32.
 

kevlee89

Member
So how much faster would..say.. a 4gb memory 64 bit system be compared to a 2 or 3gb memory 32 bit system?

I have read in some article with benchmarks that 64 bit Vista does run most applications faster than 32 bit Vista, although it's really not noticeable and really just fractional.
 

PC eye

banned
32bit saw a gain over 16bit originally. With a 64bit version you are simply taking advantage of efficiency over actual speed being a more stable platform to begin with. Plus on a 64bit system you have far less items loading since there's a big lack of 64bit applications at this time. Less programs means more resources available.
 

tlarkin

VIP Member
God. And you guys call this guy "helpful"? He's spewed out several posts, gone off on a dozen tangents, and gotten next to nothing right.

Unbelievable.

For the *real* truth about 64 bit vs. 32 bit, see the following article.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878056.aspx

That article is over 6 years old and published by Microsoft. While I don't disagree with it, but i would like to point out I paraphrased that whole article with some facts and used like 2 sentences to do so. 64 bit has been around for a while is does great when dealing with loads and loads of multitasking, uni-casting, and other things that put a wear down on a system.

However, to the end user, and the end user applications the performance increase probably won't be that much greater than over 32bit. MS has been running a 64 bit version of exchange for a while now, Linux and Unix have 64 bit versions for years now, and MS just took the leap with their end user OS in Vista.
 

SirKenin

banned
That's right. I agree. 64 bit was designed for multi-user/server applications (and truly the Itanium was the first true IA 64 bit processor).

The only advantage to an end user is the addressing, which that article (as old as it is) addresses. Leave it to that buffoon to go on and on, say next to nothing and get it all wrong.
 

PC eye

banned
That article is over 6 years old and published by Microsoft. While I don't disagree with it, but i would like to point out I paraphrased that whole article with some facts and used like 2 sentences to do so. 64 bit has been around for a while is does great when dealing with loads and loads of multitasking, uni-casting, and other things that put a wear down on a system.

However, to the end user, and the end user applications the performance increase probably won't be that much greater than over 32bit. MS has been running a 64 bit version of exchange for a while now, Linux and Unix have 64 bit versions for years now, and MS just took the leap with their end user OS in Vista.

MS took a leap while other software and hardware companies have pretty much fallen behind in many ways. That's why I've pointed out that it still is in it's fancy from the actual lack of support still being seen with the Vista edtions as well as XP Pro 64. But they will be forced if and when MS finally dumps 32bit after the next version supposedly.
 

SirKenin

banned
  • 1976: Cray Research delivers the first Cray-1 supercomputer, which is based on a 64-bit word architecture and would form the basis for later Cray vector supercomputers.
  • 1983: Elxsi launches the Elxsi 6400 parallel minisupercomputer. The Elxsi architecture has 64-bit data registers but a 32-bit address space.
  • 1991: MIPS Technologies produces the first 64-bit microprocessor, the R4000 (the third revision of their MIPS RISC architecture). The CPU is used in SGI graphics workstations starting with the IRIS Crimson. However, 64-bit support for the R4000 would not be included in the IRIX operating system until IRIX 6.2, released in 1996. Kendall Square Research deliver their first KSR1 supercomputer, based on a proprietary 64-bit RISC processor architecture running OSF/1.
  • 1993: DEC releases the 64-bit OSF/1 AXP Unix-like operating system (later renamed Tru64 UNIX) and the OpenVMS operating system for Alpha systems.
  • 1994: Intel announces plans for the 64-bit IA-64 architecture (jointly developed with Hewlett-Packard) as a successor to its 32-bit IA-32 processors. A 1998–1999 launch date is targeted. SGI releases IRIX 6.0, with 64-bit support for R8000 CPUs.
  • 1995: Sun launches a 64-bit SPARC processor, the UltraSPARC. Fujitsu-owned HAL Computer Systems launches workstations based on a 64-bit CPU, HAL's independently designed first generation SPARC64. IBM releases the 64-bit AS/400 system upgrade, which can convert the operating system, database and applications. DEC releases OpenVMS Alpha 7.0, the first full 64-bit version of OpenVMS for Alpha.
  • 1996: Nintendo introduces the Nintendo 64 video game console, built around a low-cost variant of the MIPS R4000 (it is 64 bit internally, but limited to a 32 bit bus externally). HP releases an implementation of the 64-bit 2.0 version of their PA-RISC processor architecture, the PA-8000.
  • 1997: IBM releases the RS64 line of full-64-bit PowerPC processors.
  • 1998: IBM releases the POWER3 line of full-64-bit PowerPC/POWER processors. Sun releases Solaris 7, with full 64-bit UltraSPARC support.
  • 1999: Intel releases the instruction set for the IA-64 architecture. AMD publicly discloses its set of 64-bit extensions to IA-32, called x86-64 (later renamed AMD64).
  • 2001: Intel finally ships its 64-bit processor line, now branded Itanium, targeting high-end servers. It fails to meet expectations due to the repeated delays in getting IA-64 to market. Linux is the first operating system to run on the processor at its release.
  • 2002: Intel introduces the Itanium 2 as a successor to the Itanium.
  • 2003: AMD introduces its Opteron and Athlon 64 processor lines, based on its AMD64 architecture. Apple also ships the 64-bit "G5" PowerPC 970 CPU courtesy of IBM, along with an update to its Mac OS X operating system which adds partial support for 64-bit mode. Several Linux distributions release with support for AMD64. Microsoft announces plans to create a version of its Windows operating system to support the AMD64 architecture. Intel maintains that its Itanium chips would remain its only 64-bit processors.
  • 2004: Intel, reacting to the market success of AMD, admits it has been developing a clone of the AMD64 extensions named IA-32e (later renamed EM64T). Intel also ships updated versions of its Xeon and Pentium 4 processor families supporting the new instructions. Freescale announces the 64-bit e700 core, successor to their PowerPC G4 series.
  • 2005: On January 31, Sun releases Solaris 10 with support for AMD64 and EM64T processors. Intel releases the EM64T based Pentium Extreme Edition 840 and Pentium D in the second quarter. On April 30, Microsoft releases Windows XP Professional x64 Edition for AMD64 and EM64T processors. In May, AMD introduces its first dual-core AMD64 Opteron and Athlon 64 X2. In July, IBM announces its new dual-core 64-bit PowerPC 970MP. Microsoft releases the Xbox 360 game console based on a 64-bit, triple-core Xenon PowerPC processor manufactured by IBM.
  • 2007: Intel's Dual Core and Quad Core become the current 64-bit processors in production based on 65nm technology. The code name "Penryn" processors were the first CPUs to be built off of a 45nm manufacturing technology. They were delivered the third week of November, with 16 processors at launch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

God. :rolleyes:
 

PC eye

banned
You still don't get it do you? All that means NADA! to the typical end user despite whatever 64bit development has been seen since whenever. All you have to do is listen to the complaints of those running the Ultimate 64 edition about the lack of driver support on different things.
 

kevlee89

Member
You still don't get it do you? All that means NADA! to the typical end user despite whatever 64bit development has been seen since whenever. All you have to do is listen to the complaints of those running the Ultimate 64 edition about the lack of driver support on different things.

true that...*sigh*
 

ThatGuy16

VIP Member
I'm running 64bit, not a single driver problem. And everyone else i know that has 64bit has no problem. Company's are now supporting 64bit as much as 32bit, unlike the 64bit XP version.
 

StrangleHold

Moderator
Staff member
You still don't get it do you? All that means NADA! to the typical end user despite whatever 64bit development has been seen since whenever. All you have to do is listen to the complaints of those running the Ultimate 64 edition about the lack of driver support on different things.

PCeye it doesnt matter what version of 64 bit vista you have they all use the same drivers for Vista 64bit.
 

vonfeldt7

New Member
I love how this thread changes from one thing to another, depending on what someone brings up. If this thread is still alive in a year, we'll be arguing about chocolate vs vanilla. (Chocolate wins btw).

Anyways, carry on...
 

PC eye

banned
I'm running 64bit, not a single driver problem. And everyone else i know that has 64bit has no problem. Company's are now supporting 64bit as much as 32bit, unlike the 64bit XP version.

Have you talked to everyone that runs a 64bit edtition? While driver support is now far better then seen earlier for XP Pro 64 it still has quite a ways to go only being the second version for home users released. The big companies like Creative, NVidia, ATI, and others obviously have to provide them while other smaller even generic brands often lack.

I love how this thread changes from one thing to another, depending on what someone brings up. If this thread is still alive in a year, we'll be arguing about chocolate vs vanilla. (Chocolate wins btw).

Anyways, carry on...

You forgot strawberry, peach, orange, you name it, and of course rasberries for some! :p
 

kevlee89

Member
Not sure if this is a 64bit specific problem. Actually, I'm quite certain it's been an issue for both 32bit and 64bit Vista users. Try typing nvlddmkm.sys in google :eek:

So...


Annoying..
 

StrangleHold

Moderator
Staff member
Have you talked to everyone that runs a 64bit edtition? While driver support is now far better then seen earlier for XP Pro 64 it still has quite a ways to go only being the second version for home users released. The big companies like Creative, NVidia, ATI, and others obviously have to provide them while other smaller even generic brands often lack.



:p

PCeye do you even read the post. ThatGuy16 said he had 64bit and everybode he knew that run it. Why do you keep bringing up XP 64bit, nobody gives a crap about XP 64bit, its support was never that good and probable never will be since Vista 64bit has came out. You say alot and most of it is just repetitive nonsence. Its like you just keep repeating obvious noob quotes from web sites.
 

SirKenin

banned
PCeye it doesnt matter what version of 64 bit vista you have they all use the same drivers for Vista 64bit.

What *should* matter is that he says that Microsoft was the first to the game with a 64 bit OS when everyone else dropped the ball.. When it's proven to him that there have been 64 bit operating systems since the 60's he goes off on some stupid tirade about 64 bit drivers in Ultimate. Last I looked, every 64 bit edition of Vista uses the same drivers.

I'm beginning to wonder if PC is any relation to Anand and Tom Pabst.
 

jutnm

Active Member
expect vista not to be insufficient on a Laptop, Vista is good, suck it up and look for the updated drivers , aint that hard
 

f.i.t.h

New Member
The guy in the second video is a complete idiot, i would be embarrassed to even post the link

the second video is a load of cr*p imo.

he says Firefox is incompatiable with Vista.....no its not im using firefox right now lol.

il admit theres been a few problems for me like vista not creating desktop icons when i install some stuff but they was easily fixed.

then theres User account control.....that was easily disabled.

Vista imo even though it uses more ram its alot more efficient than Windows xp has ever been. :)

Dude have you guys even seen his tutorials? This is just one of this rants
Youtube.JimmyR.com
Great tuoruials on a wide range of subjects, a lot more helpful then some of the other shit on the internet.

I have vista, used it for 2 - 3 months and now it is limited to a virtual machine.
Im not saying that its bad, I just prefer XP, like I prefer 2000 and Linux over XP.
 
Top