In the last article I looked at the installation of the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Office 2010. In this part I’ll cover the important considerations in choosing which platform to go with. This principally comes down to the advantages and disadvantages of Office 2010 64-bit.

Office 2010 64-bit advantages

Apart from the general ability to address more physical memory, the main advantages of using the 64-bit version of Office 2010 will be experienced by power Office users, who, for example, might use Excel spreadsheets which reference massive amounts of data, or who regularly work with Office files greater than 2GB in size. Microsoft Project also benefits, with the ability to handle large, multiple subprojects contained with the main project.

64-bit machines also have a security advantage via mandatory hardware-based DEP (Data Execution Prevention) for native 64-bit applications. With the 64-bit version, this protection is now available to Office.

Office 2010 64-bit disadvantages

The increased protection and scalability of Office 2010 64-bit unfortunately comes at a cost.

Many applications interface directly with Office, either via ActiveX controls (eg: Internet Explorer) or third-party add-ins (eg: Adobe Acrobat or internally-developed business apps). Because these external interfaces have never had to be made available in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavours, some applications won’t be able to natively communicate with the 64-bit version of Office 2010 until ISVs and in-house developers have had the time and opportunity to update their solutions accordingly. Office 2010 64-bit will install some 32-bit ActiveX controls so that the 32-bit version of Internet Explorer can interface correctly, but even then some functionality like “Edit in Datasheet” will only work in Office 2010 32-bit.

Microsoft Access database files which have had the source code removed cannot be accessed cross-platform. For example, an .MDE file developed with a 32-bit version of Office cannot be used on Office 2010 64-bit. Likewise, an .MDE file developed on Office 2010 64-bit cannot be used on a 32-bit version of Office.

Differences in “bitness” (a registry key which records the application version) can cause issues in OLE scenarios. When a registered application on an OLE server is different to the installed version, or if a 32-bit object is embedded into a 64-bit application, compatibility issues may be encountered. Additionally, because there is a lack of Intel MMX technology support on 64-bit processors, 64-bit GDI (Graphics Device Interface) may experience some differences in performance compared to the 32-bit version.

Finally, some VBA code written for 32-bit applications will not automatically function seamlessly on a 64-bit platform, and will need to be updated accordingly, as will custom applications which make MAPI calls to Microsoft Outlook.

These various considerations may mean that, in spite of the benefits it provides, Office 2010 64-bit is not a viable option for many customers. This is why, from the position of maximising compatibility within customers’ environments, Microsoft is recommending the 32-bit version regardless of the bitness of the underlying operating system.

Office 2010 32-bit recommended

By default, the Office 2010 media will install the 32-bit version. There is a setup.exe in the x64 folder on the installation media which will install the 64-bit version.

Microsoft’s approach is unsurprising. In spite of the increased popularity of 64-bit operating systems, true 64-bit applications still remain the domain of power users – users who exclusively use a small range of applications in a way which is far more advanced compared to the usage of the vast majority of everyday users. This is also true in other areas which rely heavily on computing, such as digital art and CAD.

Personally, while I’m a heavy Office user there is no way that I could ever push it hard enough to justify installing the 64-bit version, but all my Windows 7 machines are 64-bit and I’m looking forward to seeing how much better the 32-bit version of Office 2010 runs. However, this is not to say that 64-bit applications won’t become the norm over time, and Microsoft have done a good job in continuing to push 64-bit computing across all aspects of the IT industry.

Also read the first part of this article: The installation of the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Office 2010

• Access Services in SharePoint Server 2010 (0)
• Office 365 review – Part 8: SharePoint Online and conclusion (0)
• Office 365 review – Part 7: Lync Online (0)
• Office 365 review – Part 6: Exchange Online Hybrid, Archiving and IRM (2)
• Office 365 review – Part 5: Migrating to Exchange Online (0)

With the ever-increasing availability of high-storage RAM, 64-bit processors and the systems to power them, all at prices within the reach of every consumer and SOE, 64-bit computing is fast becoming the normal state of play.

According to the Microsoft 2010 Engineering blog, customers who have access to download the product media (such as customers with a VL agreement with Software Assurance, and MSDN/TechNet subscribers) will have a choice about which version they would like to download (both are available). Customers who buy the physical media will receive both versions. Software Assurance customers will have access to the media from April 27^th.

Installing Office 2010 64-bit on Windows 7 64-bit

Although Windows XP came in a 64-bit flavour, Windows Vista was the first Microsoft OS to make it especially accessible and feasible for everyday computing. There was comprehensive driver support (eventually) and very few compatibility or stability issues. Windows 7 64-bit has proven to be very popular in both consumer and business environments, and Microsoft has been working hard to ensure that it’s full product suite accommodates both platforms.

If you are running a 64-bit version of Windows deciding on which version to install will depend completely on how you use Microsoft Office. Obviously only the 32-bit version can be installed on a 32-bit version of Windows, but there should not be the automatic assumption that if you’re running a 64-bit version of Windows, that the 64-bit version of Office is the logical choice.

Office 2010 64-bit is supported on 64-bit editions of Windows Vista SP1, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 SP1 and Windows Server 2008 R2. It is not supported on Windows XP x64. Office 2010 server products such as SharePoint Server, SharePoint Foundation and Project Server are supported on the 64-bit version of Windows Server 2008 SP2 and Windows Server 2008 R2.

Installing Office 2010 32-bit on Windows 7 64-bit

The 32-bit version of Office will run fine on 64-bit Windows, as do most 32-bit applications thanks to the x86 emulator WOW64 which runs on all 64-bit versions of the operating system. Because the operating system can reference the 64-bit memory address space and can therefore make use of physical RAM above 4GB, the 32-bit version of Office will automatically receive a performance boost when running on 64-bit Windows, due to reduced memory swapping, disk read/writes and disk thrashing in a multi-application environment. This is the scenario which Microsoft envisages will be the most appropriate for the vast majority of users.

Installing Office 2010 64-bit and 32-bit on the same computer

The two versions of Office 2010 cannot exist side-by-side on the same physical system. This is true whether a single Office product is installed or the full suite. For example, if the Office installer finds Outlook 2010 x86 installed, it won’t allow you to install Word 2010 x64, so the 32-bit version would have to be removed fully before the 64-bit version could be installed.

Additionally, if you have any of the following 32-bit applications installed, an installation of Office 2010 64-bit will be blocked:

• Microsoft Excel 2010 Viewer
• Access database engine of Microsoft Access 2010
• Microsoft Office 2010 (Click-to-run)
• Compatibility Pack for Office 2007

Although a reason for this has not yet been fully articulated, it makes sense that the supporting Office infrastructure and shared programs must all be on the same platform. It is also possible that the different versions might be usable on the same physical system if one of them has been virtualized, using Microsoft Application Virtualization for example. The latest build, version 4.6, supports 64-bit apps and 64-bit operating systems.

Office 2010 Upgrade Paths

If you’re already running Office 2007, you can upgrade to Office 2010 32-bit on either a 32-bit or 64-bit version of Windows. Office 2007 cannot be upgraded from 32-bit to Office 2010 64-bit (this is a limitation which is consistent across all Microsoft products). There is no information currently available as to whether it is possible to upgrade from Office 2003 to Office 2010.

• Access Services in SharePoint Server 2010 (0)
• Office 365 review – Part 8: SharePoint Online and conclusion (0)
• Office 365 review – Part 7: Lync Online (0)
• Office 365 review – Part 6: Exchange Online Hybrid, Archiving and IRM (2)
• Office 365 review – Part 5: Migrating to Exchange Online (0)

Reliability

You probably know that 64-bit device drivers for Vista have to be signed. You can disable signed driver checking for the next session in the boot menu by pressing F8. This allows you to install unsigned drivers on Vista x64. Windows 7 x64 will behave the same way. Microsoft introduced signed driver checking to improve reliability. I don’t know how successful this approach was. However, based on my own experience, I can’t really say whether 64-bit is more reliable than 32-bit. I had four driver issues on Vista x64, (Bluetooth, WIFI, graphics card, and sound system). I even saw a blue screen once or twice. The fact that these drivers were signed didn’t prevent them from crashing.

Security

Signed driver checking improves security, because it makes it a bit more difficult for malware, in particular rootkits, to infect a system. Windows 7 x64 (like Vista x64) will also have two other security features that the 32 bit edition lacks: Kernel Patch Protection (PatchGuard) and hardware-based Data Execution Protection (DEP). To be honest, I have never heard of a case where malware or hackers were deterred by these features. However, this might be simply due the fact that the vast majority of Windows systems are still 32-bit. Therefore, I think these are nice-to-have features, but on their own not reason enough to move to 64-bit.

Licensing

The 32-bit license keys for Vista don’t work for Vista x64 and you have to order the 64-bit DVD separately if you want to switch from 32-bit to 64-bit. Only Windows Vista Ultimate comes with a DVD and product key for both editions.

One thing that shows that 64-bit is now ready for prime time is that Microsoft treats both editions alike. All Windows 7 customers will get a 32-bit edition and a 64-bit edition. There will be only one product key type for both Windows 7 editions. At least that is the case for the keys on Technet. I suppose it will be the same for volume license customers and consumers.

This is certainly a good thing, because it makes switching from 32-bit to 64-bit easier. If you run into really unsolvable problems you can move back to Windows 7 32-bit without the licensing hassle. Of course, you then have to re-install everything.

Conclusion

When Vista first came out, I was already considering 64-bit as an option. However, after reading more about the topic, I changed my mind and opted for 32-bit. The main reason was that Vista by itself had already caused enough compatibility issues. Every time I ran into problems I would wonder whether it was just a Vista issue or if 64-bit was the culprit.

The situation has fundamentally changed. I think, netbooks are the only reason that 32-bit will survive for some time. Some of these little toys’ CPU types simply don’t support 64-bit. I don’t expect any serious compatibility problems with Windows 7 x64. 64-bit is much more widespread than it was two or three years ago. The fact that Windows 7 x86 only effectively supports up to 3GB RAM is a knockdown argument against 32-bit, in my view. The future certainly belongs to 64-bit. Therefore, in my opinion Windows 7 64-bit is in most cases the better choice. Only if you know that some devices or applications you desperately need are not supported in 64-bit does it makes sense to deploy Windows 7 32-bit. However, even in those cases, you could still consider solving the problem by using Windows 7 XP Mode instead.

• Office 2010 32-bit vs. 64-bit – Part 2: Advantages and disadvantages of Office 2010 64-bit (2)
• Office 2010 – 64-bit vs. 32-bit – Part 1: Installation (6)
• Windows 7 64-bit vs. Windows 7 32-bit – Hardware and software compatibility (6)
• Windows 7: 64-bit or 32-bit? Memory and performance (69)
• Windows 7 x64 or Windows 7 x86? My experiences with Vista 64-bit (9)

Software Compatibility

When Vista was released, many independent software vendors (ISVs) were not prepared, even though, it was the longest beta phase in the history of Windows releases. Because of the huge structural changes, quite a few applications didn’t run properly on Vista. I think, this was the main reason why Vista x64 was not really an option for most organizations that were planning an upgrade, as the move to 64-bit would have only caused additional headaches.

This will definitely be different when Windows 7 comes out. Windows 7 doesn’t introduce significant under-the-surface changes. Therefore, almost all applications that work on Vista will work on Windows 7. Meanwhile, all software vendors have already changed their focus to Vista, which means software compatibility problems will no longer be an issue, as far as Windows 7 x86 is concerned.

However the risk of running into software compatibility problems is still bigger with Windows 7 x64 than it is with Windows 7 x86. But, I am sure that it is now significantly lower than it was when Vista first came out. The good thing is that Vista requires a lot more RAM than its predecessor, which has already forced many users (me, for example) to move to 64-bit, thereby increasing the likelihood that ISVs have fixed possible 64-bit issues in their applications as a result of customer feedback.

If you are uncertain if software will run on Windows 7 64-bit, then you can try it first in a virtual environment like VMware Workstation or Oracle’s free VirtualBox. Of course, if you plan to deploy Windows 7 in your network, then you will have to test all your applications anyway. Just make sure that not only the application itself but also its setup programs run on 64-bit, because some legacy apps still use 16-bit installation programs. 16-bit and MS DOS binaries won’t run at all on Windows 7 x64.

Hardware Compatibility

The hardware compatibility situation is quite similar. All Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs) support Vista now and I suppose most of Vista’s device drivers will work properly on Windows 7. Microsoft is quite aware of the fact that Vista’s marketing disaster was mostly caused by compatibility issues. Rest assured that they won’t make the same mistake twice. This why they have pushed IHVs harder this time. Most beta testers’ reports that I’ve read have confirmed that the transition from Vista to Windows 7 will also be smooth with respect to device drivers.

Only very old hardware whose device drivers are no longer updated will have problems. The risk of not being able to find device drivers for old pieces of hardware is a little higher for Windows 7 x64 than it is for Windows 7 x86, since 32-bit device drivers don’t work on 64-bit systems.

As for new hardware, it seems that all vendors delivering devices for corporate environments now support 64-bit. IHVs are aware of the fact that many of them will be forced to move to Windows 7 64-bit because they need more than 3GB of RAM. Support for 64-bit is no luxury like it was two or three years ago. It has become an absolute must.

In the last article in this series, I will focus on reliability, security, and licensing.

• Office 2010 32-bit vs. 64-bit – Part 2: Advantages and disadvantages of Office 2010 64-bit (2)
• Office 2010 – 64-bit vs. 32-bit – Part 1: Installation (6)
• Windows 7 x64 vs. Windows x86 – Reliability, security, and licensing (4)
• Windows 7: 64-bit or 32-bit? Memory and performance (69)
• Windows 7 x64 or Windows 7 x86? My experiences with Vista 64-bit (9)

In my last post, I described my experiences with Vista x64. Today I will focus on two important topics related to the Windows 7 64-bit vs. Windows 32-bit controversy: memory and performance.

Memory

The most significant advantage of a 64-bit system is that it can use more than 4GB of RAM. One thing that has changed since I last concerned myself with this topic is that most new desktops and laptops now come with at least 4GB of RAM. The problem is that like Vista, Windows 7 x86 is capable of only using about 3 GB of RAM. By contrast, Windows 7 x64 cannot only make use of up to 16TB 192GB RAM, but is capable of using the memory remapping feature of modern BIOSes, which allows the operating system to really use the complete 4GB. Thus, if you install Windows 7 64-bit on a 4 GB machine you won’t waste 1 GB of RAM like you would with Windows 7 32-bit.

Moreover, it is only a matter of time until 3GB will no longer be enough for modern applications. One example is Windows 7′s XP Mode feature, which allows you to use legacy applications within a virtual machine running within Windows XP. This feature might prove to be useful for other purposes, for example running Office 2007 and Office 2003 on the same computer simultaneously. Since XP needs 512 MB-1GB to run properly, XP Mode is a RAM eater. As such, if you now deploy Windows 7 32-bit then you might be soon want to move to 64-bit, just because you will have to upgrade your machines with new memory. My own laptop has 8 GB of RAM and I can tell you that I need every byte of it. I’m lucky that my laptop supports up to 16GB.

Performance

In a previous article about Vista x64, I outlined how the 64-bit version will usually only perform better as it allows you to use more memory, rather than because of its computing capacity. Only applications that are optimized for 64-bit will run faster than their 32-bit counterparts. There are now significantly more 64-bit apps out there than a year ago, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that they will be faster than their 32-bit counterpart. Usually, there is only a special 64-bit edition because the 32-bit version wouldn’t run properly on a 64-bit Windows OS.

This is different only for some performance-dependent application types, such as mathematical software or video editing programs. Hence, if you have software whose vendor explicitly endorses 64-bit, then you might notice improved speed with Windows 7 x64.

On the other hand, Windows 7 64-bit won’t slow down your computer. There might be a little overhead in some computations because it logically takes longer to process 64 than 32 bits. However, in practice you won’t realize the difference. All performance tests I’ve seen prove that in most cases there is simply no noteworthy difference between 64-bit and 32-bit when it comes to performance.

However, this might soon change. There is no doubt that the future belongs to 64-bit. More and more software vendors will offer special 64-bit editions of their applications as time goes on. The most prominent software will be Microsoft Office 2010, which will also have a 64-bit variant. It remains to be seen whether Excel or Access will perform better in 64-bit.

In the next article of this series, I will cover Windows 7 64-bit’s software and hardware compatibility.

• Office 2010 32-bit vs. 64-bit – Part 2: Advantages and disadvantages of Office 2010 64-bit (2)
• Office 2010 – 64-bit vs. 32-bit – Part 1: Installation (6)
• Windows 7 x64 vs. Windows x86 – Reliability, security, and licensing (4)
• Windows 7 64-bit vs. Windows 7 32-bit – Hardware and software compatibility (6)
• Windows 7 x64 or Windows 7 x86? My experiences with Vista 64-bit (9)

A while back, I asked the 64-bit vs. 32-bit question for Windows Vista and later tried to answer it in a more detailed manner in a series of articles. I covered performance, application compatibility, and hardware compatibility issues. German-speaking readers can also check out my article about the Vista x64 vs. Vista x86 issue in Computerwoche magazine. Since Windows 7 is mostly an evolutionary rather than revolutionary release, not so many things will change, and most of what can be said about Vista x64 also applies to Windows 7 x64.

The 64-bit vs. 32-bit controversy

A decisive factor in my opinion on the 64-bit vs. 32-bit controversy was the outcome of the 4sysops poll. A whopping 66% of 2000 4sysops readers favored Vista x64 over Vista x86. The outcome of the poll finally convinced me that the time for 64-bit has come, not only for servers but also for desktops and laptops. The next notebook I bought came with Vista x64 already installed.

It has now been ten months since I started using the 64-bit version of Windows for daily work. The most interesting experience I have had is: I haven’t experienced much. Most of the time, I wasn’t really aware of the fact that I was using 64-bit.

Okay, I’ll admit that a few times, when I downloaded a tool, there was a 32-bit and a 64-bit version. I also recall that in the beginning I stumbled across a program or two that didn’t work at all on Vista x64, even though I haven’t had any problem using it on Vista x86. However, these were either old versions of applications which now officially support 64-bit, or they were free tools from the pre-Vista era that hadn’t been updated for ages. In the latter case, I always found a worthy 64-bit-capable replacement.

Software compatibility

As you all know by now, I am a fat PC (I can’t stop repeating myself with all of the web app hype these days). My laptop has two 320 GB hard drives, and I have two external drives with an additional total capacity of 2.2 TB. I should also mention that they are all maxed out. Since I am neither a movie nor music collector, most of the stuff on these disks is software. Of course, I only use a fraction of it for my daily work, but I mention this here to give you an idea of what a fat PC really is. I think, this really says something about the general application compatibility of 64-bit Windows. I mean, if I didn’t bump into major software compatibility problems, then it is quite likely that the average PC user won’t either.

Hardware compatibility

I am not that fat when it comes to hardware (even though my laptop weighs 4 kg). The number of devices and gadgets I use is within reasonable limits. I did have a problem with my old Epson scanner, as there is a Vista x86 device driver but none for 64-bit. I probably would have bought a new scanner if I had needed one often enough. After all, you can get these toys for less than a good dinner nowadays. But since I only need a scanner once a year, I kept my old Epson and used it within a virtual machine. I also had a problem with a Bluetooth headset. Vista x64 crashes the Bluetooth driver every now and then, which didn’t happen under Vista x86. However, that problem might have been specific to that headset. I tried a couple of newer headsets and they all worked flawlessly.

Once or twice, I had to disable Vista x64′s signed driver checking to install free tools that came with device drivers. One of those tools was OpenVPN. It is a bit annoying to have to reboot to disable signed driver checking, but since I only had to do it every now and then, it wasn’t a big a deal.

I have described all of the 64-bit-related issues that I had. I didn’t, however, write about the problems I didn’t have, because it is so difficult to describe something that didn’t happen. The main message of this article is that it is noteworthy that, even though I sit all day in front of my laptop doing all kinds of odd things with it, I have no real 64-bit adventures to tell you about. So from my personal experience, I would say that Windows x64 is ready for prime time.

What are your experiences?

Please check out the numerous comments in one of my previous articles for other views. You are also welcome to share your latest experiences in the comment section of this article.

Okay, enough about practice. We are now ready for theory, which is the topic of my next post.

• Office 2010 32-bit vs. 64-bit – Part 2: Advantages and disadvantages of Office 2010 64-bit (2)
• Office 2010 – 64-bit vs. 32-bit – Part 1: Installation (6)
• Windows 7 x64 vs. Windows x86 – Reliability, security, and licensing (4)
• Windows 7 64-bit vs. Windows 7 32-bit – Hardware and software compatibility (6)
• Windows 7: 64-bit or 32-bit? Memory and performance (69)

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

I intentionally asked, “What is your choice?” because I wanted to know what I will install on my next laptop. Well, I would say that this has been a clear vote. I was unsure, because I know that if you move away too far from the beaten path, you easily run into time-consuming problems. But as things stand, at least among IT pros, Vista x64 is the most common choice.

However, these numbers do not say much about the situation in corporate networks, in my opinion. The question of whether it makes sense to deploy Vista x64 in a corporate network depends on many factors. In my organization, we will only deploy Vista x86 because we want to limit the number of problems potentially caused by the transition from Windows XP to Vista. If you are new to my blog, you might want to check out my series about the 64 bit vs. 32 bit topic. German speaking readers might be interested in my article that was published recently at the German magazine Computerwoche.

• Office 2010 32-bit vs. 64-bit – Part 2: Advantages and disadvantages of Office 2010 64-bit (2)
• Office 2010 – 64-bit vs. 32-bit – Part 1: Installation (6)
• Windows 7 x64 vs. Windows x86 – Reliability, security, and licensing (4)
• Windows 7 64-bit vs. Windows 7 32-bit – Hardware and software compatibility (6)
• Windows 7: 64-bit or 32-bit? Memory and performance (69)

Usually, that also applies to me. I am still a bit hesitant to make the 64-bit move, though. I will buy a new laptop soon and I am considering of equipping it with 4GB because I want to run VMware Workstation on it. So I am curious to know your view. You might have read my posts on Vista x64 or have made up your mind already. Perhaps, you even have experiences of your own. Some of you already shared your opinion in my original post about that issue.

If you didn’t make up your mind yet, you might want to have a look at my articles about the 32-bit vs. 64-bit issue. You can find the links below the poll.

So what is your choice? Vista x86 or Vista x64? If you are running Vista x86 at the moment and are planning to move to 64-bit you can vote for Vista x64 as well.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

• Office 2010 32-bit vs. 64-bit – Part 2: Advantages and disadvantages of Office 2010 64-bit (2)
• Office 2010 – 64-bit vs. 32-bit – Part 1: Installation (6)
• Windows 7 x64 vs. Windows x86 – Reliability, security, and licensing (4)
• Windows 7 64-bit vs. Windows 7 32-bit – Hardware and software compatibility (6)
• Windows 7: 64-bit or 32-bit? Memory and performance (69)

Availability of 64-bit device drivers

The fundamental difference between software and hardware compatibility is that most 32-bit apps work flawlessly on Vista x64, whereas 32-bit device drivers are usually useless on a 64-bit Windows. Hence unlike software vendors, hardware vendors have no other choice than to offer 32-bit drivers and 64-bit drivers for their devices. Additionally, only drivers signed by Microsoft will work on Vista x64. This certainly improves security because kernel mode drivers are an attractive target for malware.

The only problem is that Microsoft wants to see money for the signature. Therefore, hardware vendors producing for the consumer market are sometimes a bit reserved about 64-bit. You usually won’t find 64-bit drivers for devices that are older than five years. However, relatively new devices from well-known brands usually support 64-bit. Vista x64 comes with a great variety of drivers, and even more are available via Windows Update.

Testing 64-bit drivers

Unfortunately, it is a bit difficult to make sure that all your devices are supported in advance. Unlike with 32-apps, you can’t test them in a virtual environment because virtualization software such as VMware Workstation or VMware Server emulates different hardware for the guest OS. The only exceptions are USB devices. If the mouse focus is on the virtual machine, VMware will automatically redirect devices connected at the USB port to the VM.

You can also check your hardware vendor’s support site, to make sure that 64-bit device drivers are available. However, often you’ll only find Vista drivers without any further notice regarding 32-bit or 64-bit. Sometimes the downloadable package contains 32-bit and 64-bit drivers. So, often the only way to find out if all drivers are available is to just try with real hardware.

If you plan to deploy Vista x64 in a corporate environment, you should have at least one test PC for every model in your network. If you have no other choice than to test it on the target PC, I would just add another partition or hard disk and install Vista x64 as second OS. This way, you can still go back to your original 32-bit installation. Note that you have to start from scratch anyway, because there is no upgrade path from Vista x86 to Vista x64.

You could also install Vista x64 on an external USB disk, and try it on the different PC models in your organization. The first thing that you want to check out after Vista boots up is the Device Manager. I hope you won’t see too many question marks there.

Conclusion

Unlike software compatibility, hardware compatibility is still problematic with Vista x64. However, the situation is much better than it was one year ago. Therefore, if you desperately need more RAM than 3GB, and if all your hardware is relatively new, you should give 64-bit a chance.

Security might be a reason to move to Vista x64, too. However, Vista x86 is already a very secure operating system. Thus, better security alone is not really argument for 64-bit. The signed device drivers also improve the reliability of the OS. However, the reliability of your applications will be lower, since you’ll have to run 32-bit apps on a 64-bit OS, which can cause problems.

Vista x64 is certainly not an advisable option for typical office PCs in a corporate environment. A secretary will most likely not type a letter faster, just because her or his Word runs on a 64-bit OS. That additional trouble Vista x64 might cause doesn’t make a move to 64-bit worthwhile in most cases. 32-bit will dominate the desktop world until Windows 7 comes out. There is a good chance that 64 is the default bit-length on new PCs by 2010.

• Office 2010 32-bit vs. 64-bit – Part 2: Advantages and disadvantages of Office 2010 64-bit (2)
• Office 2010 – 64-bit vs. 32-bit – Part 1: Installation (6)
• Windows 7 x64 vs. Windows x86 – Reliability, security, and licensing (4)
• Windows 7 64-bit vs. Windows 7 32-bit – Hardware and software compatibility (6)
• Windows 7: 64-bit or 32-bit? Memory and performance (69)

When I wrote about this subject shortly after Vista came out, I more or less voted against installing Vista x64. My main point was that Vista will already cause enough compatibility problems. So it is certainly better to limit the number of possible culprits. At that time, I didn’t imagine that Vista adoption would be this slow, though. So I decided to wait for a year or so until most of Vista’s general problems are solved. I hoped that software and hardware vendors would start embracing Vista x64 as soon as they got the 32-bit version under control.

Today, I will focus on software compatibility. In my next post, I will blog about Vista x64 hardware compatibility.

32-bit vs. 64-bit applications

According to an article of the German print journal C’t (8/2008), 64-bit is still not a topic for most software vendors. That is, most Vista compatible applications are 32-bit. Essentially, those software vendors offering 64-bit versions, do so only because they were unable to make their 32-bit editions work on Vista x64. Manufacturers of antivirus software are a good example. Their hooks go deep into the operating system which requires playing 64-bit.

However, it is also a matter of fact that now most Vista compatible 32-bit apps work on Vista x64 as well. Actually, it is hard to find software that runs on Vista x86 but not on Vista x64. If you know of such an application feel free to leave a note below. Notice that 16-bit apps don’t work at all on Vista x64. Some older 32-bit programs have a 16-bit installer. The only way to make them work on Vista x64 is to create your own installer package. If you are unsure whether your Vista apps are 64-bit compatible, you can just test them with VMware Server or VMware Workstation. So all in all, I’d say application compatibility is not really an issue anymore.

WoW64 (Windows on Windows)

You should be aware of the fact, though, that running 32-bit apps on Vista x64 comes with a price. Vista has to perform some acrobatics to make this possible. The trick is called WoW64. Basically, it has two tasks. It switches the CPU from 64-bit mode to compatibility mode when you launch a 32-bit app. This doesn’t go at the cost of performance. If you install Vista x86 on a 64-bit CPU, it will always run in 32-bit mode.

In my opinion, more problematic is the second feature of WoW64. 32-bit programs are often dependent on 32-bit system libraries which are stored under C:\Windows\System32 on Vista x86. You’ll also find this folder on Vista x64. However, despite of its name, it only contains 64-bit libraries. Vista x64 stores 32-bit libraries in C:\Windows\SysWow64. 32-bit apps always try to load system libraries from System32. Hence, WoW64 has to redirect them to SysWow64. The same applies to some Registry hives. For example, WoW64 redirects HKLM\Software to HKLM\Software\Wow6432Node.

WoW64 is comparable to the other virtualization mechanisms in Vista which assure software compatibility with Windows XP programs. UAC and folder name changes made them necessary. Usually, these redirects work fine. However, any new complexity layer can be the cause of unforeseen problems. The importance of Vista’s virtualization mechanisms for legacy apps decrease steadily because software vendors adapt their programs to Vista. However, since you’ll be forced to run 32-bit apps on Vista x64 most of the time, you’ll be dependent on WoW64 as long as software vendors focus on Vista x86. That is, you will always have to run programs which are designed for another operating system.

In my next post in this series, I’ll blog about the situation regarding device drivers for Vista x64.

• Office 2010 32-bit vs. 64-bit – Part 2: Advantages and disadvantages of Office 2010 64-bit (2)
• Office 2010 – 64-bit vs. 32-bit – Part 1: Installation (6)
• Windows 7 x64 vs. Windows x86 – Reliability, security, and licensing (4)
• Windows 7 64-bit vs. Windows 7 32-bit – Hardware and software compatibility (6)
• Windows 7: 64-bit or 32-bit? Memory and performance (69)

I was planning to do some research already for some time, but fortunately the German print magazine C’t (8/2008) just published a couple of comprehensive reports about this topic. So I will summarize some of their findings garnished with my own views. Today, I will focus on performance and in my next posts in this series, I will discuss software compatibility and hardware compatibility.

First of all, why would one prefer Vista x64? I outlined some of the reasons in my earlier post. What I said about security and reliability is still valid. However, a year later things might have changed regarding performance. There are two ways of improving 64-bit operating system’s performance. It utilizes the 64-bit specific computational advantages of the processor and it allows you to use more memory which is often the best way to improve performance.

Computational performance

I suppose that many think that a 64-bit processor performs better than the 32-bit CPU. This might be due to the fact that the transitions from 8-bit to 16 and from 16 to 32 brought some performance gains indeed. At least, this is how I remember it. There are essentially two reasons why a 64-bit Windows should be faster: Compilers have more options for code optimization and all 64-bit CPUs support the so-called SSEx-instructions, a command set that is supposed to be more efficient.

Some 32-bit CPUs support SSEx, too, but most 32-bit apps don’t use them because that would prevent them from working on older 32-bit processors. Hence it follows that only applications which were optimized for 64-bit will show performance gains. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case for most Windows programs, nowadays.

C’t ran a couple of benchmark tests with applications that should most likely benefit from a 64-bit CPU. Such apps are mathematical apps and graphics programs. Their tests show that in most cases Vista x64 isn’t really faster than Vista x86. Sometimes it is even slower. But all in all, the differences are not worth mentioning.

So better CPU performance can hardly be the reason why one would want to move to Vista x64. However, if you have an application that was optimized for 64-bit things look different. Although, Vista has been released more than a year ago, optimized 64-bit apps are still very rare. Note that if your software vendor offers a 64-bit edition, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will also perform better than the 32-bit app. This just guarantees that it will work under Vista x64.

Memory

Even though CPU performance is not an issue here, performance in general certainly is the main reason that speaks for 64 bit. However, it is not CPU power, but the option to use more memory. In theory, a 32-bit CPU supports 2³² Byte = 4GB RAM. Unfortunately, Vista x86 supports only up to 3.12 GB. For compatibility reasons Vista has to reserve some of its memory for device drivers. So putting more than 3GB in a computer that runs Vista x86 doesn’t make sense.

Also, Vista’s kernel will reserve at least 2GB of the 4GB for its own utilization (including the above mentioned reserve for drivers). That means that you only have 2GB for applications at the most. In most cases that will be enough. Only if you have to run many memory hungry apps simultaneously will you need more.

A disadvantage of 64-bit apps is that they usually need more memory due to 64-bit pointers. Thus, running Vistax64 on a computer with 3GB or less only makes sense if you run applications that were optimized for 64-bit.

The most common reason nowadays why you might need more RAM than 3GB is that you want to run a virtualization solution such as VMware Workstation or Virtual PC on your PC. As long as you run only one guest OS, 3GB might be sufficient. But if you test software where you need a couple of guest systems simultaneously, you certainly have a good reason to move to Vista x64.

Modern laptops with 64-bit CPU support up 4GB and desktops usually allow you to use 8GB. RAM is very cheap now. 4GB sell for less than €100 ($150). So money isn’t a reason anymore for refraining from putting more RAM in your PC. Of course, if you have hundreds or thousands PCs in your organizations that is something different. But then you certainly don’t need a 64-bit OS on all of them. For those PCs that would benefit from Vista x64 the only question is if the notorious software and hardware compatibility problems of Vista x64 are still an issue. I will explore this topic in my next posts.

• Troubleshoot slow logon – Part 2: The 3-headed monster (0)
• Troubleshoot slow logon – Part 1: Profile size (0)
• How to disable the Shutdown Event Tracker in Windows Server 2008 R2 (0)
• FREE: Smart Defrag – A defragmentation tool (9)
• FREE: NovaBench – Free benchmark software (1)

In theory, a 32-bit operating system should be able to support 2³² bytes = 4GB memory. Thus the first reaction usually is that the memory chips or with the mainboard has a hardware defect. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Vista can indeed address 4GB of memory. However, the maximum amount of RAM that can be used by the system and applications is 3.12 GB.

The cause for this is the so-called memory-mapped I/O (MMIO). Some devices need a dedicated space in memory. A typical example is a video card that utilizes the system memory. Now, you might object that your video card has its own memory and you didn’t install any additional devices that could occupy so much RAM.

Well, for compatibility reasons Vista reserves memory for devices even if they don’t exist in your computer. That means that if you have 4GB RAM in your computer and Vista displays only 3.12 GB available memory, about 1GB is indeed not used by the OS. You might as well remove it. That is quite strange, isn’t it? I am not a system programmer, but for me that seems to be a design error, probably one that is very old.

There is a KB article about this issue which offers a “workaround” though. All you have to do is to install Vista x64 instead of Vista x86. Vista’s 64-bit edition is indeed capable of handling more memory. Note that it is not possible to upgrade Vista x86 to Vista x64. That’s why I find it somehow funny that they sell this solution as a workaround. I will post some articles about the Vista x86 vs. Vista x64 issue very soon. So if you think of going this route, you might as well wait some more days before you make up your mind. In the meantime you can read a former article about the Vista x86 vs. Vista x64 issue.

You might think that Microsoft found an even better workaround, though. It is Service Pack 1. I have read about this before, but today I tried it myself. I installed Vista on a brand new HP PC with 4GB RAM. As expected Vista’s System Properties only displayed about 3 GB RAM. After I installed SP1, the amount of RAM was increased as if by a miracle (see screenshots) to 4GB. You might think that Microsoft corrected this design error, but unfortunately that is not the case.

All they did is to change what is displayed in the System Properties. I guess this problem kept the support personal of PC vendors around the globe busy. And since RAM is getting cheaper every day, the situation would have become worse soon. So Microsoft decided to solve this issue the easy way. System Properties and also the Welcome Center, which is the first place you go to check the amount of memory, simply displays 4GB and so everyone is happy now.

The only problem is that those who are unaware of Vista’s 3.12 GB limit just wasted their money. If you really want to know how much memory Vista actually uses, you have to use Vista’s System Information tool. To do so, go to Vista’s Start prompt and type Msinfo32. The new System Information tool in Vista SP1 distinguishes between “Installed Physical Memory (RAM)” and “Total Physical Memory”. The latter one is the amount of memory you can really use, and the first one indicates how much money you just have wasted if you put 4GB in your PC. You can read more about this issue in this KB article.

• Office 2010 32-bit vs. 64-bit – Part 2: Advantages and disadvantages of Office 2010 64-bit (2)
• Office 2010 – 64-bit vs. 32-bit – Part 1: Installation (6)
• Windows 7 x64 vs. Windows x86 – Reliability, security, and licensing (4)
• Windows 7 64-bit vs. Windows 7 32-bit – Hardware and software compatibility (6)
• Windows 7: 64-bit or 32-bit? Memory and performance (69)

Sometime ago, I published an article about a performance comparison between 64-bit and 32-bit editions of Windows. This post got quite a few hits, recently. Meanwhile, it has rank 8 of all posts here on 4sysops (see right sidebar). Obviously, many seem to be undecided which Vista edition they would like to use. In this post, I summarized the pros and cons of Vista x64 and Vista x86.

Vista x64 Pros

Security: Kernel Patch Protection (PatchGuard) is probably the most interesting security-related feature of Vista x64. It prevents unauthorized software from modifying the kernel. This reduces the risk that malware, especially rootkits, infects your system.

Reliability: In Vista x64 only signed drivers can be installed (Mandatory Kernel Module and Driver Signing). This means that kernel mode software requires a digital signature from Microsoft. Buggy drivers can make a system very unstable. But what’s the use of a reliable OS , in the face of a third party driver crashing your PC once a day? I had this experience with Vista x86, already.

Performance: A computer with a 64-bit CPU is supposed to be more powerful than one with a 32-bit processor. Of course, you need a 64-bit OS to utilize its 64-bit capabilities. The problem is, not only that the OS, but also the applications must support 64 bit to improve performance. Since 32-bit is still predominant in the Windows area, Vista x64 won’t speed up your system in most cases. Here are some benchmark tests comparing Vista x64 and Vista x86: [1] [2] [3].

Memory: The 32 bit editions of Vista only support 4 GB RAM. With Vista x64, you can use up to 128 GB , if your hardware supports it. However, there are differences between the different editions of Vista x64. Check out this comparison table for more information. Note that many applications have limitations with respect to the amount of RAM they can use. Hence, you usually only need more than 4 GB RAM, if you are using many apps with high memory consumption, simultaneously. If you are working with VMware Workstation, you might be interested to know that version 6.0 supports Vista x64, and that’s up to 8 GB RAM.

Vista x64 Cons

Hardware compatibility: This certainly is the number one caveat in using a 64-bit Vista edition. 32-bit drivers don’t work. Therefore, hardware manufacturers have to produce new ones for every piece of hardware. The fact that drivers have to be signed can also be a disadvantage since it is more time-consuming for hardware vendors to deliver new drivers. Thus, before you can move to Vista x64, you have to check if your hardware is supported. Don’t forget your peripheral devices like printers and scanners.

Software compatibility: Most 32-bit software should be running on Vista x64. However, 16-bit programs are not supported, anymore. Note that some 32 apps still use 16-bit installers. Even though the program itself might work under Vista x64, you might not be able to install it. Another problem is that Vista x64 doesn’t support registry and folder virtualization. Some legacy apps need to write in security sensitive areas like C:\Windows or C:\Programs and Files. Vista x86 can present a virtual version of these folders to apps for compatibility reasons. Essentially, this means that some 32-bit apps might not work properly if you run them with standard user rights in Vista x64. There are workarounds, though. By the way, even 64-bit apps that were developed for the 64-bit version of Windows XP might have problems under Vista x64 if they have conflicts with Vista standards.

Price: You can only upgrade the Windows XP x64 edition to Vista x64, but not from the 32 bit version of Windows XP. So moving to Vista x64 might cost you more if you have already Windows XP licenses with an upgrade option.

Deployment: Vista images are hardware independent, which probably is the most important new feature from a system administrator’s point of view. However, this doesn’t apply to 32 and 64 bit images, i.e. you’ll need different images for Vista x86 and Vista x64. If you can’t move entirely to the 64 bit edition, then this might double your workload.

Problem diagnosis: Even though, all your hardware and software supports Vista x64, you’ll always ask yourself if a certain problem is 64-bit-related. After all, Vista x64 is a different OS than Vista x86. The same applies to applications which were specifically developed for the 64-bit editions. Thus, solving a problem might often be more time-consuming.

Conclusion: In my view, for the overall majority Vista x86 is the better choice. Even Microsoft writes that “the 64-bit editions are not for everyone.” Only if you have very high security demands or work in fields like engineering (CAD/CAM) or digital content creation, then Vista x64 might be an option for you. I suppose that 64-bit will only play a major role when Vienna, the next Windows version, comes out. There are even rumors that Windows Vienna will only support 64-bit. So perhaps it makes sense to wait a few more years before jumping into the 64-bit bandwagon.

Did I miss a point? Please, let me know!

• Saved Internet Explorer passwords (1)
• Office 2010 32-bit vs. 64-bit – Part 2: Advantages and disadvantages of Office 2010 64-bit (2)
• Office 2010 – 64-bit vs. 32-bit – Part 1: Installation (6)
• FREE: GFI WebMonitor – Web filtering for ISA Server (3)
• Windows 7 x64 vs. Windows x86 – Reliability, security, and licensing (4)