Vista 32-bit or 64-bit?

[BinarySynapse]

ok lol, i have em both DLing. I guess ill just quad-boot.

XP on one hdd
32bit pre-RC1 on the other
with 32bit RC1
and 64bit RC1

any probs with doing that?

I'd say scrap the pre-RC1 for the RC1. No point in running something old when it's newer equivilent is out. Oh and format before installing. I didn't the first time (did upgrade) and I had hell of a lot of stability and performance issues.

 

[jcll2002]

thanks for the advice!

BTW, what is sopposedly better about RC1 over the pre-rc1? Just stability?

 

[BinarySynapse]

thanks for the advice!

BTW, what is sopposedly better about RC1 over the pre-rc1? Just stability?

some stability is gained, but overall it's just some more refinements/feature touchups. I actually found 5536 to be a tad bit faster at booting, but overall 5600 is noticeably smoother. Also if you have ATI video card then you will want to make sure to download thair latest beta drivers. The previous version they released were absolutely horrible.

EDIT: NM just looked at your sig and saw you're with the green team.

 

[duby229]

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.

Ok,Which is exactly my point. Memory demands will increase. Period. It has done so from the beginning. Nobody has stopped it yet, and it's likely that nobody ever will. And It's likely that nobody ever will.

It's not going to simply stagnate becouse MS isnt ready for it. Progression will continue. Period. Nuff said. Even you recognize that has been the natural way. From DOS to 16bit windows, to 32bit windows, to nt based windows, and in theory now 64bit windows. The fact is that for at least the next 6 years MS wont be ready for 64bit windows... While they are once again sitting on their hands, memory requirements will continue to increase, and where will windows be?

Will we be forced to deal with the inconsistancies of WoW? Will we be forced to deal with the problems involved with buggy Link Libraries? Will we have a reincarnartion of extended memory? How will these flaws that were intentionaly designed into the OS be overcome? Why should they have to be overcome in the first place when the hardware was designed to address them with compatibility mode?

I'm simply making observations, and asking questions. I never once said anything about Linux. I did say that there are currently other OS's that are properly designed and maintained with full hardware support, and complete compatibility with 32bit code, that has been on the market for the past 3 years. Which includes Linux, BSD, Solaris, MacOSX, and others.... I have also --speculated-- that MS wont be at that level until at least Blackcomb. If that --speculation-- is true then that puts MS 9 years behind.

So why is it OK for MS to be 9 years behind, while at the same time forcing an intentional design flaw down our throats, and at the same time releasing an OS that wont meet memory demands a year after launch, which wont be replaced for 6 years after launch?

Valid questions all of them. None of which has been answered yet. Instead we have people coming in here defending --the savior-- as if they need it.

 

[BinarySynapse]

Ok,Which is exactly my point. Memory demands will increase. Period. It has done so from the beginning. Nobody has stopped it yet, and it's likely that nobody ever will. And It's likely that nobody ever will.

It's not going to simply stagnate becouse MS isnt ready for it. Progression will continue. Period. Nuff said. Even you recognize that has been the natural way. From DOS to 16bit windows, to 32bit windows, to nt based windows, and in theory now 64bit windows. The fact is that for at least the next 6 years MS wont be ready for 64bit windows... While they are once again sitting on their hands, memory requirements will continue to increase, and where will windows be?

Will we be forced to deal with the inconsistancies of WoW? Will we be forced to deal with the problems involved with buggy Link Libraries? Will we have a reincarnartion of extended memory? How will these flaws that were intentionaly designed into the OS be overcome? Why should they have to be overcome in the first place when the hardware was designed to address them with compatibility mode?

I'm simply making observations, and asking questions. I never once said anything about Linux. I did say that there are currently other OS's that are properly designed and maintained with full hardware support, and complete compatibility with 32bit code, that has been on the market for the past 3 years. Which includes Linux, BSD, Solaris, MacOSX, and others.... I have also --speculated-- that MS wont be at that level until at least Blackcomb. If that --speculation-- is true then that puts MS 9 years behind.

So why is it OK for MS to be 9 years behind, while at the same time forcing an intentional design flaw down our throats, and at the same time releasing an OS that wont meet memory demands a year after launch, which wont be replaced for 6 years after launch?

Valid questions all of them. None of which has been answered yet. Instead we have people coming in here defending --the savior-- as if they need it.

Okay with all your theories and what not have you even tried XP x64, or Vista 64-bit? they both support up to I believe 32-128GB of RAM (not sure the exact amount and I think each version is different.) 64 bit program will see every bit of the available RAM. 32bit programs will be able to see and adrdress up to 4gb. And each 32bit program will have it own 4gb address spaces to work within up to the amount of RAM you have available.

Also what is your hang up on Windows on Windows? It's in XP and 200 for 16bit programs, and I think it's even there for 9x, but I'm not sure about that.

 

[Catweazle]

Well, I can see you havent been around for very long.....

Sinking rather low to be conducting an argument by throwing out insults, isn't it?

Your questions have already been answered above, by the way. This nonsense about "9 years behind" is an obfuscation created by twisting the supposed 'facts' to suit your own ends, and in reality you're only interested in responses which play the game you are playing rather than ones which address realities of computing concerns.

MS Windows isn't "9 years behind". We don't need a 64-bit desktop OS yet for a few years at least, so it's ahead of requirements.



jcll2002, it's pleasing to hear that you've downloaded both versions to try out. The best assessment by far is to try them out for yourself.

 

[duby229]

I just noticed that the order of the posts have changed since last night. Not in a confusing way, but still changed none the less.

Sorry if you took at as an insult none was implied. I'm just simply stating observations... about memory, and the progression of capacity demands.

You can argue that I am wrong about how far behind MS is, but it can't be argued that they are indeed behind. Based on my observations that puts them roughly 9 years behind. If you beg to differ, then at least tell me why.

 

[dekard]

ok lol, i have em both DLing. I guess ill just quad-boot.

XP on one hdd
32bit pre-RC1 on the other
with 32bit RC1
and 64bit RC1

any probs with doing that?

before you try something like that on oc'd hardware with beta software I hope you are backing up your data.. I'd stick to rc1 32 for simplicity's sake.. the 64b version will work the same so there's no need to play with it unless you are looking to experiment with 4g + ram or have some specialized app that needs the 64bit'edness.

 

[RaphaelVinceti]

They are not behind where there is no current need for 95% of users to have anything other than 32bit Windows. And Windows X64 isnt broken, the developer support for it is the problem, not the OS itself.

 

[samsung.204b]

i install yesterday night vista 64bit. runs fine, but i have some problems running some programs, like nero.

 

[Catweazle]

Sorry if you took at as an insult none was implied. I'm just simply stating observations... about memory, and the progression of capacity demands.

You can argue that I am wrong about how far behind MS is, but it can't be argued that they are indeed behind. Based on my observations that puts them roughly 9 years behind. If you beg to differ, then at least tell me why.

They are not behind where there is no current need for 95% of users to have anything other than 32bit Windows. And Windows X64 isnt broken, the developer support for it is the problem, not the OS itself.

You may not have intentionally thrown out insult, but when you are careless enough to make personally directed comment you're doing so nevertheless.

Your answer lies in my earlier comments and in the comment made by RaphaelVincenti there. MS is not 'behind' when it is not engaged in some direct competition. It's most certainly not in competition with anybody. It owns 96.5% or greater of the desktop market, and there is nobody, anywhere who appears capable of mounting competition for them in that market.

64-bit operating systems have existed since the mid-1990s. They've only ever been suited to and used in specialised niche markets until recently, and they are, realistically, still only suited to specialised niche markets. If some wannabe desktop OS developers care to call themselves 'competitors, and produce a 64-bit desktop OS then that's sorta akin to having a high-performance sports car and claiming that you are 'better' because the thing can do in excess of 250 kilometres per hour. Yep, sure it can. But you're going to incur penalties if you do!

Having a 64-bit OS for the x86-64 platform brings some improved efficiencies. Better CPU registers and thus more efficient device drivers and calculations. But it also introduces some inneficiencies. Whilst it can address more system memory it also means that the same data occupies more system memory.

Reality is that a 64-bit desktop OS is only really needed if the desktop is being used for 3-D design work, where the extra addressable memory is basically a necessity. The other major software area where the extra addressable memory meets a definite need is where the system is being used to serve massively large databases, and desktop systems don't generally get used for that task.

This whole argument comes down to the misconception "Oh, I have a 64-bit system so I must need a 64-bit OS!" You don't. You won't, either, for the immediate short to medium term future.


Yep, there'll be a fair few people who want to feed their e-wang growth by delighting in the fact that they have a 64-bit OS installed. To me, though, that's sorta like boasting that you're using a tree-felling chainsaw to cut a notch in a piece of wood. A hand-chisel would have done the job just as quickly and it would've made a lot more sense to approach the task with one in hand!


jcll2002, please take note of the comments about data occupying more memory. Whilst it's been said in topics about Vista recently that you basically need 1Gb of system memory installed to get Vista humming along nicely, if you are installing and using the 64-bit version then you should double that figure. Vista 64-bit really needs 2Gb as a base level of system memory.

 

[nilepez]

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?

If you don't play games, you don't really need 2GB on a desktop system (thus the reason that the vast majority of machines ship with 1GB or less). But even if the price of 2GB of Dimms drops to $150 (which is what it'll take to even become semi-mainstream) Vista x32 can handle it.

I don't anticipate moving to 3GB (ever) or 4GB next year. Such a requirement would imply a serious issue with Vista. If that's the case, I probably won't upgrade to Vista, but it's hardly a limitation. In 2001 I had either 512mb of ram. 5.5 years later I was at 2GB. I'd anticipate being at 4GB in roughly 3 years, not next year.

As for the other platforms you've mentioned, none are good for gaming, so if I move to them, in theory, I'd be fine with even less memory than I currently use. And when it comes to Macs, most of those ship with 1GB, almost certainly are harder to OC than a custom built PC and again are hardly gaming systems.

In the end, however, it doens't matter. We're not comparing Operating Systems. We're talking about Vista 32bit and Vista 64bit, not DOS, OS/2, Linux, OSX, BSD and not Solaris.