x64 (64 Bit) FAQs

Grentz

Fully [H]
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
17,273
This is a FAQ to try and answer the questions that get asked over and over about 64 bit Operating Systems (x64).

-What is x64? What is x86?
x64 is 64bit. x86 is 32bit when most people talk about it, even though x86 is really the generic term for architecture which can apply to 64 or 32 bit. x64 is the new computer architecture that is a successor to 32bit (which most of us use right now). It removes the 4gb total memory limitation in 32bit and provides some nice speed improvements in applications that take advantage of x64. You will need a x64 compatible CPU and Motherboard to be able to use x64.

-Do I need to buy a new license?
If you have Vista, no, you just need to acquire the x64 disc. All the Vista versions are on the same disc, except there is one disc for 32 Bit (32bit) and one for x64 (64bit). Your product key will work on both x64 and 32 Bit versions. One exception with Vista is OEM licenses, the key will work on both x64 or 32 Bit, but you cannot get the x64 media from Microsoft with an OEM key. You can use a Vista x64 disk if you have one, but you will probably have to buy a new license to get the x64 disc if you do not already have one. If you have XP and want to move to XP 64bit, yes you will need to buy a new license. They are sold as totally separate OSes.

-Should I go XP x64 or Vista x64?
If you already have a Vista license/Vista installed, I would go Vista x64 as you do not have to buy a license again (just acquire a x64 install disc). If you currently are on XP, I would still recommend buying a Vista x64 license vs. buying a XP x64 license. Vista x64 seems to be much better with compatibility and is the newer OS that will soon be the standard.

-Do I have to do a clean install or can I “upgrade” my current install?
To move to x64 from 32 Bit you must do a clean install. The “under the hood” part of the OS is quite different so Windows needs a complete clean install to make the switch to x64.

-If I have 4gb+ of RAM should I use x64?
Yes, if you want to use all of it. On 32bit you will never be able to use more than 3.7gb or so of it because the OS can only address 4gb of RAM total. Things like your Video Card, Network Card, etc. all have RAM that take away from the limit as well so you are only able to use 3.7gb or so of your RAM.

-Is x64 “faster”?
Yes and no. You may see a speed increase in some programs, but others may not have any difference at all. If you are running a lot of programs at once you will usually notice a performance increase as x64 can first of all run with more RAM, and second of all memory mapping is more efficient on x64. Many people have also found Vista x64 is a bit quicker doing normal OS tasks as well (local file copies, opening menus and items, etc.), but this is debatable. Programs that have a x64 version usually will also see a very nice performance increase, but the list of native x64 apps is very small right now.

-Do 32bit applications run on x64?
Yes and no. Some will work just fine, but some do have compatibility problems (See next FAQ item).

-Will ______ program work with x64?
Hard to say really, this goes on a program by program basis. Most modern applications seem to work just fine on x64 and major programs like Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, and Firefox work without issue. Some programs that use special drivers or poll information from the system may have issues because Vista x64 requires signed drivers. One very good example of this is iTunes in which the CD Burner does not work as it is a special driver that is not x64 compliant. Overall though most applications will work without issue or have a fix available, it’s always good to do a quick Google though to check and see if your necessary program works before making the jump.

-Signed Drivers? What is this all about?
That’s right, Vista x64 requires signed drivers. What this means is that drivers need to be approved through Microsoft before they are able to install on Vista x64. This is what causes a lot of “homemade” type applications to not work if they need a special driver. The reason Microsoft did this is so malicious drivers cannot be installed and all drivers are compatible with the OS. This is to make for a more stable and reliable system that is not effected by poorly written drivers which has been a problem in many OSes in the past. You should check to make sure that the devices you want to use on your computer (system devices like Mainboard, TV Tuner, etc and external devices like Printers) have x64 compatible drivers available.

-I want to do it I want to do it!
Ok, but first you should take the following steps:
  1. Make sure there are x64 drivers for all the components in your system (Mainboard, TV Tuner, Graphics Card, Ethernet Card, Wireless Card, etc.)
  2. Google and make sure that the programs you need to have work will still work on x64, or if there are updates available to make them x64 compliant (maybe even a different x64 version of the program)
  3. Google and make sure that devices you use with your system all will work on x64 and download appropriate x64 drivers (Cameras, Webcams, Printers, Scanners, etc.)
  4. Acquire the proper x64 media. If you want XP x64 you need to buy a new license. If you have Vista and want to move to x64 you just need to get the x64 version disc.
  5. Backup all your information from the drive/partition you are going to install your OS on…x64 needs a clean install and will wipe out everything on the OS drive/partition you select to install it on
  6. Have fun with x64!


Hope this helps clear up some confusion, and I will work on adding FAQs to the list that I think of/people suggest.
 
Very nice. <golf_claps> ;) You might consider expanding that the reason Microsoft requires 64 bit signed drivers is what you said and to make sure the system stays reliable and functional - it wasn't done just as a means to piss people off and make things tougher on consumers or software manufacturers. It was done to keep Vista solid and reliable and to hopefully cut down on the vast number of support calls that wouldn't be necessary if the machine was stable in the first place. Requiring signed drivers gives Microsoft one last chance to say "Ok, we put these things through our own testing process and we say they're ok."

Vista's #1 priority is to keep itself running, whether the user likes it or not. :D
 
not quite

x86 is what the arch is (86386,86486... akin to motorola's 68 series, 68010,68020...)

x86_32 is the 32bit arch, x86_64 is the 64bit arch
 
Very nice. <golf_claps> ;) You might consider expanding that the reason Microsoft requires 64 bit signed drivers is what you said and to make sure the system stays reliable and functional - it wasn't done just as a means to piss people off and make things tougher on consumers or software manufacturers. It was done to keep Vista solid and reliable and to hopefully cut down on the vast number of support calls that wouldn't be necessary if the machine was stable in the first place. Requiring signed drivers gives Microsoft one last chance to say "Ok, we put these things through our own testing process and we say they're ok."

Vista's #1 priority is to keep itself running, whether the user likes it or not. :D

not quite

x86 is what the arch is (86386,86486... akin to motorola's 68 series, 68010,68020...)

x86_32 is the 32bit arch, x86_64 is the 64bit arch

Check your pm...

Nice write up!!


Thx guys, added your suggestions/updates/additions :)

Also, x86 is how 32bit apps are referred to many times in Windows x64, that is why I put it like that. For example there is a Programs (x86) folder that is for 32bit apps.
 
Very nice job, I was wondering when a thread like this would pop up, I was way to lazy to make one myself. This needs to be stickied.
 
not quite

x86 is what the arch is (86386,86486... akin to motorola's 68 series, 68010,68020...)

x86_32 is the 32bit arch, x86_64 is the 64bit arch

Thx guys, added your suggestions/updates/additions :)

Also, x86 is how 32bit apps are referred to many times in Windows x64, that is why I put it like that. For example there is a Programs (x86) folder that is for 32bit apps.

He's right, "technically" x64 belongs to the Itanium architecture I believe; a 64-bit processor that completely left the x86 roots (one of the reasons it can't run x86 code worth a damn, its emulating it). MS might be (sloppily IMO) pushing x64 in Windows setup & such, but the most common correct references I've seen are x86_64 and amd64 (though the latter is fading away a bit since Intel has competent 64-bit CPUs out).

You could maybe detail some of things a bit more mathematically (e.g. addressing up tp 2^32 = 4294967296 bytes versus the theoretical max of 2^64 = 18446744073709551616 bytes, and the more sane physical limitations the new desktop chipsets have (I think most chipsets will address up to 8GB or 16GB on an enthusiast board?) or the reasons for varying amount of RAM displayed in 32-bit windows (parts of the 32-bit address space getting eaten to assign all system devices to, so with twin 768mb cards, you'd be looking at a stupidly low amount of RAM).
 
I've always been going by the x86 and x64 names for two reasons. First, it's easy to differentiate between the two, as compared to x86_64. Secondly, that's how Microsoft classifies and names their patches, files on Technet, etc.
 
Well I go by what the industry as a whole AND those that make their chips say it is

The correct terms are x86_32,x86,and x86_64

not really interested in what a convicted monopolist & repeated violator of standards wants to call it
 
In this day and age, with Itanium basically a memory now (the only real use for the x64 moniker since DEC and the Alphas died long ago), it's perfectly acceptable to say "x86" when referencing 32 bit codebases or platform architectures, just as it's perfectly acceptable to say "x64" when referencing 64 bit codebases or platform architectures.

My god, you people will find most anything to squabble on about. This is a perfectly useful thread - don't fucking ruin it, please.

Let's move on.
 
As pointed out, I'll stick with what's easiest and simplest for everyone to understand. Considering how apparently confusing this whole topic is, there's no reason to convolute the terms any further.
 
Nice writeup except for the part where you declare Vista 64 having more compatibility than XP64.
 
This is a FAQ to make things simple, not go into the advanced dynamics of the architecture.

Most repeated questions are those that are simple, and thus that is what this FAQ is for.
 
Nice writeup except for the part where you declare Vista 64 having more compatibility than XP64.
Well it does have more compatibility in the driver area because when drivers are submitted for WHQL testing for Vista you have to submit a 32 bit and 64 bit driver whereas you don't have to submit a 64 bit driver for XP when you submit a 32 bit XP driver.
 
Well it does have more compatibility in the driver area because when drivers are submitted for WHQL testing for Vista you have to submit a 32 bit and 64 bit driver whereas you don't have to submit a 64 bit driver for XP when you submit a 32 bit XP driver.

Exactly ;)
 
Will be buying a new rig soon which will have 4GB of RAM.
I am interested in using WinXP 64 but I do not know if it will slow down 32bit games such as ANNO 1701 or Settlers 2 10th anniversary and Settlers 6?

The rig will have
MSI k9a2 CF AM2+
Athlon 5000+ Black edition X2
2*2 GB PATRIOT w/ HEATSINKs
ATI SAPPHIRE 3850 265MB
 
32-bit programs should not be noticeably slower in a 64-bit OS; they're still executing natively on the processor, it doesn't have to do any emulation. The slight overheads involved won't be noticeable.

You also might want to consider Vista x64, which has better driver support, as discussed above. XP x64 is fine OS, but it's also pretty niche and has been superceded. Don't just take the "Vista is bad" FUD without looking into it, anyway.
 
Will be buying a new rig soon which will have 4GB of RAM.
I am interested in using WinXP 64 but I do not know if it will slow down 32bit games such as ANNO 1701 or Settlers 2 10th anniversary and Settlers 6?
In 3DMark2001 and 2006 (32-bit apps) my benchmarks on this laptop with XP64 are identical to XP32.

I know 3DMark is pointless and has no function at all in this world(*) but it was the only way I had available to get actual numbers between the OSs. The fact that they both generated the same scores indicates there's nothing hindering 32-bit graphics in XP64, at least not 3DMark.

Gaming in XP64 on my laptop has been pleasant and problem-free. Of course you should check the game maker's websites for info on 64-bit OS compatibility.

*- disclaimer since many people do not think benchmarks mean anything
 
My 3dmark03 once actually went up buy a good amount on the x64 when I compared between XP32 and XP64 (that may've been due to the cleaner XP64 install tho)
 
It sucks because I can't use Vista x64 until I get a new motherboard. The LAN driver they released never saw past beta. :confused:
 
I would like this to be stickied too.

Oh, and may I suggest that you should mention in the "Does ___ work in x64" that all 16-bit applications cannot be run on any x64 version of Windows without some kind of virtual machine or emulator like DOSBox.
 
-Signed Drivers? What is this all about?
That’s right, Vista x64 requires signed drivers. What this means is that drivers need to be approved through Microsoft before they are able to install on Vista x64. This is what causes a lot of “homemade” type applications to not work if they need a special driver. The reason Microsoft did this is so malicious drivers cannot be installed and all drivers are compatible with the OS. This is to make for a more stable and reliable system that is not effected by poorly written drivers which has been a problem in many OSes in the past.

It's quite simple to disable driver signature checking for Vista below SP1.

It is far more likely that Vista's signed driver requirement exists to placate the HD-DVD and BluRay DRM enforcement bodies and to allow MS to extort more money from ISVs than for any purpose intended to benefit the end user. "Stability" is neat propaganda to tell the public, but protecting the DRM video pipeline is much more important to Microsoft's interests.
 
-Signed Drivers? What is this all about?
That’s right, Vista x64 requires signed drivers. What this means is that drivers need to be approved through Microsoft before they are able to install on Vista x64. This is what causes a lot of “homemade” type applications to not work if they need a special driver. The reason Microsoft did this is so malicious drivers cannot be installed and all drivers are compatible with the OS. This is to make for a more stable and reliable system that is not effected by poorly written drivers which has been a problem in many OSes in the past. You should check to make sure that the devices you want to use on your computer (system devices like Mainboard, TV Tuner, etc and external devices like Printers) have x64 compatible drivers available.

The bit about Microsoft approval is incorrect, and the above post is just FUD. In fact I'm fairly certain Microsoft doesn't even have a code signing service, as last time I checked they linked to numerous 3rd party providers. I could go right now to somewhere such as http://www.verisign.com and purchase one of their code signing keys for my spankin new botnet group, Hacks-R-Us, write me up a driver based trojan, sign it, distribute it, and it would load into Vista 64 without question.

Well, until someone noticed my scam, contacted Verisign regarding it, and my key was revoked, my code rendered inoperable, and my payment forfited.

The Microsoft WHQL signing is a different process where MS does do an approval, but is not required to create signed drivers.

Even relatively small freeware projects that require a driver could likely get enough donations to afford the annual signature fee, and the key can be used for as many projects as the owner wishes.

Digital signing is a GOOD thing. If you download a signed app from a random download site, if it's signed by the author you can be relatively sure that said site hasn't malliciously modified it, and due to the cost of the key, malware authors don't use them because the cost of having to constantly purchase new keys when old ones were invalidated would put big dents into profits (last I checked keys were around $500/yr).

The way I think that section should read is:

-Signed Drivers? What is this all about?
That’s right, Vista x64 requires signed drivers. What this means is that driver's author needs to sign his code with a key obtained from one of the trusted certificate authorities. This is what causes a lot of “homemade” type applications to not work if they need a special driver. The reason Microsoft did this is so malicious drivers cannot be installed without the administrator taking steps to disable security. This is to make for a more secure system, as drivers run at the highest CPU privilege level. You should check to make sure that the devices you want to use on your computer (system devices like Mainboard, TV Tuner, etc and external devices like Printers) have x64 compatible drivers available.
 
The bit about Microsoft approval is incorrect, and the above post is just FUD. In fact I'm fairly certain Microsoft doesn't even have a code signing service, as last time I checked they linked to numerous 3rd party providers. I could go right now to somewhere such as http://www.verisign.com and purchase one of their code signing keys for my spankin new botnet group, Hacks-R-Us, write me up a driver based trojan, sign it, distribute it, and it would load into Vista 64 without question.

Well, until someone noticed my scam, contacted Verisign regarding it, and my key was revoked, my code rendered inoperable, and my payment forfited.

The Microsoft WHQL signing is a different process where MS does do an approval, but is not required to create signed drivers.

Even relatively small freeware projects that require a driver could likely get enough donations to afford the annual signature fee, and the key can be used for as many projects as the owner wishes.

Digital signing is a GOOD thing. If you download a signed app from a random download site, if it's signed by the author you can be relatively sure that said site hasn't malliciously modified it, and due to the cost of the key, malware authors don't use them because the cost of having to constantly purchase new keys when old ones were invalidated would put big dents into profits (last I checked keys were around $500/yr).

The way I think that section should read is:

-Signed Drivers? What is this all about?
That’s right, Vista x64 requires signed drivers. What this means is that driver's author needs to sign his code with a key obtained from one of the trusted certificate authorities. This is what causes a lot of “homemade” type applications to not work if they need a special driver. The reason Microsoft did this is so malicious drivers cannot be installed without the administrator taking steps to disable security. This is to make for a more secure system, as drivers run at the highest CPU privilege level. You should check to make sure that the devices you want to use on your computer (system devices like Mainboard, TV Tuner, etc and external devices like Printers) have x64 compatible drivers available.

QFT, the bit about MS signing drivers for DRM is more Vista FUD
 
-Do I need to buy a new license?
If you have Vista, no, you just need to acquire the x64 disc. All the Vista versions are on the same disc, except there is one disc for 32 Bit (32bit) and one for x64 (64bit). Your product key will work on both x64 and 32 Bit versions. One exception with Vista is OEM licenses, the key will work on both x64 or 32 Bit, but you cannot get the x64 media from Microsoft with an OEM key. You can use a Vista x64 disk if you have one, but you will probably have to buy a new license to get the x64 disc if you do not already have one. If you have XP and want to move to XP 64bit, yes you will need to buy a new license. They are sold as totally separate OSes.

Sorry if this is common knowledge or something, but how does one go about 'acquiring' the 64bit vista DVD? (please don't say bit torrent)

Also, my laptop came with 32bit Vista, do I have any hope of installing 64bit Vista with the current license? (assuming all the drivers exist and whatnot)

Nice FAQ, by the way.
 
Sorry if this is common knowledge or something, but how does one go about 'acquiring' the 64bit vista DVD? (please don't say bit torrent)

Also, my laptop came with 32bit Vista, do I have any hope of installing 64bit Vista with the current license? (assuming all the drivers exist and whatnot)

If you have a retail key, you can go here to order a 64-bit disc (at the bottom of the page):
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/64bit.mspx

Your laptop almost certainly came with 32-bit Vista OEM, and Microsoft will not send out replacement media. I've heard conflicting things about whether a 32-bit OEM key will work if you have a 64-bit disc though - I thought not, but some people seem to say you can.
 
Sorry if this is common knowledge or something, but how does one go about 'acquiring' the 64bit vista DVD? (please don't say bit torrent)

Also, my laptop came with 32bit Vista, do I have any hope of installing 64bit Vista with the current license? (assuming all the drivers exist and whatnot)

Nice FAQ, by the way.

You can call MS that you need to reinstall OS (HDD died) and your DVD doesnt work - ask them to send you new 64bit DVD (it will cost ~10$).
 
Back
Top