Vista 32 or 64bit?

not good advice superant

the only thing that makes vista sluggish is memory

2 gig vista mem is like 1 gig on xp

if you have 4 gig memory with a quadcore or dual core, vista runs just as well as xp and certain things load faster

dont wait for sp1 for vista its going to be made up of mostly vista patches
 
killadoob said:
not good advice superant

the only thing that makes vista sluggish is memory

2 gig vista mem is like 1 gig on xp

if you have 4 gig memory with a quadcore or dual core, vista runs just as well as xp and certain things load faster

dont wait for sp1 for vista its going to be made up of mostly vista patches
Click to expand...
Ive got a Core2duo 2.13 and 2 gig DDR2-800 RAM- you actually made my point for me, why should you need a dual-core or a quad-core with 4gigs of RAM to get it to run as well or better "sometimes"? Imagine what XP would do with a quad-core and 4 gig o' RAM.

That said, would you recommend I get more RAM? I thought the 32bit can't really use more then 3,2ish gb anyway but some more speed would go along way.
 
well because technology moves forward and not backwards

why would u need more or less the same amount to run a new OS

xp is 5 or so years old

do you think vista should run on a duron 1ghz with 1 gig memory

do you think xp ran on a 200mhz p2 with 64 meg ram

why you ask yourself, advances in technology require hardware to back them up

do you think amd and intel make faster and better cpu's so we can run xp better?

vista is the future my friend :), to keep up with the future you need to invest money into it
 
Last edited:
Gnome said:
The difference being? Who can digitally sign drivers except for Microsoft Windows Hardware Quality Lab? (Hence the reason Windows shows a pop up dialog that says the drivers were not digitally signed by Microsoft) WHQL = Signed Drivers else it would be ridiculously easy to create a driver/application that could hack the kernel which is why the implemented the restriction, to stop users from hacking DRM encryption schemes and ensure a "safe platform".

Btw. The RIAA/MPAA is pretty much responsible for this, at least that's the common consensus on the internet. (They apparently refused Microsoft licenses to certain technologies without this restriction)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHQL_Testing

Also x2 on the retail copy, the amount of money you save on DSP isn't worth the fact that you can't choose between 64bit and 32bit.
Click to expand...

Nvidia and all the hardware manufacturers can sign drivers as well. Thats why there beta drivers work under vista 64 even if it's not signed by MS.
 
SuperAntMD said:
Im not sure where i got this idea from but i thought if you ownde one version eg. 32bit, you could ask Microsoft to send you the equivalent 64bit for a small fee?

Currently using 32bit Vista (although I have the full retail so the 64bit is sitting in the box), Really not worth the move in my opinion, SP3 for Xp and SP1 for Vista are supposedly coming out earlyish next year. I would wait for then before trying it out.

Haven't had any major problems w/ drivers or anything else, but its sluggish as all hell and doesn't really offer any improvements over XP. XP is now so highly polished that a well spec'ed machine is extremely powerful whereas on Vista the same "well spec'ed" machine kind of just hobbles along.
Click to expand...

Only applies to retail version. If you have home premium or business retail. You can ask microsoft for the 64 bit disc. You have to pay R100 postage but you can get te disc. Ultimate comes with both in the box.
 
a verisign class 3 digital id costs around $250 a year...voila, signed drivers. just updated mine yesterday in fact.

the fact is though, they need to be signed by whql, not by "biteme"
 
o superant dont take my message as agro plz, certain ppl on this forum take it like that :)

not meant that way
 
killadoob said:
o superant dont take my message as agro plz, certain ppl on this forum take it like that :)

not meant that way
Click to expand...

No worries, and I hear what you sayin gabout technology moving forward but the point I was trying to make was that I haven't really seen enough of an improvement with Vista over XP to warrant the change. If anything its worse or the same. In which case as technology moves forward and we can get all this great hardware for less and less XP and not Vista uses it more to its full potential.
 
yea no doubt, im not saying vista is amazing

in no way is vista better than xp apart from dx 10, the thing with vista is once you use and become used to it, you just cannot go back to xp :), if you dont have the cash to run vista then its not like ppl are loosing out on anything

dx 10 is its main draw and if you see crysis in dx 10 vs dx 9 they fail badly :), maybe other games will look better than the dx9 versions

plus tinkering with a new OS is alot of fun yet frustrating at the same time
 
Deciding which Vista version to install can be a difficult decision and can really limit what you can do with your system. Here are practical hints which should help a user decide which version to install. I decided to write this guide after installing 64-bit and 32-bit vista systems on several test boxes.

With the gaining popularity of 64-bit chipsets/processors, many users now have the ability to run either 64-bit versions (x64) or 32-bit versions (x86) of software and operating systems. However, if you only have a 32-bit processor, your choice is easy...

You can only install the x64 version of Vista if you have a 64-bit processor.

For those with 64-bit processors, it seems obvious that installing the x64 version of vista would be ideal. The x64 version has increased security based around the 64-bit structure and programs compiled for 64-bit processors will likely run faster.


What's the problem with installing Vista x64 on a 64-bit system?

1. Most hardware does not currently have 64-bit drivers.

Out of all the boxes that I have installed x64 Vista on, I could always get it to boot up. However, the lack of 64-bit drivers for many hardware devices typically left me without any chance of burning DVDs or listening to audio. Networking devices and card readers were frequently not supported as well. Vista x64 is pretty but it's not very fun without network access or audio.

2. In Vista x64, any driver that is not properly signed will not be able to enter the kernel and will fail to load.

Think how many times you have ignored that warning that a certain hardware driver is not properly signed. With vista x64, if your driver has not be blessed by Microsoft, it will not work. Forget about it.

I have tired to get around this by booting with the F8 option Disable Driver Signature. It doesn't make a difference.

3. Vista x64 currently does not backward support most x86 (32-bit) drivers.

For the most part 64-bit systems run 32-bit applications very well. However, vista x64 doesn't run x86 drivers... at least at this stage.

4. Vista x64 does not support 16-bit software.

You may think that you never, ever run 16-bit software. However, XP actually handles this legacy fairly well.

5. Very little x64 software currently exists.

x64 software runs better on a x64 system with an x64 OS. Currently, however, there is very little x64 software out there. If you have that magical combination, you do get a nice performance boost. Currently, however, this combination is way to far ahead of the curve.


Conclusion:

Most users with 64-bit hardware should install the 32-bit (x86) version of Vista.

Vista x64 is the turning point for operating systems as they transition to 64-bit. Currently, however, the majority of users will be very disappointed by installing Vista x64. The lack of 64-bit drivers for most current hardware will be very disappointing and frustrating to most users. Why push for 64-bit now anyway? The performance gains promised by 64-bit will not be seen for years until 64-bit compiled versions of software is the norm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X