Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Vista 64 vs Vista 32

Last response: in Systems
Share
August 9, 2007 6:45:55 PM

does vista 64 use more resources and hinder performance more than the vista 32 bit or are they the same just 64bit recognizes more ram ?

More about : vista vista

a b B Homebuilt system
August 9, 2007 7:20:49 PM

I have both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista. I found 64-bit Vista pretty much identical to 32-bit. I ran the "Windows Experience" benchmark and results were the same with the exception of my CPU score. For some reason, my CPU (E6300) rated 5.3 on 32-bit and 5.2 on 64-bit.

Overall, I liked 64-bit but I decided to go with 32-bit for a number of reasons that I won't go into in this post.
August 9, 2007 7:32:15 PM

32bit recognizes up tp 3GB ram , but 64bit recognize 4GB too
Related resources
August 9, 2007 7:39:20 PM

i cant find anywhere to buy XP basic for under $100, anybody know of anysites? i could only find vista for that cheap, the one on new egg requires u to buy a processor, hd, ram, and i think something else so thats out of the question.
August 9, 2007 7:40:53 PM

a question that pops into my mind is: is it possible to upgrade from an OEM Vista32 upgrade disk to a 64bit one by just purchasing another key or cheap disk from microsoft? tnx
August 9, 2007 8:07:35 PM

thornado said:
a question that pops into my mind is: is it possible to upgrade from an OEM Vista32 upgrade disk to a 64bit one by just purchasing another key or cheap disk from microsoft? tnx


According to Microsoft, you can upgrade the type of Vista you have (i.e, Premium to Ultimate). Going from 32 bit to 64 bit would require formatting the disc and complete reinstall. You should also be able to go from 32 bit to 64 bit by purchasing a new key/disc.

@goaway- Vista 32 and Vista 64 are the same in many ways. The big advantage to Vista 64 is its ability to recognize a lot more ram, with many motherboards now available that will allow up to 8 gig of ram (a 4x2 gig setup).
August 9, 2007 8:09:21 PM

...XP, with pretty skins

what I meant to type is that 64bit chunks might make for more memory use if not correctly optimized at the program level.

anyways Vista needs to cook awhile longer in order to peak any interest, enjoy the fancy virtual registry for legacy 32-bit applications so you don't get those UAC messages as much, maybe one day the can make a proper safe list for top-tier applications.

Microsoft's evangelism... making people say yes! to the BSOD
August 9, 2007 8:27:35 PM

as far as UAC is concerned (the annoying security popups in vista), it can be disabled from the user accounts control panel, its just there as a security precaution to limit unauthorized systemwide actions (putting it similar to linux in that respect), its an admittedly annoying precaution if you tend to install and change system settings a lot, but its a needed one nonetheless (as most regular users end up botching their windows system up after several months, at least partially, due to downloading and whatever else). but if youre careful in everything you do on your pc, then UAC isnt entirely necessary.

for the average user, vista is a major step forward in security... look at how easy it is to 'break' 32bit xp, especially without any sort of antivirus and such (and occasionally there are instances where you have no antivirus, situations involving norton for example).

i would just leave it enabled personally, as that really does reduce the chances of something going wrong in your system, even if you are careful.

regarding visuals in vista, those can be disabled too... they just end up bogging your system down, IMO (similiar to what happens when default visuals are enabled in xp, your system slows down as a result), unless you like how they look, whichcase, yeah.

regarding additional (and even unnecessary) services in vista that werent in xp, they can be disabled to speed up your system too: http://vistarewired.com/2007/02/18/services/
August 9, 2007 9:39:20 PM

choirbass said:
as far as UAC is concerned (the annoying security popups in vista), it can be disabled from the user accounts control panel, its just there as a security precaution to limit unauthorized systemwide actions (putting it similar to linux in that respect), its an admittedly annoying precaution if you tend to install and change system settings a lot, but its a needed one nonetheless (as most regular users end up botching their windows system up after several months, at least partially, due to downloading and whatever else). but if youre careful in everything you do on your pc, then UAC isnt entirely necessary.

for the average user, vista is a major step forward in security... look at how easy it is to 'break' 32bit xp, especially without any sort of antivirus and such (and occasionally there are instances where you have no antivirus, situations involving norton for example).

i would just leave it enabled personally, as that really does reduce the chances of something going wrong in your system, even if you are careful.

regarding visuals in vista, those can be disabled too... they just end up bogging your system down, IMO (similiar to what happens when default visuals are enabled in xp, your system slows down as a result), unless you like how they look, whichcase, yeah.

regarding additional (and even unnecessary) services in vista that werent in xp, they can be disabled to speed up your system too: http://vistarewired.com/2007/02/18/services/

It really just another case of M$ being dumb and taking unfair advantage of developers on its plateform. M$ could have just packed the free version of zonealarm which ask you to let programs have access to the internet. This is IE v/s netscape all over again and this just ends up costing us more for the OS, blots the OS, and harms our choices for software.

Vista 32bit is ME all over again so just save some money and go straight to Vista 64bit.
August 9, 2007 9:48:03 PM

:bounce:  One cheap way to test 64 bit Vista is get Microsofts Server Beta3 2008 in 64 bit ethier standard or enterprise, latter reccomended.
Its $6.85 for disc & year older than Vista Ultimate, being NT6.0001.
I have compared 32 bit to 64 bit & find IE7 is specially made in 64 bit edition & everything runs smoother & more perfected, also theres no updates needed, their beyond that.

So why ask, just GET IT. yOU'LL BE 64 BIT VISTA ULTIMATE TILL 7APRIL2008. HOWEVER IT IS NOT AERO GLASS EDGING, YET ITS ALL IN THERE aSO YOU'LL NEED QUICKTIME PLAYER FOR MEDIA & SOUND, AS MICROSOFT DOSN'T MAKE MEDIA PLAYER FOR THIS POWERHOUSE YET.

Signed:p HYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.
August 9, 2007 9:57:58 PM

I have experience with both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista since beta, albeit on very different systems (the one running 64 is in my sig; the 32 is running on a C2D, 1024, ATI 1400 laptop). I have found the experience to be pretty much the same on both versions. Drivers were a bit spotty on x64 at first, but I have no problems now (and I have a lot of weird/older perifs).

The main advantage is, of course, the ability to have 4GB+ of RAM. Especially considering Vista uses a lot of memory regardles of the version, this is useful. Also, if Crysis is any indication, future games will start taking more advantage of x64 code and will run quicker. The possiblity of being more secure is also a comfort.

As far as memory usage goes, I think both versions use about the same. Overall, I can say vista is MUCH more stable than XP, for me at least.
August 9, 2007 10:05:16 PM

if they did include zone alarm (or another worthwhile firewall/antivirus), that would be better, i agree... im not defending vista, just saying that its better than previous windows os where security and stability is concerned, for the average user... the next step up from that would be linux, but, you dont see near as many end users with linux either (the terminal is one of the main reasons i imagine due to seeming intimidating, less compatability with gaming second)

as far as OS', i used ubuntu until i had a damaged second monitor (for dual display) after a black out (the monitor has never been recognized properly since, and editing the xorg file in linux to force settings didnt change that)... now i just use xp x64 (since legacy drivers allow the monitor to at least show compatible resolutions), the speed boost and responsiveness is quite nice, even just browsing around the OS. people used to complain about driver availability, but, now manufacturers are required to release a 64bit compatible driver within 90 days of releasing a 32bit driver. (and while thats good for compatability, it does delay driver updates i would imagine)
August 9, 2007 10:12:02 PM

goaway said:
i cant find anywhere to buy XP basic for under $100, anybody know of anysites? i could only find vista for that cheap, the one on new egg requires u to buy a processor, hd, ram, and i think something else so thats out of the question.


Have you checked ebay? Also have you checked you job? Where i work we get a discount from microsoft. For instance windows xp home edition cost me 62 bucks. If I wanted 2buy Vista home prem they charge me $152.00 i think people are buying from their epp(employee purchase program) and selling them on ebay
August 9, 2007 11:44:40 PM

If you plan to run any 64Bit apps that are memory and CPU intensive then 64Bit is a must. Gaming.. who cares - 3DMax, Maya, Photoshop, Z-Brush yeah it will be worth it because you can have lots of memory (up to 8 gigs on my board) 64 gigs on workstation models.
August 10, 2007 1:22:27 AM

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesnt 64 bit also enable handling of larger file sizes on the harddrive?
August 10, 2007 2:17:52 AM

i've been developing on Vista ever since the beta.

64bit kernel and libs + vista32 = vista64

so if you want to cut the extra weight, stick to vista32. Its going to be a long long time before games start coming out as 64bit applications.
August 10, 2007 8:45:14 AM

Quote:
running 32bit applications in 64bit vista uses double the ram of the 32bit Vista


Err no, it doesnt. They both use the same, the only difference is that Vista 64 can address far more memory, much more than our motherboards even support.

Quote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesnt 64 bit also enable handling of larger file sizes on the harddrive?


NTFS already supports files larger than 4 GB, which FAT32 doesnt. So no, it doesnt let you use files larger than WinXP would allow, but then again, how many files larger than 4 GB do you have?

I've had Vista 64 for a while now, no problems. Games as old as Baldurs Gate work fine (to my great joy). I have a problem with wireless networking, but that isnt a problem specifically related to 64 bit windows. 64 bit windows lets me use the same copy of windows for the next 3-5 years, until either I get rid of the pc or I need to upgrade to the next windows. If I want to add ram, I dont have to upgrade, and a few (very small selection) games can actually use 64 bit instructions, meaning they might run a little bit quicker.

64 bit isnt a miracle, but (depending on how compatible your hardware is likely to be) its not so bad as to not be worth considering. the benefits outweigh the potential negatives for me, and its more a question of whether you want vista at all.
August 10, 2007 9:23:51 AM

goaway said:
does vista 64 use more resources and hinder performance more than the vista 32 bit or are they the same just 64bit recognizes more ram ?


Personally, I have a few apps that don't 'play nice' with vista 64. As soon as I can get upgrades for those few critical apps, I'll switch. Do your own regression testing, and determine if you can live with 64 bit...

My 2p.

August 10, 2007 10:16:26 AM

I had 64bit vista for about a day, then after all the incompatibility problems with some drivers and some crashing software. I decided to go with the 32bit version, they are the same. Now Im about to reinstall XP because vista still has many annoying bugs that need to be fixed. "COM Surrogate Crashing and RAM Roller Coaster" anyone? It has slowly been picking up with the software support, but I will be alright with XP for a while.
August 10, 2007 12:36:18 PM

choirbass said:
if they did include zone alarm (or another worthwhile firewall/antivirus), that would be better, i agree... im not defending vista, just saying that its better than previous windows os where security and stability is concerned, for the average user... the next step up from that would be linux, but, you dont see near as many end users with linux either (the terminal is one of the main reasons i imagine due to seeming intimidating, less compatability with gaming second)

as far as OS', i used ubuntu until i had a damaged second monitor (for dual display) after a black out (the monitor has never been recognized properly since, and editing the xorg file in linux to force settings didnt change that)... now i just use xp x64 (since legacy drivers allow the monitor to at least show compatible resolutions), the speed boost and responsiveness is quite nice, even just browsing around the OS. people used to complain about driver availability, but, now manufacturers are required to release a 64bit compatible driver within 90 days of releasing a 32bit driver. (and while thats good for compatability, it does delay driver updates i would imagine)

I'm sorry that my reply was to you and I hope no offense was taken. I just needed to express some M$ hate. The only positive development M$ has ever done was the stability of XP. Made a better gaming platform by ripping of it ideal behind Opengl. OK maybe two positive developments. Now that I think of it networking is better by M$.

If we look back every thing M$ has ever done is either a rip off of some other developer or a purchase. M$ uses their advantage to force their knock offs into the forefront and ends up costing us the consumer more. M$ is already seeing legal action from adobe and others. This will add to the cost of Vista. Updating the ever increasing blot will add to the cost of Vista. It wouldn't be surprising if memory company's bring legal action against M$ for using memory as a means to force sales. IE the artificial low RAM max of Vista home. The EU is charging them for fines for taking advantage of developers and they seem to just continue doing it and pay the fines.

My wish is Apple would releasing their OS to retail for all PC's for around $80 and many just start switching over. This would force M$ to change their tune. I want a lean OS thats released on time because it doesn't have all the blot. I could install my choice of firewall, video encoder, video viewer, anti-virus, Internet browser, application software, document viewer, video capture, and ect... In many cases we cant remove the blot which ends up taking up disk space and memory.

Again this is just M$ hate.
August 10, 2007 6:50:28 PM

:love:  Com Surrogate problem is extensive in Vista, its true. yet THere seems to be no ill effect. not all partitions of vista Ultimate experience COM SURROGATE problem, so its probably early software installs that "puched it out".

HERES ANOTHER GREAT VISTA ULTIMATE IDEA. IF YOU HAVE CROSSFIRE & INTEGRATED DX10. USE FIRE GL v3100 game card, its only $28, as its discontinued, yet uses software from $2,500 rendering cards. In spite of its low shader model with crossfire & integrated DX10, it works as TOP END card, giving HALF LIFE 2 44 frames per second from micro atx mainboard. Remember Half life 2"coast is 2.5 gb game, so way beyond 175mb/350mb/700mb games that "more" sophisticated XP system trounced into Vista give. ITS CHEAP POWERFUL & FULLY COMPATIBLE WAY TO FLY TOP END.

Signed:p HYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.
!