![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Vista 32-bit or 64-bit?
- Thread starter Glacian22
- Start date
TheRapture
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 31, 2000
- Messages
- 6,885
MatDef said:I like what Paul Thurrott said about trying to use the 64bit version:
I say stick with the 32bit one like everyone else.
I agree. For 99% of the gamers and power users out there, X64 is a waste of time....at this point. No software!
That will change of course, but it ain't ready yet, not even close.
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
64 bit runs fine as long you plan on just using bundled software, but many apps simply won't work on it. So 32bit is the best choice, for now.
this will change as the 32b edition is capped at 4 gigs of ram... So, current power users can't take advantage of all the ram they have \ may have installed. And future users are going to be forced into 4g systems and win 64. Like it or not, it is the future.
just not here yet.
just not here yet.
dekard said:this will change as the 32b edition is capped at 4 gigs of ram... So, current power users can't take advantage of all the ram they have \ may have installed. And future users are going to be forced into 4g systems and win 64. Like it or not, it is the future.
just not here yet.
Whilst that is most decidedly true, it's a fair way off yet. I'd not expect to see the need for a 64-bit desktop OS until well into Vista's product lifespan or even beyond.
A 32-bit desktop OS is what just about everybody should be using because it's what is needed and what is suitable for their purposes. Those 'power users' who have a true need for a 64-bit OS (the ones using workstation graphics cards and hardware suited to heavy duty server use) can get 64-bit device drivers for the gear they need to use and the 64-bit version of Vista will be included in the box anyway, as an alternative.
For the time being, there is absolutely no point to all the hardware manufacturers spending heaps of money to develop 64-bit device drivers for all their back-catalogues of hardware components. It'd only be done so that inquisitive people could load a 64-bit OS on their desktop system and pretend that they're doing 'power' computing!
You guys have absolutely no clue what you suggesting....
I've been running 64bit since mid 2004. I can tell you honestly that I dont have a isngle driver campatibility issue. Not now, and not even then, two years ago.
What I can tell you is that you will get a performance boost going to 64bit. Mostly due to the added registers, and some extra functionality in the ISA. But if your running anything less then 3gigs, and your running any MS product stick with 32bit.... If on the other hand you are running anything more then 3gigs, then dump windows, and run a 64bit OS.
You guys say that 64bit is worthless. That is simply not true at all... What you mean, and should be saying is that 64bit --Windows-- is worthless. Which is true. Between driver support, and compatibility issues, it just simply isnt worth it. That is not the case with better written, and properly maintained OS's.
That is the crux of it isnt it? Properly written and maintained..... Windows x64 is neither.
I've been running 64bit since mid 2004. I can tell you honestly that I dont have a isngle driver campatibility issue. Not now, and not even then, two years ago.
What I can tell you is that you will get a performance boost going to 64bit. Mostly due to the added registers, and some extra functionality in the ISA. But if your running anything less then 3gigs, and your running any MS product stick with 32bit.... If on the other hand you are running anything more then 3gigs, then dump windows, and run a 64bit OS.
You guys say that 64bit is worthless. That is simply not true at all... What you mean, and should be saying is that 64bit --Windows-- is worthless. Which is true. Between driver support, and compatibility issues, it just simply isnt worth it. That is not the case with better written, and properly maintained OS's.
That is the crux of it isnt it? Properly written and maintained..... Windows x64 is neither.
Negative Decibel
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 3,588
the transition to a 64 bit windows will come slowly, and then before you know it... bam! no more 32 bit... the similar happened going from 16 to 32 a long time ago... (well not exactly, but you get the idea...)
Catweazle said:
Exactly My point....
This discussion is about --Windows-- x64... Not 64bit....
Just becouse Windows x64 is broken doesnt mean that 64bit is... I been running 64bit for years. It works fine.
Also ran? Re-evaluate that statement please... Realize Windows is last to the table... Again... Who is also ran?
YARDofSTUF
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2001
- Messages
- 1,469
I would think Vista x64 would run as well as XP x64, and thats what im running, only missing one driver for a tv tuner card, dont know what apps arent workign for you guys but they run fine for me.
nameless_centurian
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 836
duby229 said:
you must like to write your own drivers, or else you buy better hardware than i do, where the companies actually release new drivers when new technology comes out.
your's has not been my experience in any way, shape, or form. i stick to the 32 bit ms operating system for normal tasks and sometimes boot up in fedora 64 for some little programming tasks.
for most home users, x64 is a waste of time and money. i say this because i am triple botting, and it's in there, too... it's fine to tinker with, but it is in no way a useable OS by the average home user today.
nameless_centurian said:
Your right. And that is exactly what I'm saying. Windows x64 is not usable. It's broken. It doesnt work. It's FUBARed It sucks. It's junk...
But that does not mean that 64bit mode is broken. That doesnt mean that 64 bit apps dont work.. It does not mean that 64bit drivers dont exist. What it does mean is that --Windows-- 64bit doesnt work... That is it.
Like I said I been running 64bit mode for over two years now. I run a fairly new system
Biostar TForce 6100 AM2
Athlon64 3800+ x2
nVidia nForce 4 (including USB, SATA, IDE, NIC, PCIe PCI)
gForce 6100
Creative Audigy 2 Platinum....
And it all works. ALL of it. Right now. Out of the box. Period. In 64bit mode.
Good luck saying the same about Windows x64. It is NOT 64bit mode that is the problem... It's just MS's products that dont work......
The Os's which make up the other 3.65% share, collectively, of the desktop OS marketduby229 said:
I also multi-boot, with x64 installations of both XP and Vista in place for reference purposes, basically. I've found sourcing drivers for consumer printers, scanners and such to be a quite restrictive problem.
It's immaterial anyway. As I mentioned above, for anything other than some narrowly specialised tasks, a 32-bit OS is all anybody needs to use. At this point in time you'd be kidding yourself to claim otherwise.
Ok... Let me throw a question out there for you guys....
Prelude...
Right now most of us are buying 1gig DIMMs... Say they cost on average for the good stuff between 120$ and 160$ a peice. By this time next year, the same will be true for 2gig DIMMs. By this time 3 years from now, the same will be true for 4gig DIMM's. If we take XP's product cycle as an example we could conclude that Vista will be around for at least the next 6 years. By which time 8gig DIMMs will be common place.
The meat....
So next year when we are all using more then 3gigs will Vista be ready for 64bit mode?
Somehow I doubt it. As a matter of fact I really dont think MS will be ready until Blackcomb.
So what do we do in the mean time?
Prelude...
Right now most of us are buying 1gig DIMMs... Say they cost on average for the good stuff between 120$ and 160$ a peice. By this time next year, the same will be true for 2gig DIMMs. By this time 3 years from now, the same will be true for 4gig DIMM's. If we take XP's product cycle as an example we could conclude that Vista will be around for at least the next 6 years. By which time 8gig DIMMs will be common place.
The meat....
So next year when we are all using more then 3gigs will Vista be ready for 64bit mode?
Somehow I doubt it. As a matter of fact I really dont think MS will be ready until Blackcomb.
So what do we do in the mean time?
Your assessment is faulty.
The vast majority of systems in use have less than 1Gb installed. It'll be ages yet before it's an common everyday occurrence to find more than 2Gb of RAM in desktop PCs.
It's one thing to hang about in hardware enthusiast forums. It's a different matter entirely to equate what you find there with common everyday usage!
The vast majority of systems in use have less than 1Gb installed. It'll be ages yet before it's an common everyday occurrence to find more than 2Gb of RAM in desktop PCs.
It's one thing to hang about in hardware enthusiast forums. It's a different matter entirely to equate what you find there with common everyday usage!
Catweazle said:The Os's which make up the other 3.65% share, collectively, of the desktop OS market
Funny you should mention that. I dont think MS will be ready for 64bit mode for at least another 6 years. Based entirely on XP's product cycle it would be reasonable to conclude that Vista wont be replaced for at least another 6 years...
In the mean time, those "other" guys have been yeady for the last three years, which puts MS 9 years behind.... Pretty good for being the little guys with the vast majority of the worlds programmers devoted between them...
WoW! (Pun intended
)BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
Idon't know what you're tlaking about Vista 64bit is ready and it's here in RC1 form. I installed it on a couple machines and had absolutely no issue with it. The problem isn't the OS it's the software that runs in it. Any software that has hooks into the system on 32 bit Windows will simply fail on x64 version of Vista. That's a software shortcoming that's not MS's fault. Sure they could have made x64 Windows more compatible with 32bit system programs, but then you'd have an even more bloated install base, less performance, and more complainging people than they do now.
And to say that MS is behind by three years is false. They released XP x64 more than a year ago, before that they had Windows XP 64bit edition which ran on the Itanium processor. Maybe they weren't the first, but they don't have to be. They cater to the market that makes them the most money, and right now that's 32-bit.
And to say that MS is behind by three years is false. They released XP x64 more than a year ago, before that they had Windows XP 64bit edition which ran on the Itanium processor. Maybe they weren't the first, but they don't have to be. They cater to the market that makes them the most money, and right now that's 32-bit.
nameless_centurian
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 836
duby229 said:
the basic laws of economics dictate that your assessment is entirely wrong unless vista is incredibly memory-hungy, like 2 gig minimum to run it.
4 gigs extra memory isn't going to be cheap if it remains a luxury like it is now and not a necessity.
think back about 9 years ago. 128 meg of ram cost what? 150 bucks? price didn't drop until when? when 128 became commonplace and also too small of an amount. why did 128 become commonplace? because it got cheap. why did it get cheap? because the new systems coming out and new programs needed more memory, so consumers bought more memory. since there was no shortage of memory, price went down.
i'm not so sure i see the same trend coming in the next two years, at least not as dramatic as you are suggesting.
ryan_975 said:
Look at the Pun I made above... Trust me it is OS's fault.
Here is another question for you guys...
Why did MS choose to use strictly 64bit mode? Why WoW? Why not do things the right way and use compatibility mode? That is what it's there for. Why do they need to interpret 32bit code? Why not just run it natively in compatibility mode like the architecture was designed for in the first place?
Why did MS design a flaw into the OS? Why did they do it on purpose?
nameless_centurian said:
So are you saying that MS is holding technology back? That they are preventing the otherwise natural, and previosly consistant way of things?
I only based my guess above on how things have worked in the past. Memory capacity doubles. Based on past history, if it was extended out to the future, then my prediction would be pretty close.
So are you saying that MS will impede the natural progression of technological growth? On purpose?
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
duby229 said:
The natural way of things is to remain balanced. It's software companies (including MS) that are INCREASING the amount of RAM needed. Of course theirs are certain areas that inherently need more RAM such as large databases and photo/graphics rendering. but they are a small exception to the rule.
ryan_975 said:
Back in the day photo editing, and graphics required 32megs of RAM. Today they require 4 gigs?
That is an interesting observation. So what will it require in the future? That is the natural balance of things. What was suggested above is that MS would actually attempt to prevent that. I dont think they will be able to prevent it, but I also dont think they will be ready for it either.
nameless_centurian
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 836
duby229 said:
not on purpose. economically speaking, MS controls the OS market. what they say goes. if their system takes a minimum of 1.5 - 2 gig ram to run properly, then what you are saying may be true. but if it only takes 512, there bill be little incentive for the average business or user to pay the extra money for something they don't need.
what's the minimum you'd recommend to run winxp well? 512 meg? most new computers come with a gig if the buyer knows what they're doing.
fast forward 5 years. if the OS takes 1 gig to run well, average users will be buying at most 4 gig, as they'll have zero need for anything more.
MS isn't doing it on purpose by any means, but it's them who control what happens in the market.
For general computing the reason for large amounts of installed RAM is to provide multi-tasking processors with room to multi-task in. As we've progressed with both hardware and software becoming more capable people have more activaley actually engaged in multi-tasking activities. It's nowadays rather common to find people who expect to be able to rip a DVD, browse the web, have a chat window open, leave the virus scan running and whatever else, all at the same time. Scenarios like that are what larger amounts of installed RAM are for. The OS itself happily runs in considerably less.
Windows XP set a minimum of 128Mb for system memory, runs best in 384-512Mb, and shines for 'power users' in 1Gb. Vista will basically double those figures, rather than quadruple it or expect even more still.
There are very few software titles which actually benefit from more than 2Gb of installed system memory. Some specialised applications and a very small number of games run on high-end graphics hardware is all. There is little incentive to further bloat those demands in revisions of existing applications genres. The basic situation won't change until new types of software applications come along.
Yes, this is a hardware forum, but that doesn't mean everybody using it has to be blind to the world around them. The simple reality is that the CPUs used in desktop PCs aren't really '64-bit' processors. They are 32-bit processors with 64-bit extensions, and are best suited to the 32-bit environment. The idea of 64-bit computing for the dektop basically 'died' along with Itanium. People rightly recognised it as an irrelevence. Sure, some things work faster in an x64 environment, but the gains are only minimal. Point out to me, if you will, the professions and tasks where the benefit is of any real substance?
1Gb of RAM is enough to make Vista x32 sit up and jump, and equips a desktop system for just about any task that's gonna be thrown at it. A 64-bit version? Hell, I can install Windows Server, configure it, and use the thing as a standalone desktop environment, but it's be a ridiculous thing to do wouldn't it? Windows on Windows when running a 64-bit variety? Why is that any more ridiculous than running '64-bit on 32-bit' which is what I'd be betting is the hardware 'heart' in the machines most people spouting such nonsenses have?
There is absolutely no point to changing everything about your desktop computing just because your motherboard has 4 RAM slots and each one can accept a 2Gb RAM module. Not unless you actually need that amount of RAM in your system, and hardly anybody does. Hardly anybody will, for years yet! And for those people who do, well....
There are server OS's for use in server situations!
Windows XP set a minimum of 128Mb for system memory, runs best in 384-512Mb, and shines for 'power users' in 1Gb. Vista will basically double those figures, rather than quadruple it or expect even more still.
There are very few software titles which actually benefit from more than 2Gb of installed system memory. Some specialised applications and a very small number of games run on high-end graphics hardware is all. There is little incentive to further bloat those demands in revisions of existing applications genres. The basic situation won't change until new types of software applications come along.
Yes, this is a hardware forum, but that doesn't mean everybody using it has to be blind to the world around them. The simple reality is that the CPUs used in desktop PCs aren't really '64-bit' processors. They are 32-bit processors with 64-bit extensions, and are best suited to the 32-bit environment. The idea of 64-bit computing for the dektop basically 'died' along with Itanium. People rightly recognised it as an irrelevence. Sure, some things work faster in an x64 environment, but the gains are only minimal. Point out to me, if you will, the professions and tasks where the benefit is of any real substance?
1Gb of RAM is enough to make Vista x32 sit up and jump, and equips a desktop system for just about any task that's gonna be thrown at it. A 64-bit version? Hell, I can install Windows Server, configure it, and use the thing as a standalone desktop environment, but it's be a ridiculous thing to do wouldn't it? Windows on Windows when running a 64-bit variety? Why is that any more ridiculous than running '64-bit on 32-bit' which is what I'd be betting is the hardware 'heart' in the machines most people spouting such nonsenses have?
There is absolutely no point to changing everything about your desktop computing just because your motherboard has 4 RAM slots and each one can accept a 2Gb RAM module. Not unless you actually need that amount of RAM in your system, and hardly anybody does. Hardly anybody will, for years yet! And for those people who do, well....
There are server OS's for use in server situations!
Catweazle said:
Well, I can see you havent been around for very long..... Old Billy Boy once said 640K of system RAM should be enough for anybody...... Look where that got us...
In near future poeple will be able to come back and read this post and laugh mightily.
nameless_centurian
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 836
Catweazle said:
well put. it's all about customer needs/wants and what effects the OS writer's bottom line.
not only that, but as you said, i don't think the technology is there. the x86_64 procs i've seen can still only access 2^32 memory addresses. perhaps the registers are a little larger, perhaps the data bus is a little larger, but apple did this same thing when the g4 came out and called it 128-bit processor. if it was a 128-bit processor, why couldn't it access 2^128 memory addresses in one page?
because it wasn't a 128-bit processor.
edit: incidentally, i was very dissatisfied when i booted up fedora core 5 64-bit, only to find out from gcc that a long integer is still only 32 bits.
what is a word size on x86_64? still only 32 bits, or is it 64?
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
First of all, Bill Gates never said 640k is all we will ever need. That is an urban legend.
Second of all, I don't remember Apple marketing the G4 as a 128bit processor. But that doesn't make it not true. Please provide a link to that information.
Thrid, A word is 16bit, always has been (in x86 that is). Long integer is still 32bit to provide backwards compatibility with 32bit software. The 64bit processors are not limited to 32bit address spaces. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to have a system with 8gb of RAM withou some of it missing. However, if you run a 32bit OS then yes you will be limited to 32bit addresses because of OS limitations, not CPU limitations.
Second of all, I don't remember Apple marketing the G4 as a 128bit processor. But that doesn't make it not true. Please provide a link to that information.
Thrid, A word is 16bit, always has been (in x86 that is). Long integer is still 32bit to provide backwards compatibility with 32bit software. The 64bit processors are not limited to 32bit address spaces. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to have a system with 8gb of RAM withou some of it missing. However, if you run a 32bit OS then yes you will be limited to 32bit addresses because of OS limitations, not CPU limitations.
Might want to fact check, unless you are just trolling. The 640K comment was made in 1981 in regards to the fact that the 8-bit computers couldn't address more memory than 640K on the current hardware due to IBM reserving 384K for addressing hardware.
Scarily enough, I remember reading about original quote. I was banging out BASIC code on the first 16-bit PC to hit the consumer retail market, the TI 99/4A, with a maxed out memory load of 48K at the time.
Apps drive OS development, not the other way around. If applications are relatively static, improvements in stability, multitasking, and application performance drive operating system development.
Lotus 1-2-3, DOS, and IBM hardware, killed Visicalc, CPM, and Apple II.
WYSIWIG, Word, and Excel running on Windows 3.0 and crashing a couple of times a day killed Lotus 1-2-3, Wordperfect, and DOS that could run for days without crashing.
Same apps running with much greater stability and more features drove the adoption of Windows 95, Office 95, and later revisions.
duby229, come up with a killer business app that only runs on 64-bit Linux , and can't be ported to Windows with today's programming tools. You can single handedly make all versions of the "horror" called Windows go the way of the Dodo.
Apparently, it should be simple enough for you.
BinarySynapse
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 15,103
jcll2002 said:
download both, try out 64bit first then try out 32bit. Whicherver one butters your bread go with it.