Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Vista 32 or 64 bit?

Tags:
  • Homebuilt
  • RAM
  • Windows Vista
  • Systems
Last response: in Systems
Share
April 7, 2008 3:34:20 AM

Ok, I just want to get some thoughts from anybody who can help about this.

I need to know if I should get Vista 32 or Vista 64 bit?

I am building a new system soon which will have a 780i board, and incorporate a 9800 GTX which will eventually be tri sli. The system will be for gaming and work related things. The work stuff is mostly just using office products like excel and word and whathaveyou.

Things that I know already:
32 bit will only allow for somewhere under 4 gigs of ram. SP1 allows the system to see 4 gigs of ram but still not use it.
64 bit will allow for 8 gigs of ram.

Basically, I want to know if running 64 bit will cause me any trouble. I have heard that there are a lot of issues with it. I know the added ram will help me a lot with games but I am worried about compatibility as well.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

More about : vista bit

April 7, 2008 3:45:55 AM

Carbonite said:
Ok, I just want to get some thoughts from anybody who can help about this.

I need to know if I should get Vista 32 or Vista 64 bit?

I am building a new system soon which will have a 780i board, and incorporate a 9800 GTX which will eventually be tri sli. The system will be for gaming and work related things. The work stuff is mostly just using office products like excel and word and whathaveyou.

Things that I know already:
32 bit will only allow for somewhere under 4 gigs of ram. SP1 allows the system to see 4 gigs of ram but still not use it.
64 bit will allow for 8 gigs of ram.

Basically, I want to know if running 64 bit will cause me any trouble. I have heard that there are a lot of issues with it. I know the added ram will help me a lot with games but I am worried about compatibility as well.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

No, it will not cause any trouble. 32bit programs that only work on the application level, which is basically everything, should work fine in 64bit. It's mostly drivers having trouble. And at this point there are few hardware manufacturer who don't have 64bit drivers out.
April 7, 2008 3:48:39 AM

Thank you for the fast reply. I will be getting the OEM version then. I was about to come back and edit this and mention that I was planning to pick up retail so I could install 32 until 64 was OK to jump too.

Now I know I can just grab the oem 64 bit version and be just fine. Thanks a ton.
Related resources
April 7, 2008 4:20:46 AM

Well in my world what you should get is XP 32 bit.
In my world I want Windows to run everything without driver issues,run everything faster,and use RAM correctly.

On the RAM issue alone Vista takes up almost a full GB if you have 4GB installed,removing any benefit in available ram over XP 32 at that point if all other issues were equal....which they are not and never can be.

With XP OEM Home and 2GB of RAM I can run all four (4) of my security programs (one blocks 1,163,367,835 IP #'s),six (6) torrents,play Frontlines:Fuel of War and use no more than 59% of the RAM....or just a bit over what Vista (32-64) uses to load it's self up while viewing Asus Probe II for memory usage.
Vista can never with 4GB of RAM be equal to XP with only 2GB if you wanted to benchmark it for program speed or correct RAM usage.

Those with top end computters may not -notice- the slowdown in preformance but it is a well documented fact.

If your -need- to have truckloads of RAM (you do heavy GFX/Video for work) then Server 2003 32 bit with a patch handles like 124-127GB of ram without any issues at all (divers or RAM useage).

If you removed all that "evil" DRM crap in Vista that slows everything it does down ,and had it not load all the OS into RAM it can if it finds it (stuff you almost never use) ,and reamove any driver issues....then it would be as FAST as XP as well as no diriver issues.....but then it would be called XP.
April 7, 2008 4:40:08 AM

Things are cool nowadays with 64 bit Vista. Why 64 bit Vista with 8GB or ram runs as good as 32 bit XP Pro with 2GB.
Check out the review here on Toms, that what they said.
April 7, 2008 4:51:17 AM

bobbknight said:
. Why 64 bit Vista with 8GB or ram runs as good as 32 bit XP Pro with 2GB.
Check out the review here on Toms, that what they said.


Four times the RAM to run "as good" is not a good thing...is it?

Sorry but "Things are cool nowadays with 64 bit Vista" is no more true than with Vista 32 bit.
Vista by what it is can -never- run anything -faster- than XP nor can it -ever- use RAM correctly next to XP.

April 7, 2008 4:53:39 AM

Carbonite said:
Ok, I just want to get some thoughts from anybody who can help about this.

I need to know if I should get Vista 32 or Vista 64 bit?

I am building a new system soon which will have a 780i board, and incorporate a 9800 GTX which will eventually be tri sli. The system will be for gaming and work related things. The work stuff is mostly just using office products like excel and word and whathaveyou.

Things that I know already:
32 bit will only allow for somewhere under 4 gigs of ram. SP1 allows the system to see 4 gigs of ram but still not use it.
64 bit will allow for 8 gigs of ram.

Basically, I want to know if running 64 bit will cause me any trouble. I have heard that there are a lot of issues with it. I know the added ram will help me a lot with games but I am worried about compatibility as well.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Carbonite,
I just recently switch from Vista Home Premium 32 bit to Vista Ultimate 64 bit. My premium was an upgrade over Windows Media Center XP 2005. I noticed quite a few issues from switching fromMedia Center to Vista Premium 32 bit (blue screens, some minor incompatibility with some games and hardware). I bought the retail version of Vista Ultimate 64 bit, and installed it on a 500gb hard drive. Everything installed nicely, without error. The OS ran smoothly and updated properly to SP1. I also am running it with 8gb ram (fully recognized by windows), again the system responds quickly and smoothly. Here are a few things that I noticed that you may wish to consider for the 64 bit version of Vista:

*there is more resource overhead with a 64 bit OS, so if you only had 2 gb on your old 32 bit OS, and running just windows used say between 600mb and 1gb depending on your setup, you can expect the 64 bit OS to use more of your ram.
*For some reason, maybe due to the way the 64 bit OS file system works, it seems like it eats up a lot of hard drive space. I would recommend a 750gb to 1tb drive. I am using a 500gb and 1/4 is already used (games like BF2142, Guildwars, BFvietnam, Halo, Sins of a solar empire, Crysis and Farcry reside on my system, along with some other applications, music and videos).
*I have not had any issue with any of my 32 bit games, at least the ones that I have installed and listed above, all work great. BF2142 needed a punk buster update to use online multiplayer.
*I believe OEM software can only legally be installed on only one machine (can't build one comp. put the OS on that, then a year later take the OS off the old comp. and put it on your newer build), the trade off is that it is far less expensive than retail.

Overall I'm very pleased. I am using an Athlon 64 X2 6400+ processor and two X1950 Pro video cards in crossfire, and all is well. I am very pleased with the stability of ATI's 64 bit catalyst driver. I don't know about nividia, but the majority of people are buying these cards, hopefully their 64 bit drivers are mature as well. In my opinion Vista Ultimate 64 bit is a great OS, and ready for greater adoption.
April 7, 2008 5:04:02 AM

Quote:
I believe OEM software can only legally be installed on only one machine (can't build one comp. put the OS on that, then a year later take the OS off the old comp. and put it on your newer build), the trade off is that it is far less expensive than retail.

You may install OEM OS software as many times as Retail software OS.

I have been building with OEM sets for years....and in the case with all MS OEM OS's the -same- disks and keys for years.

If the person paying me WANTS Vista after I tell them it is crap then I install it anyhow.
Money is money....but the question was which is better Vista 32 or 64 bit and the correct answere from a person who knows and earn money for building high end systems is "neither"
April 7, 2008 5:05:39 AM

I have Vista64, and 4 gigs of ram, at any given time vista is using 30-50% of my memory right now 2784mb is being used, I run Azureus, Windows Live Messenger, Anti-virus, Teamspeak etc and can fire up any game i have including Crysis and FFOW and Never have any "shortage" of resources, granted i have to pause torrents to play online.

So if Vista never gives me any issues, why complain? If a program ever needs RAM that Vista is using it gets it. I had a lot of misconceptions about Vista both 32 and 64bit from reading on here and just about every tech site that bashes it constantly, And the none of these issues has arisen for me, with the exception of my Wireless NIC it proved hard to locate a 64bit driver, but thats my fault for buying an Aopen essentially generic NIC, Regardless that would have been the only thing to keep me from running this but i found the driver first before i "commited" to the install. The one issue i have is uTorrent, if i run it my computer freezes, guaranteed.

So if Vista isn't using the memory what is? Answer: Nothing, its sitting there not being used. I don't play games 24/7, so if office loads faster great, Firefox opens faster as well, super. I can think of many more examples but you get the idea, and like i said before, if a program requires more RAM than what is free, Vista gives it what it needs. The ram is not "gone".
April 7, 2008 5:21:47 AM

cliffro said:
I have Vista64, and 4 gigs of ram, at any given time vista is using 30-50% of my memory right now 2784mb is being used, I run Azureus, Windows Live Messenger, Anti-virus, Teamspeak etc and can fire up any game i have including Crysis and FFOW and Never have any "shortage" of resources, granted i have to pause torrents to play online.

So if Vista never gives me any issues, why complain? If a program ever needs RAM that Vista is using it gets it. I had a lot of misconceptions about Vista both 32 and 64bit from reading on here and just about every tech site that bashes it constantly, And the none of these issues has arisen for me, with the exception of my Wireless NIC it proved hard to locate a 64bit driver, but thats my fault for buying an Aopen essentially generic NIC, Regardless that would have been the only thing to keep me from running this but i found the driver first before i "commited" to the install. The one issue i have is uTorrent, if i run it my computer freezes, guaranteed.

So if Vista isn't using the memory what is? Answer: Nothing, its sitting there not being used. I don't play games 24/7, so if office loads faster great, Firefox opens faster as well, super. I can think of many more examples but you get the idea, and like i said before, if a program requires more RAM than what is free, Vista gives it what it needs. The ram is not "gone".

You are running less programs than I do and use at least TWO TIMES the RAM and think it's a "good thing"?
That is exactly what I was pointing out.
Vista blows chunks next to XP in every respect.

As such from MS it's self all support for Vista ends December 31,2008 with support for XP has been extended to December 31,2010.

See either past MS statements or CNET for the MS news.

Note that MS intends to have Windows 7 out early 2009.
April 7, 2008 5:24:20 AM

you wont have trouble with 64bit
April 7, 2008 5:24:22 AM

ignore this post
April 7, 2008 5:30:43 AM

Quote:
you wont have trouble with 64bit

imrul said:
ignore this post

Good advice.
Vista is for people who did not know any better.

New is not always better and MS has been down this road befor.
Vista is this decades "better working" version of ME as far as MS OS's go.

If in MS OS Windows 7 they -remove- both the nasty DRM crap and OS loading never used parts "becuse IF you want it then it is already USING all your RAM"....they end up with XP with DX 10.1

They could have done this to start with but just like Creative....it is poor sales management so they both don't.
Money is King in this game and most unknowing people are the Pawns.
April 7, 2008 6:21:24 AM

I recently went from xp pro 32bit (as a long time xp user) to vista ultimate 64 bit.

I must admit the first week or 2 were very painfull and all i wanted to do was go back. The main reasons for this was how it was using my hdd all the time and seemed like it took hours to install 1MB of update.

Now it seems to perform about the same as xp except those little applications that i use all the time open up in a blink of an eye which didn't happen on xp. Although i haven't figured out how to use it yet aparently there is a way of assigning different apps different HDD priority which sounds great! Also the interface is much better looking and easier to use once you get used to it. For me downgrading to xp again is like going from xp to windows 98. Vista also has quite a few other minor perks over xp one of which really caught my attention. You can copy a bunch of files from 1 place to another and when it asks if you want to over write it allows you to say no to all! I really like that feature :D 

i'm just curious ZOldDude but what is your opinion on the super fetch feature?

p.s. call me lucky but i haven't had any driver issues yet and neither has my spare rig.
April 7, 2008 7:31:55 AM

OK, so i skipped to the end of the thread so please ignore me if i'm repeating stuff.

If you're going for TriSLI i'd go for a 64 bit OS, reason being a 32 bit OS can only address a little less than 4 Gb of ram, AND THAT INCLUDES GRAPICS RAM. So that’s the equivalent of 1.5Gb of system ram down (if each of those 9800GTX's use 512Mb ram) so you may as well only put 2.5 gb of ram in your system to start off if you go for Vista 32 bit, and yes Vista is a ram hog so for gaming 2.5 Gb is nowhere near enough, i go over 3 gig usage on Crysis.

I'm running Vista 64 and haven't had any problems with drivers, although it would be nice of nVidia to release a WHQL driver this year, but they do have plenty of usable beta drivers. All my 32 bit apps work fine and if you can afford a rig that'll run TriSLI the slight performance hit of Vista over XP really won’t hurt you.
April 7, 2008 7:58:27 AM

ZOldDude said:


As such from MS it's self all support for Vista ends December 31,2008 with support for XP has been extended to December 31,2010.

See either past MS statements or CNET for the MS news.

Note that MS intends to have Windows 7 out early 2009.


Please stop talking out of your ass. Clearly the earliest support end date for vista is in 2012.

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/?sort=PN&...

And no they do not definitely plan a commercial release of windows 7 in 2009. That is considered to be the likely first time frame for a beta or RC release.


ZOldDude said:
You are running less programs than I do and use at least TWO TIMES the RAM and think it's a "good thing"?


Having free memory does not mean your PC will be any faster or has more memory available. Super Fetch means commonly used apps and drivers are loaded into memory even when not in use. This memory can then be freed up when needed resulting in memory usage that does not necessarily spike when apps are running.



April 7, 2008 11:36:30 AM

32bits or 64bits... XP or Vista...

Heres my 2 cents:

If you have a:
1. Lower spec machine with less than 2GB of ram stay with XP. I dont think Directx 10 will be a compulsory item for a little while longer so all games should work should you take this route and have the machine to play the particular game.
2. If you have a high end AMD or a Mid-range Core 2, and 2 to 4 GB RAM I'd go Vista 32.
Reasons:
a. Compatibility - Less likely to have driver issues for older hardware pieces (a lot will work with XP drivers for Vista 32.) Also, more programs will operate correctly in 32 Bit OS than in 64 Bit... but I would have to admit that this has probably changed a fair bit and is debatable, but, someone correct me if I am wrong, Vista 32 is still more compatible at the moment (than 64 Vista).
b. System responsiveness - If you have a high end AMD or Mid level Core 2 Duo, paired with up to 4GB of RAM, I beleive your system will be faster at this lower level of RAM.. which is usually 3 to 3.5GB maximum... as the benefit gained by installing 64bit will be nullified by taking a lot of RAM and the issues mentioned in 2.a. above. Native 32bit OS running Native 32bit programs..which lets face it, is still most, is faster.
c. Security - I beleive Vista has the best security for stopping rogue websites and rougue apps infecting stuff.

3. If you are buying an all out beast of a machine that is Quad Core 2.. with three graphics cards... then you'd probably want 64bit... *especially* if you want more RAM i.e. 8GB or more. I guess this is a given and I say this, because Tri-Sli will take atleast 1.5GB of address space.. perhaps more... and would leave a 4GB system with only 2.5GB or less usable. What you have to way up is some the issues mentioned above: 1. Likely some compatibility problems ... 2. Driver issues, even with the latest nvidia video(I suspect they put more work into 32bit drivers currently)

I believe this is *the* dillema at the moment when buying new hardware:
That is: Bulk up and go 64bit and hope compatibility doesnt rear its ugly head
or: Stick with 3 to 4GB RAM and go 32Bit Vista for the lieklyhood of running more stuff correctly.

Then there are the people who say wait and stay on XP with 2GB then go 64bit (whateva OS is better later) as it matures.

Seems anyone wanting Tri-Sli has decided to go 64bit Vista by default. (but again beware the drivers for it!)

When it all comes down to it.. I think... the bulk of progarmming is still 32bit.. and is therefore better run on XP or 32bit vista... but thats just something to think about before you proceed with a beefed up machine for 64 bits.

Perhaps we can hear from people here running 64bit and their experiences to help people decide??? I personally run 32bit Vista on 3GB RAM and its quite speedy! Mind you, the latest Crysis type game makes me want to go for more. Ive seen Crysis run well under XP with 2GB and Im sure with 3-4GB under 32Bit Vista it is similar. Inevitably.. you will need more RAM eventually, thus the delimma mentioned above.

wow.. I've written a lot here.. hope its not too laborious and helps peoples.. Good Luck!
April 7, 2008 12:08:18 PM

If you think programs in the future will use less ram then go with 32 bit 4 gigs or XP. If you think future programs will use more ram get Vista 64 Ultimate, it runs great.

Five years ago a decent system had 264 MB of Ram now you're debating whether 4 or 8 Gigs. People had the same tired complaints about windows 95 and every other new OS going back years. Get the 64 with 8 gigs, why not at DDR2 800 prices?
April 7, 2008 12:22:27 PM

Having no problems with 64 bit Vista. Will probably never use my installation of XP again.

Plus Bioshock looks a lot better in DX10.
April 7, 2008 12:25:32 PM

Been using Vista x64 for over a year now, and only problems I've had are driver issues.. but seeing as I ran it on my laptop the first 3/4 of a year, I had to find some pretty exotic drivers, which were possible, even last year.

I don't have any issues regarding vista, as long as you get at least 3gb of ram.

I run Crysis, Kane and lynch (which people are complaining about on XP), Supreme Commander, World in Conflict, Bioshock, and everything else, very nicely, and havn't bumbed into any severe problems.

I run all my programs nicely and my only personal experience with program problems is limited to Office 2003 and Vista is having issues, as you have to do some manual registry modifications.

I find Vista to be way more stable and faster than XP, so I don't see any reason not to pick Vista over XP, when building a new rig.
April 7, 2008 12:39:04 PM

ZOldDude, Vista uses memory more efficiently than XP, the 32bit vs. 64 bit is a whole seperate debate all together. Anyway the reason Vista uses so much more memory is because it is working closer to the way it should, though still not there yet. the OS "should" gobble up ALL available memory and then issue it out to opening programs and what not.

Anyway there are reasons for going vista over XP, there are reasons for going 64 bit over 32. I would say that if you are building a new gaming computer, vista 64 bit is the way to go. Personally I am too cheap to cough up the $$$ to buy vista so I am keeping XP for now. By the way, I am in process of fully weaning myself off of windows OS's all together, linux is the way to go! Unless you NEED the new cutting edge games, which actually more and more are releasing linux versions too :) 
April 7, 2008 12:45:42 PM

ZOldDude said:

As such from MS it's self all support for Vista ends December 31,2008 with support for XP has been extended to December 31,2010.




Please stop talking out of your a$$. I don't care if you do or don't like it. But this is just outright lying. :pfff: 

From the source: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx



April 7, 2008 1:16:42 PM

LMAO!!!!! why would they stop support for Vista, They would continue it so that they don't give the public satisfaction for Vista being "FAULTY". But personally I love it!!!
April 7, 2008 1:24:44 PM

For the OP: If you want to run a lot of video and a lot of RAM, you may find yourself in a position of *needing* a 64 bit operating system. The reason for this is not a physical one, but rather a matter of of how much address space is available for the operating system to assign to the various devices. In 32 bit consumer versions of Windows, this limit is 4GB. Once that is reached, there are no more addresses for the OS to use to communicate to your devices, so it cannot and will not be able to use whatever didn't get in the 4GB bucket. This is handled semi-elegantly by prioritizing - CMOS, communications, video... RAM last.

This is why people who install 4GB of memory on a 32 bit OS don't 'see' it all even if the Bios says it's there. The OS ran out of addresses to use to 'talk' to it. Now - Having less RAM is a better thing than having to play "let's see what doesn't work *this* time" every reboot. But it's obviously not perfect.

The reason I said 'consumer versions' of the OS is because the server versions use something called PAE ('Physical Address Extensions'), and one of the things that can be done with it is a sophisticated game of 'hide the sausage' with RAM. The problem from a consumer viewpoint is that the installed drivers have to be 64 bit aware. If they are not, and attempt a Direct Memory Access call (very common, BTW) to a location that was remapped elsewhere under PAE, stuff crashes, the screen turns blue, and blah blah blah.... So the current implementation of PAE in Windows (XP *and* Vista) is there to enable DEP, which prevents some types of malicious code from executing, and that's about it.

If you have a server version of windows, then you can enable PAE and get around this problem. *BUT* as I mentioned, you have to have drivers that understand 64 bit addressing. Well... This puts you in aweird position: From a consumer standpoint, if you have to hunt down 64 bit drivers anyhow... Isn't it nonsensical to spend big bucks on server software when you can buy an x64 version of XP or Vista at consumer prices???




Anyways - Since SLI is on your list, check with nVidia - Both officially for what they *say* works, and also on their support boards to see what issues there may or may not be. Then decide which OS you want to use.

Oh - While you may have a hardware limitation where your motherboard won't support more than 8GB, and that's it's own issue. But know that 64 bit windows OS's can support up to 128GB of RAM. (Yes, I know that the different versions are different: Basic = 8GB, Home Prem = 16GB, and Business\Ultimate\Enterprise are 128)

Anyways, use what you want. Just mind the trolls, please.
Anonymous
April 7, 2008 1:31:58 PM

Scotteq said:
Please stop talking out of your a$$. I don't care if you do or don't like it. But this is just outright lying. :pfff: 

From the source: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx



Hmmm don't see anything on there about Vista but I do see an extension to 2010 for an XP line.
a b B Homebuilt system
April 7, 2008 1:38:25 PM

ZOldDude said:



I believe OEM software can only legally be installed on only one machine (can't build one comp. put the OS on that, then a year later take the OS off the old comp. and put it on your newer build), the trade off is that it is far less expensive than retail.
[/msgquoted said:

You may install OEM OS software as many times as Retail software OS.

I have been building with OEM sets for years....and in the case with all MS OEM OS's the -same- disks and keys for years.

If the person paying me WANTS Vista after I tell them it is crap then I install it anyhow.
Money is money....but the question was which is better Vista 32 or 64 bit and the correct answere from a person who knows and earn money for building high end systems is "neither"

]

I believe OEM software can only legally be installed on only one machine (can't build one comp. put the OS on that, then a year later take the OS off the old comp. and put it on your newer build), the trade off is that it is far less expensive than retail.

You may install OEM OS software as many times as Retail software OS.

I have been building with OEM sets for years....and in the case with all MS OEM OS's the -same- disks and keys for years.

If the person paying me WANTS Vista after I tell them it is crap then I install it anyhow.
Money is money....but the question was which is better Vista 32 or 64 bit and the correct answere from a person who knows and earn money for building high end systems is "neither"



Hmmm. Started out running Vista 32 Premium upgrade over XP Pro about a year ago.
Changed to Vista 64 bit about 4 months ago.
Use my system for office apps, Photoshop, Illustrator, Pagemaker, Publisher, Indesign, and Quark, watching movies, listening to music, moderate gaming, and as my handle would suggest, general publishing and prep for Just in Time print.
Would never even think of going back to the old XP.
April 7, 2008 1:39:55 PM

Carbonite said:
Ok, I just want to get some thoughts from anybody who can help about this.

1). I need to know if I should get Vista 32 or Vista 64 bit?

...work related things. The work stuff is mostly just using office products like excel and word and whathaveyou.

2). Basically, I want to know if running 64 bit will cause me any trouble.
3). I have heard that there are a lot of issues with it.
4). I know the added ram will help me a lot with games but I am worried about compatibility as well.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


ignore the following if you've ruled out XP and are satified that your work applications are satifactory on Vista **

Programmed office applications run ~40-50% slower on vista; actual experience w/VBA excel 2000, xp media w/2gb ram v. vista 32 w/4gb ram.

edit: xp media machine: smithfield 820, pcmark05 = 4639; vista 32 machine: T7300, pcmark05 = 5043

Vista is constantly accessing my HD, similar to a flashing yellow traffic light.

Businesses, (all that I have relationships with) maintain an XP platform. Certain required work applications, (again my relationships with fortune 500 companies) will not work on Vista machines.

Microsoft "rhetoric", has moved windows 7 from a 2011 release date to a 2009 release date. A reasonable decoder ring interpretation would be that the business community and MS have given up on Vista, a mature windows 7 will not be available until 2010 at the earliest (SP1 being the benchmark).
2011 reference (28Jan08) -->http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/14018

Depends on your constraints, are there must have work applications that require xp, how critical is speed in your office applications, how badly do you want DX10

GLuck
April 7, 2008 4:20:37 PM

Wow, all great replies. Thanks a ton everyone.

First I would like to say, I wont be buying XP. I have run that route of discussion and have gone to the local college to get an old proffesors oppinion.

He says with SP1 the performance of Vista is comparable to XP. Vista is only slightly behind in speed as it pertains to gamers. He says I will likely not notice it and as the hotfixes come out he says it will only get better.

He did say, if my question was should I upgrade to Vista from XP on my current machine he would say just to stick with XP, but since I am building a computer there is really no reason at this point not to get Vista.

He knows his stuff for sure as he is the head of the CIS department, so I trust his thoughts on the matter. I guess I could have asked him about the 32/64 bit stuff but at the time I hadnt come to the question of which version.

On top of all that, I fully intend to take advantage of DX10. That right there is the end of discussion on XP.



Now, as it pertains to my question, if I do go 64 bit, I will definately have 8GB of ram installed. DDR2 ram is so ungodly cheap right now because DDR3 is being forced in.

In the end, I take from what everyone is saying is that the drivers are what can cause me trouble. I will just have to be carefull to get things with 64bit drivers. (I dont buy to much old stuff rofl.)

So I will go with 64 bit as I mentioned in my first reply.


For those that care this is whats in my cart (2500 dollar budget):

Cosmos S Case
1000 Watt Single rail silverstone modular PSU
Evga 780i Motherboard
45nm Core 2 Duo 3ghz (People are clocking this thing at 4ghz on air and for 200 bucks how could I go wrong)
2 sets of: 4GB (2x2GB sticks) (Total of 8GBs)
9800GTX (Adding two more in the comming months)
750GB Seagate HD (Consulted the HD charts for this as I needed speed and a lot of space)
24 Inch Samsung 1920x1200 res Monitor
Vista 64bit OEM

Of course I have all the other stuff needed but they really dont need to be listed.

Thanks again everyone.
April 7, 2008 7:32:15 PM

Checkmate

Winner is Scotteq

Nub is ZOldDude

Game Over! Play again?
April 7, 2008 8:40:14 PM

I installed Vista 64 Ultimate when i bought 8gb of rams and let me tell ya i've never enjoyed an OS that much, really stable. As far as driver issues, i've had none so far.
April 7, 2008 8:51:26 PM

Scotteq said:
Please stop talking out of your a$$. I don't care if you do or don't like it. But this is just outright lying. :pfff: 

From the source: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

I was quoting what MS it's self had said in March of 2007 and what has been reported on CNET.

MS has been known to change it's mind often enough and in the past month has decided to keep saleing XP for another two years. It may well decide to keep makeing program update/fix/ for Vista as well.

Just becuase I quote an outdated MS news item or quote from an outside MS collection of current facts like CNET is not the same a "lying".
April 7, 2008 9:09:35 PM

Guys guess what, Doom 3 is coming out....Sorry if my information is about 4 years old, its not the same as lying LOL!

Common dude, you could've came up with something better. I never saw/heard of Microsoft announcing Vista as not being supported, thats like Stopping parts for the 2008 Corrolla and making parts for the 2002, it makes no sense!
April 7, 2008 9:18:03 PM

lol... you knowingly used a quote that was over 1 yr old and are now trying to backpeddle.

Nice try.

You've been exposed.
April 7, 2008 9:51:32 PM

1798107,4,70017 said:
Well in my world what you should get is XP 32 bit.
In my world I want Windows to run everything without driver issues,run everything faster,and use RAM correctly.
quotemsg]

The OP clearly stated Vista 32 or 64...

I have Vista Ultimate64 with 4 gigs of ram and it runs like a dream. I have only come across one thing that didn’t work "command and conquer Generals" but it is because it is an old game and doesnt run on Vista...

If you really have concerns then dual boot XP, but i can guarantee you in 3 months you’ll dump XP.


***ZOldDude perhaps you should be running Vista to learn the new OS. Perhaps if you got some experience with it you would eliminate “user error” and find that although it takes a little more resources and is loaded with bloat-ware it is in fact a good OS. Also drivers are not an issue if you are using new parts.

I don’t have any issues with Vista now, I did during the learning curve but once you overcome your initial unknowns this OS is actually pretty good.
April 7, 2008 10:22:00 PM

Vista uses significantly more system resource and produce greater overhead, compared to XP or eariler Windows OS. There is no significant difference between the amount of overhead between Vista 32 bit and Vista 64bit. There is nothing more to say. :p 
April 7, 2008 10:43:40 PM

MikosNZ said:
And no they do not definitely plan a commercial release of windows 7 in 2009. That is considered to be the likely first time frame for a beta or RC release.

Dang, I wanted to skip Vista all-together. Thats okay though, I'm sure eventually Microsoft will eventually fix a lot of the crap in Vista. They have to know that something is keeping gamers from buying Vista. If they don't I see a Linux takeover coming soon....

Do you still have XP? If you do, stick with that bro. In my opinion there's nothing really in Vista that you need. 2008 is a really bad time to buy Vista, because everyone's asking themselves that question "Hmmm... 32 bit will be good for now.... but 64 bit will be good for the future..."

Stick with XP for now. Eventually you'll probably want to upgrade to Vista 64, but now is not the time in my own humble opinion.

April 7, 2008 10:48:42 PM

Scotteq said:
For the OP: If you want to run a lot of video and a lot of RAM, you may find yourself in a position of *needing* a 64 bit operating system. The reason for this is not a physical one, but rather a matter of of how much address space is available for the operating system to assign to the various devices. In 32 bit consumer versions of Windows, this limit is 4GB. Once that is reached, there are no more addresses for the OS to use to communicate to your devices, so it cannot and will not be able to use whatever didn't get in the 4GB bucket. This is handled semi-elegantly by prioritizing - CMOS, communications, video... RAM last.
Yep, I have found the need for a 64-bit OS. Of course I don't want to pay for it, so I use 64-bit Linux Ubuntu Studio. If you're converting 3 or 4 DVD's at a time, and then doing some massive video editing after that, you find the need for the extra RAM. 64-bit also runs 64-bit applications better/faster then 32-bit runs 32-bit applications... (correct me if I'm wrong.

April 7, 2008 11:17:58 PM

As per the tests here on Toms.

Get Vista 64 bit with 8GB of ram, it will be as good a XP Pro 32 bit with 2GB of ram.
April 7, 2008 11:36:30 PM

bobbknight said:
As per the tests here on Toms.

Get Vista 64 bit with 8GB of ram, it will be as good a XP Pro 32 bit with 2GB of ram.



That is such a joke. Crysis alone uses more than 2GB of ram. If you're a gamer, 2GB of ram is not enough on any OS. It'll use a lot of page file, and the machine will run like a turtle.

8gig ram on XP would be faster than 8gig on Vista though. Although with DX10, Microsoft is intentionally closing the door on XP. Its days are numbered.
April 8, 2008 12:00:15 AM

zolddude

vista is slower than xp
xp is slower than 98
98 is slower than 95

so by your logic you should use win95 right? good luck running crysis on that !

i run vista 32 crysis with 2 gigs of ram on high no problems.
6400x2 and 8800 gtx
April 8, 2008 1:58:09 PM

ZOldDude said:
Well in my world what you should get is XP 32 bit.
In my world I want Windows to run everything without driver issues,run everything faster,and use RAM correctly.

On the RAM issue alone Vista takes up almost a full GB if you have 4GB installed,removing any benefit in available ram over XP 32 at that point if all other issues were equal....which they are not and never can be.

With XP OEM Home and 2GB of RAM I can run all four (4) of my security programs (one blocks 1,163,367,835 IP #'s),six (6) torrents,play Frontlines:Fuel of War and use no more than 59% of the RAM....or just a bit over what Vista (32-64) uses to load it's self up while viewing Asus Probe II for memory usage.
Vista can never with 4GB of RAM be equal to XP with only 2GB if you wanted to benchmark it for program speed or correct RAM usage.

Those with top end computters may not -notice- the slowdown in preformance but it is a well documented fact.

If your -need- to have truckloads of RAM (you do heavy GFX/Video for work) then Server 2003 32 bit with a patch handles like 124-127GB of ram without any issues at all (divers or RAM useage).

If you removed all that "evil" DRM crap in Vista that slows everything it does down ,and had it not load all the OS into RAM it can if it finds it (stuff you almost never use) ,and reamove any driver issues....then it would be as FAST as XP as well as no diriver issues.....but then it would be called XP.


In your world... we'd still be using W95 that everybody would finally have accepted after a long 13 years debate.

In my world, with 6GB of memory and a lot of stuff working in the background, I use less then 1.3GB of memory at start-up. It was 800MB when I had 2GB of memory. At hte time, I used to start Photoshop Element that easily use close to 2GB memory, and I didn't even reached 100% memory cap. You know why... because Vista is clever enougnh to unload unneccessary stuff from memory.

To resume, never had a crash with Vista... and IT'S DAMN FAST!

So, stop whining... and come see me in two years whn new game won't even work on XP...
April 8, 2008 3:35:44 PM

Amen. K I think that just answered everything. Close the TOPIC LMAO!
April 8, 2008 4:37:25 PM

Re: ZOldDude - old people always resist change. "You d#$n kids, get off my lawn!"

There is no reason for a consumer to not get Vista now that most compatibility issues have been worked out, and there is no reason to get 32bit now that most compatibility issues have been worked out UNLESS you have a specific pirce of software that you know is nto compatible with the 64bit Vista. But if you're a consumer, that is highly unlikely. As a side note, virtually all application incompatibilities are caused by poor poor poor programming on the application side, but if you're a corporation with significant investment in the software you don't really care except to go back to the vendor and try to get them to do it right (not gonna happen)... But for consumers, it's virtually a non-issue.

Now, as another side note, if anybod brings up DRM as a reason not to get Vista for some reason, you can immediately discredit them for lack of knowledge and / or general understanding of what the eff they are talking about.
April 12, 2009 11:53:24 PM

ALL THE GURU'S CAN SAY WHAT THEY WANT!!!!!!!!!!!
I am here to speack as a freeeeeeeeeeeeeee American.
Firstly,
Everything the corporations are making feeds them. Who feeds them? Us? NOT!!!!!!! Other corporations. Let's make it simple. Big business has to compete with big business. So, everything they make is to make them faster.
When is the last time you had to batch your bills to a bank?
O.K.
32 bit doesn't make diddleley to me! 64 bit doesn't make diddleley to me!
But, when I loose all my 32 bit software from microsoft's creative addictions to realArcade's little fun time addictions.........Well, THAT'S HIGHWAY ROBBERY!!!!
I can't use the 32 bit issues of whatever on a 64 bit operating system.........I can't use the 64 bit issues of whatever on a 32 bit operating system.
Now, that's not freeeeeeeeeeee AMERICA..........That's just plain.....
Well...............
You know.........
Buy it or else.
The else?????? NO SUPPORT!
So, if you ask me............it's this simple.
Get two computers and keep your thousands upon thousands of dollars in old software and all the folders and files you''ve created over the past 10 years and put it in a hard drive tower with a 32 bit O.S.
Then if feeling you need to be slaved or forced to have 64 bit. Buy a second computer with it.
Vista is 64..............ONLY..........I think. I'm researching that now!
Either way you go.........Replacing the old computer with a 32 bit or going for the 64.............THEY WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!
P.S.
If you're a GURU or money, money, money.........Partition.
April 13, 2009 1:16:11 PM

good job, 1 year late.

Nice effort though.

Notice how its from april 2008? :) 
!