Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

32 bit and 64 bit Vista??

Last response: in Windows Vista
Share
April 15, 2008 7:28:22 PM

I realize that this is a question that gets asked quite a bit but nothing has really answered my question to the fullest extent. In May the new Intel Purchase Program should open up again and I'll be buying one of their setups. They give you a copy of Vista but I believe its only 32-bit. I am really interested in pushing my RAM over 4 GB and getting more than 3GB (probably less with the sound card I want to put in) but I have always heard that 64-bit computing always has problems with compatibility especially running 32-bit applications. I was just wondering if this issue has been fixed or dealt with for the most part. I have a copy of x64 XP Pro but I have never used it for the issue at hand. But I have also heard that Vista is really good about 32-bit compatibility from a few friends at work but I want to be positive before I commit to buying another copy of the operating system.

More about : bit bit vista

April 15, 2008 8:41:04 PM

I have yet to try a 32 bit app that doesn't work on Vista 64.
m
0
l
April 16, 2008 6:05:00 PM

^Same here. Not a single application or driver problem with Vista x64.

OP, is the copy of Vista that Intel gives you OEM or retail/upgrade? If it's retail/upgrade, then you can get a Vista x64 alternate DVD from MS for about $10.
m
0
l
Related resources
April 16, 2008 6:19:10 PM

Vista 64 for a few months now, with 8 gig ram, I agree with above comments. Some apps which do low level stuff require 64 bit versions. Daemon tools and some anti-virus tools for example. This is not your run of the mill app and thankfully most of these apps like this have released 64 bit versions.
m
0
l
April 16, 2008 6:27:29 PM

No problems here with Vista64 either, and I use lots of quirky applications.
m
0
l
April 16, 2008 10:35:51 PM

No game or app compatibility problems at all for me so far, no driver problems at all either.
m
0
l
April 16, 2008 10:47:23 PM

I'm running Vista 64 Ultimate with 8GB of ram as others appear to be as well. As of yet, I have not had a single issue with driver incompatibility or crashes due to running 32bit apps on Vista 64. For all the crap the Vista gets, this is something that was well done. If you have specific apps in mind, check forums and google to see if other users have had issues and if they were resolved by simple patches. Also, make sure your hardware (video and sound card especially) have 64 bit WHQL drivers. This will make the transition much easier.
m
0
l
April 16, 2008 11:05:32 PM

It isn't 32bit programming that's the problem for Vista x64. The majority of the 32bit programs that had problems running on Vista x64 failed because they had parts written in 16bit code, which Vista x64 doesn't support(there are some exceptions in the case of specific installers in 16bit code that are supported, but usually 16bit programming isn't supported).
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 9:21:59 AM

Oh wow that's great news....incredible. I don't have anything to bash on Vista really...I'm trialing the 32-bit version for the last couple weeks and I like it with the exception that some files have no way in hell to delete even with UAC off. I think its a great operating system besides a slight problem with performance in certain games (like BF2 but I mean jesus its BF2 it barely runs anyways). There are some older things I will be running... is there a compatibility list around somewhere? The few things I'll be running that are older will only be occasional, things I like to goof with here or there. Here's a short list of older things:

Quake (the original its kinda fun now and then)
Command and Conquer Red Alert (I doubt this will work)
Quake 2
DOOM series

Stuff like that. I also have a few programs I'll need to work for school like AutoCAD, Solidworks, and Microstation but those are fairly new, I just want to be sure on the compatiblity.

The copy of Vista we get is 32-bit Ultimate or Home Premium, I can't remember which. It's ok though I want to grab a copy of the Ultimate retail anyways.

Would you guys recommend giving my x64 XP pro a try or is that plagued still?
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 10:01:13 AM

GUYS WHAT IS THE INTEL PURCHASE PROGRAM????? WHAT DOES IT GET YOU AND HOW DO YOU JOIN????? THANKS
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 10:01:53 AM

^^ LOL at that guy. I don't think you qualify :p 

When was the IPP announced? I've heard nothing of it.
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 10:05:40 AM

I got vista ultimate a while ago with 8 gigs ram. only problem i ever seem to have is with ventrilo. I get my mic turning off randomly or some wierd popping noises or underwater noises after leaving the system on to long. Im sure its simply a compatability issue with ventrilo since my mic still works everywhere else just perfectly. other then that however not any issues. You can see my specs in my sig.
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 11:53:10 AM

Hrmmm ok this is sounding better and better and easier to choose. I would stick with the x64 XP Pro for now but it doesn't seem to have a last Service Pack planned like 32-bit WinXP. So I probably will be moving to to 64-bit Vista. Its giving me goosebumps. Lol just kidding. Yea they haven't announced it officially but there is supposed to be a meeting May 1st in which they'll give us the hard date. I'm assuming its the first week of March. Gonna grab that baby and a new 24" monitor on a 9800 GTX and I'll be slammin!
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 12:54:30 PM

Not so fast... I just can't believe the number of people saying that there is no issues with Vista64 when there are lots. This being said, the need for 64 bit OS's is here. Games like Supreme Commander use way more than the 2 GB that 32 bit Windows gives to an application. SupCom is our groups favorite game and we have all bought Quad cores to play it, but Vista has given us problems. Over HALF of the games we tried had problems when we ran them. Here is the list and the fixes we have found to date:

-COD4- No issues

-SupCom- Large Address Aware must be run or crash at 2 GB

-CS:Source- Unplayable frame rates if Vista 64 hosts, fine otherwise

-BF2- Unplayable frame rate, fix by running as Admin (Punkbuster issue)

-BF2:SpecForces- Unplayable frame rate, fix by running as Admin (Punkbuster issue)

-Flatout 1- No issues

-Flatout 2- No issues

-Xpand Rally Demo- Will not run due to copy protection not recognizing Vista

-Sins of a Solar Empire- Crashes every couple of hours, we save a lot

If someone has an idea about the CS:Source issue or the SoaSE issue please let me know.
Windows sucks but that's the OS if you want to play games, so here I am with Vista 64
Falcon688
My System
QX6700, 9800GX2, 780 MB, RAID 0 with a hardware controller because NVidia can't do RAID right.
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 1:08:01 PM

you have a copy winXP 64?
so use it for god's sake! Save your money and invest in sometjng else.
More than 4GB (2*2GB) aren't very useful at the moment I guess...so I would stick with it....you anyway end up with two slots ready for beeing upgraded.
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 2:09:23 PM

cmmcnamara said:


Quake (the original its kinda fun now and then)
Command and Conquer Red Alert (I doubt this will work)
Quake 2
DOOM series



C&C Red Alert works fine for me, but im using The First Decade not an original CD. Oddly enough, C&C Generals does not work for me.


-CS:Source- Unplayable frame rates if Vista 64 hosts, fine otherwise
I Have absolutley no issues with CS:Source or any other Source based game. Maybe you need better hardware.
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 2:38:09 PM

Ive not had a single problem with BF2 and we play it daily.
Only other issues I've had with Vista 64 is flash player doesnt work. Other than that I love it, no driver issues or anything.
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 3:21:46 PM

Hi Steve:

Quote:
-CS:Source- Unplayable frame rates if Vista 64 hosts, fine otherwise
I Have absolutley no issues with CS:Source or any other Source based game. Maybe you need better hardware.


I'm glad you've had no issues with Source. The only issue I have had is hosting LAN games. I can join a LAN or Net game and play just fine. Have you hosted a LAN game?

As for your get better hardware, I believe my Qx6700 and 9800 gx2 are petty current. I use Vista 64 on the same MB as you-an evga 780 but I use 4 GB of 1066 memory instead.

Does anyone have experience hosting LAN CS games with Vista 64?

Falcon688
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 3:40:40 PM

Falcon688 said:
Not so fast... I just can't believe the number of people saying that there is no issues with Vista64 when there are lots. This being said, the need for 64 bit OS's is here. Games like Supreme Commander use way more than the 2 GB that 32 bit Windows gives to an application. SupCom is our groups favorite game and we have all bought Quad cores to play it, but Vista has given us problems. Over HALF of the games we tried had problems when we ran them. Here is the list and the fixes we have found to date:

-COD4- No issues

-SupCom- Large Address Aware must be run or crash at 2 GB

-CS:Source- Unplayable frame rates if Vista 64 hosts, fine otherwise

-BF2- Unplayable frame rate, fix by running as Admin (Punkbuster issue)

-BF2:SpecForces- Unplayable frame rate, fix by running as Admin (Punkbuster issue)

-Flatout 1- No issues

-Flatout 2- No issues

-Xpand Rally Demo- Will not run due to copy protection not recognizing Vista

-Sins of a Solar Empire- Crashes every couple of hours, we save a lot

If someone has an idea about the CS:Source issue or the SoaSE issue please let me know.
Windows sucks but that's the OS if you want to play games, so here I am with Vista 64
Falcon688
My System
QX6700, 9800GX2, 780 MB, RAID 0 with a hardware controller because NVidia can't do RAID right.

I assume you have UAC disabled? If not I would highly recommend doing so.

The only game you listed that I can comment on from personal experience is SoaSE. I have had no issues whatsoever in Vista64. I had serious crashing problems with Vista32 until I did the bcdedit to increase the single application address limit, but no crashes yet on Vista64. :) 
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 3:53:32 PM

cmmcnamara said:
Would you guys recommend giving my x64 XP pro a try or is that plagued still?


I have Vista 64 on my gaming computer and XP64 on my business computer. If you have a copy of XP64 Pro and don't care about DX10, I'd recommend using the XP64 Pro. XP64 Pro is not still plagued, as most of the hardware companies have now built 64 bit drivers and 32 bit programs run fine on XP64 Pro. In fact, I'll be building a new business computer next month and XP64 Pro will be getting installed on it. That's how much I like it, both compared to Vista and for its own qualities.

As to the question of getting Vista 32 or Vista 64, the only good reason that I can think of for getting Vista 32 is if the computer doesn't support a 64 bit OS.
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 6:56:12 PM

I actualy have some of those games mentioned and yes have hosted lan games on my box.. I havent had issues with them at all. But dont take the fact i havent personaly had issues as "a OS has no problems at all" i was just giving my exp. Im a pretty big gamer and i have played alot of games on vista including some of the mentioned. i run most of them at 100 frames. COD4 runs between 40 and 100 frames for me depending on the map and where im facing ;)  i havent played any of my older games really on vista yet but i might try it later. BUT WAIT i still cant use my web root since there is no x64 version yet and i did have to upgrade a couple insignifigent programs like my fpt client and anti virus. Two vary easy things to upgrade btw. Youll have issues with codecs if you like making movies.. At least i have but that may just be becuase i dont know how to setup the rendering part vary well yet.
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 7:17:35 PM

So it just seems like there are mild problems, but seeing how everything is moving to the 64-bit direction, at least eventually I don't think the problems will last. I think I'll go ahead and finally use that x64 copy and see how it runs. I'm definetly going to buy a copy of Windows Vista Ultimate, I really believe that copy we get with the purchase program is 32-bit OEM. Does anybody know of a site with compatibility issues and or fixes for x64 XP and or Vista? Kinda like widescreengamingforum.com?
m
0
l
April 17, 2008 10:19:23 PM

Falcon688 said:
Hi Steve:

Quote:
-CS:Source- Unplayable frame rates if Vista 64 hosts, fine otherwise
I Have absolutley no issues with CS:Source or any other Source based game. Maybe you need better hardware.


I'm glad you've had no issues with Source. The only issue I have had is hosting LAN games. I can join a LAN or Net game and play just fine. Have you hosted a LAN game?

As for your get better hardware, I believe my Qx6700 and 9800 gx2 are petty current. I use Vista 64 on the same MB as you-an evga 780 but I use 4 GB of 1066 memory instead.

Does anyone have experience hosting LAN CS games with Vista 64?

Falcon688


Well maybe you should post your specs no I'm not assuming you're on a P4 with 512MB RAM :-)

As far as hosting LAN games in Source based games I have not had problem. I have not run it as a dedicated server though, only while playing and accepting connections. Which are you doing?
m
0
l
April 18, 2008 12:02:28 AM

OBLAMA2009 said:
GUYS WHAT IS THE INTEL PURCHASE PROGRAM????? WHAT DOES IT GET YOU AND HOW DO YOU JOIN????? THANKS


You have to work at a place that sells computers... like BB, or CC.
m
0
l
April 18, 2008 3:35:21 AM

I would have switched to vista 64 but some off my hardware is not supported.... I have a dazzle dvc 70, 3com homeconnect webcam ( works in low lux), scanner, and a tvwonder pci all reasons to stay with xp pro.... this hardware does not even work in xp64 :-( shame really
m
0
l
April 18, 2008 6:11:38 AM

That really sucks. I don't think I'll be having any incompatibility issues...the only real peripherals I use are a G15 keyboard and a Deathadder mouse....although I will be putting and X-Fi Sound Card in my new rig with the front bezel so that I can record with it as well as game....anyone know of any problems with those? Also besides the RAM limit, what are some other 64-bit OS advantages?
m
0
l
April 18, 2008 6:31:19 AM

I haven't had any problems running 64bit. The only issue I have had was going to 8GB of ram. Had a nvidia driver glitch, had to boot in safe mode and uninstall driver and ad aware wouldn't work with 8GB. That's the only issues I have had with my last build. I personally hate buying OSs so I didn't want to buy 32 today and buy 64 again next year. I was able to load every driver even my printers without a hitch.
m
0
l
April 18, 2008 6:50:30 AM

One thing that I enjoy with 8 gigs of ram and no page file. I can run across all maps Crysis driving tanks, jeeps, whatever full speed and no loading lag ever. It's pretty sweet. Other than that you really notice the extra ram.
Other than that I haven't seen any real performance gains, I was expecting much either. If any one knows of a benchmark that show the gains of no virtual memory that would be great.
m
0
l
April 18, 2008 9:45:08 PM

There are no gains from turning off your pagefile... it causes more issues than it's worth with some programs.
m
0
l
April 20, 2008 5:48:55 AM

Wow that's really interesting Cisco. I'm really looking forward to a 64-bit OS on my rockin new build!
m
0
l
April 21, 2008 3:39:43 PM

Zoron said:
There are no gains from turning off your pagefile... it causes more issues than it's worth with some programs.


Zoron, I disagree. Removing the page with can really help speed up your PC if you have the ram and CPU to take advantage of it. With 8GB I removed the pagefile, hibernation mode, and SATA disk caching and I defintely have noticed a speed increase. Converting video from xvid to DVD has nearly been cut in half having it load right from my RAID0 raptors to the memory and back to the Raptors. If you have a MINIMUM for 4 gigs disabling the pagefile is a good trick for a small boost.
m
0
l
April 21, 2008 4:34:17 PM

Steven Bancroft said:
Zoron, I disagree. Removing the page with can really help speed up your PC if you have the ram and CPU to take advantage of it. With 8GB I removed the pagefile, hibernation mode, and SATA disk caching and I defintely have noticed a speed increase. Converting video from xvid to DVD has nearly been cut in half having it load right from my RAID0 raptors to the memory and back to the Raptors. If you have a MINIMUM for 4 gigs disabling the pagefile is a good trick for a small boost.

Seems kinda risky, but I guess you've got other problems if you exceed 8GB.
m
0
l
April 21, 2008 5:54:01 PM

homerdog said:
Seems kinda risky, but I guess you've got other problems if you exceed 8GB.


It is important to remember that the hard drive is the slowest component in a computer. Removing it from the equation for mundane tasks leaves it perform more read/writes to files rather than the system. Take out the middle man and free up some resources!

And homerdog you are correct. If you're exceeding 8gb, you have bigger issues at hand.
m
0
l
April 22, 2008 1:36:39 AM

OK here's a question, i just ordered a Asus M50Sv-A1 with 32 bit premium. Will the core 2 duo T9300 support 64-bit vista should i want to add a gig of ram and upgrade to 64bit in the future?
m
0
l
April 22, 2008 3:02:35 AM

Vo0d0o said:
OK here's a question, i just ordered a Asus M50Sv-A1 with 32 bit premium. Will the core 2 duo T9300 support 64-bit vista should i want to add a gig of ram and upgrade to 64bit in the future?

All Core2 processors are 64bit compatible, so as long as the rest of your hardware has 64bit drivers available then you should be good to go.
m
0
l
April 22, 2008 9:03:11 AM

Zoron said:
There are no gains from turning off your pagefile... it causes more issues than it's worth with some programs.


That is correct however.

32bit apps arent using 8 gigs and can only adress the first 4 gigs and can only use 2 gigs at a time. and 2 gigs is really easy to fill. once a app trys to take more ram then it has available it goes to page which is where it would instantly crash with it off. It could speed up operation and it can also slow it down. Once page file is turned off all that usless hardly read but nessisary data for windows and random apps is now forced to sit in active memory. Also ALOT of programs requier page filing. I have turned off page filing many times each time it not only slowed my comp down but it actualy crashed which is something i dont have to deal with.

I just turned it off now and i see absolutly no difference other then im using more memory now for stuff i really dont need to. and yes with 8 gigs you can play games as if they are truely seemless and i have page filing turned on ;) 
m
0
l
April 23, 2008 3:49:45 PM

The gain(s) you receive are minimal at best. True, with 8GB of RAM it's a lot less likely that you'll fill all that RAM... but you would be surprised how much RAM some programs will allocate for themselves (even if it's not actually used, it's still allocated). Of course, as Enforcer mentioned, some programs require a page file and will not run without one in place.

You're better off leaving it on and setting it to a static size. Moving it to a different hard drive (not a different partition on the same drive) will also improve performance. I have 4GB of RAM with a 6GB pagefile and I really don't notice any "slowdowns".
m
0
l
April 23, 2008 4:37:52 PM

Well call me a noob but I just let Windows handle my pagefile and everything works fine...
m
0
l
April 24, 2008 12:42:14 PM

cmmcnamara said:

Command and Conquer Red Alert (I doubt this will work)


If I think about it tonight/this weekend I'll see if Red Alert works on my 64Ultimate. C&C3 isn't supposed to run on 64bit but it does. (Something about the checkdisk having 16 bit code programming or some junk)
m
0
l
April 25, 2008 11:08:59 AM

homerdog said:
Well call me a noob but I just let Windows handle my pagefile and everything works fine...



Funny thing is if people are running games seemlessly with 8 gigs it isnt because the game is using those 8 gigs (aside a the 64bit games im not made aware of) windows uses what? 256 megs or so depending. and the game has the whole 2 gigs to play with instead of using a little for windows and other apps. So really if you have 3 gigs it should be just as good for that 32 bit game as 8 gigs since again a 32 bit app wont address over the lower 4 gigs and as far as im aware can only be alocated 2 gigs at a time. However i never looked into a 64 bit OS being able to alocate all 4 gigs toa 32 bit app. So perhaps they can use the whole 4 gigs. But its for sure not using all 8 gigs unless its a 64 bit game. Unfortanitly the game would have to share the lower 4 gigs with ALL 32 bit apps running as well. so back down to about the 3 gig mark :/ 


O and yeah allowing windows to take care of paging is ok. if you have a second hard drive just move it there as putting it on a partition on the drive everything else is on doesnt really help with anything.
m
0
l
April 25, 2008 4:35:08 PM

There is a command line edit that allows Windows to allot more than 2GB to a single application. It goes something like "bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVA XXXX". When I was getting crashes in The Witcher (which is a serious RAM hog) I set this to 3072 and everything was honky dory.
m
0
l
April 25, 2008 9:19:56 PM

yes the 3 gig switch. Unfortantily it also conflicts with a large number of software. Though it does help with some. The only real trick to using more memory is switching to 64bit and forcing the software companys by force of shot gun to thier face to make compatable versions :p 
m
0
l
April 28, 2008 3:38:32 PM

enforcer22 said:
So really if you have 3 gigs it should be just as good for that 32 bit game as 8 gigs since again a 32 bit app wont address over the lower 4 gigs and as far as im aware can only be alocated 2 gigs at a time. However i never looked into a 64 bit OS being able to alocate all 4 gigs toa 32 bit app. So perhaps they can use the whole 4 gigs. But its for sure not using all 8 gigs unless its a 64 bit game. Unfortanitly the game would have to share the lower 4 gigs with ALL 32 bit apps running as well. so back down to about the 3 gig mark :/ 

In 64bit Windows, a 32bit application can access the entire 4GB address space, if it is marked largeaddressaware.

And since you have to different address spaces, the virtual and the physical, a 32bit application's virtual address space can be located above 4G without any problem. So x number of 32bit applications running at the same time can potentially use all 8GB
m
0
l
!