64-bit Vista, or 32-bit Vista? You decide!

Thanks in advance!

Ok, so 32-bit Vista VS. 64 bit Vista has been discussed EVERYWHERE! And analyzed from every different angle imaginable, or has it?

So, I pose a question to all my fellow geeks out there, given my critera of PC usage, which O/S version would you recommend? And please, if you say because it is "newer", or "cooler", than please explain your case, just don't rely on buzzwords. I have found 32-bit suiting me fine, perhaps the real question is, is there really a need for it? In other words, what has the 64-bit edition have, that the 32-bit version does not?

PC uses:
Writing. First and foremost, I use my PC to write. The program I am currently using is MS Word 2007.
Research. Usually for writing, which involves internet, email, etc... Skype for communication, Outlook for calendering etc..
Music. My PC is my repository of all my music, due to me using Ipods, Itunes is my music player.
Games. Rarely do I play games anymore. = ( However, when I do have the time to crank up TF2, or COD4, or TF classic, UT2004, etc.. I would still like to play these games.

PC concerns:
The above really encompasses all except one. Security. From what I understand, the 64-bit version is "more secure" due to its kernel being closed to outside API's? Is this correct? Also, is Vista 64-bit like XP 64-bit? In that, your running two kernels? Does this put an extra load on the system?

Here are my PC's specs:
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHZ
2GB DDR2
BFG Geforce 8800GTS OC/2 740
PC Power & Cooling 512 watt PSU
Audigy 2 ZS
WD Raptor, 74GB
WD 250GB SATA-2

Thanks, Badge!

I am running Vista-32 bit as of now, and was wondering: Should I really move to 64 bit? What big advantages would there be, per my already stated questions in my previous post? Of course, aside from being able to say "Hey! I'm running a 64-bit O/S!"

I only have 2GB of ram, would that be an issue? Aside from writing, multi-tasking, games, is there a compelling reason to move to 64-bit? Again, thanks!

Thanks, Badge.

I did read those articles, so I guess what I'm trying to figure out here is, what have I missed? "A 64-bit OS that shines so well", in what way does it shine? If the only difference between 32-bit & 64-bit is a performance increase if I double my ram, I don't think I will be moving to 64-bit anytime soon.

I understand the kernel is more secure, which pleases me, however, other than that, again, what advantages are there other than what we and the articles have already covered? Because I'm getting the feeling that it is identical to the 32-bit version, with the only exception being more ram=more power? Am I wrong? Again, any insight would be most appreciated. Thanks! = )

Badge,

Thanks for the insight. So essentially, I need to get 4GB of ram? This way, I can notice a difference in performance and it will actually be worth it? I wouldnt really see any performance increase with just 2GB of ram, would I?

I am glad 64-bit is finally "catching on", it has been available for awhile. And, with ram so cheap, why not right? I don't believe I will go to 8GB however LOL.. For me, that would probably be overkill.

The elure for me is alot of multitasking. Which, this would really pay off. Once again, thanks Badge, I really appreciate your insight. If there is anything else you feel I should know, please don't hesitate. Thanks!

Arkadi,

Thanks for the insight! I just wiped my Vista 32, and installed Vista 64. And so far, I do see where things are little "tighter", or flowing better. However, as I knew, and everyone warned me, 2GB of ram is not enough. I need to go to 4GB, it takes twice as long to load, boot, open programs etc.. LOL... Thankfully, ram is cheap right now. ; )

Some good tips on tuning Vista: http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/70563-boot-up.html

Hey guys, just an update. So I ordered another 2GB of ram identical to the RAM I already have inside. Bringing the total now to 4GB. However, after using Vista 64 for a few days, here is what I nocticed:

After day two, whenever I would Boot, the boot times became faster.
Overall operating speed, program speed, everything actually... has become much faster than the initial install. One must love superfetch! Vista-64 was much slower than Vista-32 on my PC. See specs in sig.

At any rate, the point is, I was using the 32-bit version is vista with 2GB of ram. I installed the 64-version to find it alot slower in every aspect. With just a few days usage, the performance has increased dramatically. I'm still using 2GB of ram, I can't wait to see the performance with another 2GB inside!

Vista-64 has surprised me. In a good way actually. I notice the O/S is alot like the 64-bit server OS's I manage. I have only had one incident: My monitor would not "wake up". I don't use sleep, or hibernate, it's on until I shut if off. I always shut my monitor off though. When I came in after it was on for a few hours I turned the monitor on, and moved the mouse. The monitor just blinked. I had to hard boot the PC. = ( The monitor is a Samsung syncmaster 226BW. This happened with Vista 32 as well, but this happens once in a blue moon. An OS can't be perfect I guess.

All in all, when the 2GB of ram shows up, I believe I will love this OS. Like I said, it reminds me of the robust-ness, and power of a 64-bit server OS. Thanks guys for encouraging me to switch, I am happy indeed. = )

xp 64 bit would be better os....but vista 64 bit better supported.

If you have a 64 bit processor there is no question, why would you even consider using a 32 bit operating system? Not only do the avalible 32 bit operating systems support limited ammounts of memory, but theres no reason not to go 64 bit to enhance your overall load capacity that your processor can handle.. Also if you have a Quad core processor or equivilant you wont even be able to USE it to its full extent... for example upgrading from 32bit XP to Vista 64 your pc would acctually run faster even though vista has higher requirements for the simple fact that it can handle higher loads with a 64 bit processor.. why would you even consider not going 64 bit? LoL

Only Trolls...

Acceptance:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=506

http://www.dailytech.com/People+Fi [...] e12568.htm

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3- [...] 1001_3-0-5

Performance:

Extreme Tech Article: http://www.extremetech.com/article [...] 495,00.asp

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardwar [...] efault.asp

Technical:

http://www.extremetech.com/article [...] 478,00.asp

http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3034

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] spx?i=3044

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3060

V64 Questions and Answers
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=511

Ok so I have read this thread and others and I can't get a concise solution that I feel 100% confident with. Maybe you geniuses can help...

I currently have a 32bit XP, 2.4mhz quad core, 4gb of ram, and Geforce 8800 GTS (dx10) gpu. I built this system for MULTI TASKING, gaming, and video editing. Gaming looks good, video editing which utilizes quad core is great, but multi tasking is below my expectations.

Will switching to Vista 64bit (which i use on another system and esthetically like) upping up to 8gb of ram give me a noticeable boost in multi-tasking?

On a side note (possibly wrong area to ask) does anyone have any clue why a system like this should even have issues with basic multi-tasking. I.e. internet browsers, music player, p2p client, and file folders being open? [My tech friends are baffled]

Thanks