Is it worth going 64 Bit ?
Community Forums/General Help/Is it worth going 64 Bit ?
| ||
| I recently got myself a top-spec PC which was installed with Vista 64Bit After many niggles and frustrations with the O/S and program compatibilities I have gone back to XP Pro 32Bit Ok, so that means I don't have access to all of the memory (3.25GB is usable rather than the 4GB installed) What other benefits does a 64 bit system offer though? I have to say the system feels more responsive and nippy now (quicker loading / shutdowns / no lag) Is this because, a 64 bit system needs to perform "double the amount of work" to do the same thing? For reference the chipset is an Intel Core2 Quad |
| ||
| Did you try a fresh install of Vista64? An off-the-shelf PC will generally come with a shedload of pre-installed bloatware that you don't even need. On the other hand, I upgraded recently to an Athlon64 X2, and still use 32-bit Vista on it. A) Because I have a licence for it, and B) I don't want to run into compatibility problems - I need stuff to work. |
| ||
| I have found Vista 32-bit to be a better option in the long run with regards to getting my programs running. When recently buying my PC I was told that lots of people who had gone for the 64-bit version of Vista had run into compatibility problems that were all solved when re-installing the 32-bit version. Also I should think that 3.25GB is plenty for most users. Jason. |
| ||
| I had the PC custom-built with top-spec goodies. The guy installed Vista with all the 64bit drivers available. Looking through the Device Manager there were no faults or warnings The problems were more to do with annoying bugs, quirks, design features, and software crashes. One such bug being the shut down process. 4 out of 10 times the O/S would hang or take >4 minutes to switch off I kept getting too many "This program has stopped working" messages as well for my liking These programs/games are now running good under XP 32Bit I am guessing maybe the 64 bit drivers are not tested as well as 32 bit one's ??? Other than missing out on access to greater than 3.25GB RAM are there any actual benefits to using 64Bit? |
| ||
| Also I should think that 3.25GB is plenty for most users. Bill Gates said something like that once... And look what happened! ;) I think I'll check out 64bit PC'ing when Windows 7 hits the shelves... But other that, 32bit does me at the moment. Dabz |
| ||
| The trouble with device manager is that it only tells you if a driver isn't there, or isn't compatible. It doesn't tell you when a driver just plain sucks. The latest ones aren't always the best. |
| ||
| I'd probably stick with 32bit for my own use. I have various plugins for 3dsmax etc that often have long delays before updates are released if at all. It's typically easier just to stick with 32bit. In my case my system is pretty ancient for a graphics workstation and 3D apps in particular are supposed to benefit from 64bit. Still with a single core 1st gen 64bit CPU I'm not really the best person to offer a good opinion regarding performance. But compatibility and availability of plugins etc is definitely an issue for me. As far as XP v's Vista, vista seems better in almost every single way even on my system. UAC is the biggest headache, but it can be turned off, after which vista runs like XP without all the security checks. |
| ||
| I thought Ubuntu32 was fast and was avoiding 64 bit because of (quite unfounded) compatibility reasons. I installed ubuntu64 bit and.. it certainly boots faster, apps open faster and everything feels slightly smoother. So i guess it is worth it.. I have not tried Vista 64 yet, but if its the same speed increase as i am seeing on Ubuntu then i say try it and see :) |
| ||
| What other benefits does a 64 bit system offer though? the extra memory is the biggest thing. Second to that is the stability: Along with 64 bit, signed drivers are *required*, which means they've passed some additional quality control checks along the way. Since the majority of Windows crashes is directly related to crummy drivers, this really can make a difference. (Although the downside of that same policy is that some of the open source / free projects that do stuff at a driver level will not work under Vista64 since its creators didn't have or want to spend the cash on getting their drivers certified by Microsoft) All in all I find my vista 64 home PC to be much snappier and more responsive than my virtually identical Vista 32 PC at the office. |
| ||
| All in all I find my vista 64 home PC to be much snappier and more responsive than my virtually identical Vista 32 PC at the office My experience is opposite. XP32 now feels like its wizzing along nicely. Bootup/shutdown, program loading, Internet usage, it all seems to snap into place. Vista64 felt a bit too flashy and "arcadey" (is that a word? If not I claim it!!!)It felt smooth to use (probably because of all the fading in/out that goes on) but just a tad boggy overall. Right now for example, under XP32 I can positively race through and nagivate any area of the HD. Each folder opens without pausing for breath. Vista64 just seemed to be doing 'behind the scenes' stuff before opening up the folder Back to the main subject though .. 64Bit vs 32Bit To me, running 64Bit means the PC is doing 2x the workload for achieving the same thing. The general advantage being access to more memory. It is likely to be much better at handling masses of data no? I am thinking video editing, format coversions, and the likes |
| ||
| By virtue of the fact you will be a small fraction of Vista users, getting the 64-bit version will mean you have driver errors that don't get caught or get ignored. |
| ||
| It felt smooth to use (probably because of all the fading in/out that goes on) but just a tad boggy overall. Dunno, I disabled the fade effects myself. I prefer the instant-on instead. By virtue of the fact you will be a small fraction of Vista users, getting the 64-bit version will mean you have driver errors that don't get caught or get ignored. There's actually a sizable chunk of new computer sales using the 64 bit version -- Flipping through our local computer ads show about a third of the new PC's coming with the64 bit edition. |
| ||
| We use Vista 64 at work and really have not had any issues. (Although personally I prefer XP by a large margin) The only thing that has really gotten in the way is Quicktime,... it doesn't have a 64 bit version, so 64 bit applications cannot use it. Unfortunately, I need to use Quicktime daily. 3DSMax, for example does not work with quicktime unless you run it in 32 bit mode. Adobe products are still running 32 bit, so they support it fine. The only other thing I have noticed is the lack of applications using 64 bit, but that is getting better all the time. |
| ||
| Adobe products are still running 32 bit, so they support it fine. The newer Adobe programs (Like photoshop CS4) actually install both a 64-bit and 32-bit version, so you have the fallback for 32-bit plugins and the likes as well. |
| ||
| Vista 64 on my Mac Pro beats the crap out of Vista 32 -and- OS X Leopard. I also haven't had any (unresolvable) compatibility issues so far. It seems that all of Microsoft's optimization efforts exclusively went into the 64-Bit version - it purrs like a cat. |
| ||
| I haven't noticed much problems |
| ||
| Been with Vista64 for almost a week now, on a HP Touchsmart... everything is fine so far, no problems during shutdown or whatever - It's as stable as XP 32bit on my laptop - and its running at the same speed. Although this computer is WAY faster then my laptop, and XP doesnt have all the bells and whistles from Vista, it's much better than what I expected, or even experienced with Vista 32bits on an HP laptop. Vista does need one to get used to it, a lot of stuff is different from Win9x or even XP... but on this comp, Core 2 Duo with 2Ghz, 4Gb of RAM and 500Mb HD it's running pretty well. Only problem I had was with Firefox 3, which "hanged" a lot of times. Went back to Firefox 2 and it's working wonderfully. Someone mentioned Photoshop... does CS3 has issues with Vista?? |
| ||
| Someone mentioned Photoshop... does CS3 has issues with Vista?? Nope, works just fine under Vista64. CS4 is the first release that included both native 64 and 32 bit versions of the applications, but CS3 runs just as well under Vista64 as under XP32. |
| ||
| I won't go back to 32 bit ever again. 64 bit is so much better once you've sorted your hardware out. If I absolutely must run some ancient game, then VirtualPC or DOSbox does the job well. If it's an app, then most of the time (99.99%) there's a modern replacement. Firefox 3 is working fine here and also worked well on Vista64. The shift from 32 bit to 64 bit was relatively painless. Now I need to wrap my head around the shift from MaxGUI to wxMax in my program:) |
| ||
| The shift from 32 bit to 64 bit was relatively painless. Yup, for the most part -- I did have to switch a few apps because the old version didn't like 64-bit (some older programs that did things at a driver level) but it was a lot less painful than I had anticipated. I kept a dual-boot enviroment to XP around just in case I ran into ay show-stoppers, but I've never had to use it at all. Too bad that we probably won't see a 64-bit BlitzMax version anytime soon. :-? |
| ||
| I think with Windows 7 comes the right opportunity going 64bit. You probably also want to run with 4GB by then. |
| ||
| I really don't think releasing a 32 bit version of Windows 7 was a good idea, but since it's leaner than Vista I can excuse it, tho it better not happen again. 64 bit is the way to go if your associated hardware and software is less than a couple of years old (and doesn't rely on Quicktime, apparently). I also keep a dualboot XP 32 bit/Vista 64 bit (well, now XP/Windows 7) because I can't let go of my favourite old games, but truth be told I simply havn't booted into it for about a year - and even then the app I was told was XP only actually didn't work until I booted into Vista. Go Creative! |
| ||
| I use Windows 7 32Bit beta on the laptop (expires August I believe?) and I must say it's really sweet to use. Although I cannot compare it to the niggles I had with Vista64. I might chance installing it on the PC to see how it performs I am quite looking forward to Win7. I just hope MS set a sensible price for it |
| ||
| When Vista first came out, Microsoft had stated that it would be the last version of windows to come in both 32 and 64 bit flavors, that the next version would be 64 bit only. Then Vista turned into the marketing disaster it was -- thanks to initial performance bugs and the sudden lack of hardware drivers due to the changed driver model. Microsoft is doing whatever it can to redeem themselves in the marketplace right now, and forcing 64-bit only with Windows 7 would be another speedbump they can't really afford right now since it too is bound to break a whole slew of applications and older hardware... So the 64-bit only will have to wait a few more years until the next windows release. |
| ||
| Sad thing is.. they're going to do the same product variation lineup as Vista: Ultimate, BSOD, Business, Home, Basic, Stupid Users, Unusable and Bloatware 2.0. |
| ||
| heh, I don't see the problem with so many windows versions. Most of them target a niche and scale the pricing according to their intended use. I do think the ultimate version is a bit costly but then you can always buy a OEM version when you upgrade your PC for $150 - $180 which isn't so bad. Doesn't seem much point in buying Vista if 7 is just around the corner and as good as everyone says. |
| ||
| I do think the ultimate version is a bit costly Nah. It's "only" £540 (!!) -- Total bargain *cough* Sad thing is.. they're going to do the same product variation lineup as Vista xxxx They did not learn the lesson on this one. Namely that people just don't know what the differences are, what are they mising out on, or which one should they choose?It think it's a ploy by MS to rip customers off by charging $$$ for extra features. No doubt places like PC World would 'recommend' the Ultimate versions because the others are missing all the bells and whistles |
| ||
| It think it's a ploy by MS to rip customers off by charging $$$ for extra features. I disagree Jim, nigh-on every other company charges for extra bells and whistles and is standard practice throughout every industry. Buy a car from a dealer... You'll probably have 3 or 4 different 'package' types of the same motor to choose from, one will be basic, no-frills... Then another will have air-con in, then another will have air-con plus some other snazzy feature... As the features mount, obviously the price will too... I can think of loads of other companies that do it... From washing machine makers to an ice-cream man selling a ice-cream cone with a flake in it and charging an extra 30p for the 2" bit of flake. Typically MS are the devil and under no circumstances should they be allowed to sell their product, in whatever package(s) they desire, with whatever features they think each package should have... No way, thats just a crime against the consumer! But everyone else can, obviously. Dabz |
| ||
| Namely that people just don't know what the differences are, what are they mising out on, or which one should they choose? That too is not true... I've just dug out my Vista HP box, and funnily enough, theres a comparison chart on the back... Titled under "Which Windows Vista edition is right for you?"... Which explains what versions have what features... With a little explaination of what each feature is. So if someone cannot have the foresight to turn the box over for a closer look... Or even have the patience to do a quick bit of research... Thats hardly MS's fault... Is it? Dabz |
| ||
| For me, the '$$$' reference is more to do with paying for features which should be there as standard One example Basic > Premium .. you apparently pay for "MORE SECURE THAN EVER" and "EASIER NETWORK CONNECTIVITY" features. I would expect these to be a standard if I am paying $200 for an O/S (!) Anyhow, no, it's not just MS who do this and other companies who run these sorts of games I tend to have no dealings with. I hopes this does not come across as "picking on MS" because I love XP and do like the look of Win7 |
| ||
| "MORE SECURE THAN EVER" Well, on the back of the box, the first section of the version comparison chart states: Most secure Windows ever... It has ticks in all the boxes, from Basic to Ultimate. "EASIER NETWORK CONNECTIVITY" On here, its states "Business Networking and Remote Desktop for easier connectivity", I dont have a business, so I havent a clue what that entails in respect of network requirements... But I imagine even Vista Basic doesnt stop you setting up a standard LAN, which is pretty painless to do on Vista HP and I imagine it'll be the same on Basic. I hopes this does not come across as "picking on MS" because I love XP and do like the look of Win7 lol, I never imagined it for a second Jim! ;) Dabz |
| ||
| PC is so lame Silicon graphics has 128 bits cpu ? and i am talking about 1995 !! |
| ||
| The business version allows you to set up the computer as a member of a domain, which means that you can administer a bunch of the settings / policies from a central location. A must for medium to large business, but completely irrelevant for a casual home user. The multiple versions exist for one reason: maximizing Microsoft's profit. People with specific n eeds will need to pay extra, while the basic package doesn't include them but is cheaper. Nothing wrong with that, is there? |
| ||
| Then Vista turned into the marketing disaster it was -- thanks to initial performance bugs and the sudden lack of hardware drivers due to the changed driver model. If it wasn't for Vista, Windows 7 would be suffering those problems instead (and be called Windows 6 I suppose). It was completely unavoidable, blown out of proportion and the media in general are a bunch of idiots. And nothing has changed since then; they praise Windows 7 as if it's an improvement above and beyond Vista without stopping to think for a second why - they're still idiots. forcing 64-bit only with Windows 7 would be another speedbump they can't really afford right now since it too is bound to break a whole slew of applications and older hardware... Anybody running such old hardware and software should not be thinking about upgrading to the new whizbang version of their OS. they're going to do the same product variation lineup as Vista: Ultimate, BSOD, Business, Home, Basic, Stupid Users, Unusable and Bloatware 2.0. Actually, while there's quite the line up there's only three boxes *you* will see in stores - Home Premium, Business and Ultimate. And much like last time, most users will do well with the 'bottom of the line' Home Premium box. Additionally, there is no 'jumble of features' such as that which was found in Vista releases; this time around Business includes everything Home Premium has plus more. You don't really need to pick and choose such as you did so there's no -room- for confusion. Moreover, there's talk that MS may implement an online service whereby you can buy components you don't own online - or via Windows Anytime Upgrade (which is shit in countries like Aus where such a service never gets implemented, lazy buggers). |
| ||
| When Vista first came out, Microsoft had stated that it would be the last version of windows to come in both 32 and 64 bit flavors, that the next version would be 64 bit only If they did decide to stick with this 64 bit only route they would be buggered now because of the big explosion in the netbook market. 32 bit will thrive for sometime to come |
| ||
| I have a high end laptop that came with Vista Home Premium 32Bit. I had a copy of Ultimate 64 bit given to me by MS and decided to reload from scratch(after checking that Gateway had all the required 64 bit Drivers.) I haven't had any problems at all with 64 bit whether it be games, utilities or development. I have loaded Windows 7 on low end machines(and a netbook) that are only OK XP machines and they run as well, if not better than XP. It looks like they got it right this time around. And as Hotcakes pointed out, Windows 7 wouldn't be where it was without Vista. There was a lot of under the hood stuff that MS did right in Vista that is allowing 7 to be the winner that it is looking to be. |
| ||
| If they did decide to stick with this 64 bit only route they would be buggered now because of the big explosion in the netbook market. 32 bit will thrive for sometime to come My mate bought a couple of netbooks for his twin girls for xmas, with XP on... And they seemed canny enough. But if there is enough demand for 64bit computing... I dont see why netbooks shouldnt harness 64bit computing... Supply and demand work hand in hand! But since thats technically unknown ground, as we never really had anything like we have now in personal computing when the migration from 16->32bit happened. Its anyones guess, but I'll not be surprised if I skim the pages of a magazine and find a 64bit netbook review. Dabz |
| ||
| Anybody running such old hardware and software should not be thinking about upgrading to the new whizbang version of their OS. Um... riiiight. there are still quite a few things today that don't have 64 bit drivers available. for example: good luck finding a TV tuner card with Vista 64 drivers. Every single one I've seen in the stores only support Vista 32 at best, regardless of the manufacturer. Most hardware does nowadays, but definitely not all. And as far as software is concerned: Are you honestly telling me that you don't run any programs that have been around for a couple of years? It gets pretty expensive to run the latest version of every single application. (Aside from the fact that in some cases the older versions can be preferable for various reasons) |
   |