Update: I am working on a new series about the Vista x86 vs. Vista x64 issue. The first one covers the speed issue. The other article in this series will follow soon. You might also be interested in my post about the 3GB barrier. The discussion there is interesting. But now go ahead and read this one first.
Michael Pietroforte
Latest posts by Michael Pietroforte (see all)
- Posting ops news and competition results March–May 2017 - Wed, Jun 21 2017
- Results of the February competitions - Fri, Mar 10 2017
- 4sysops IT news and winners of the first competition - Thu, Feb 2 2017
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!
Hello!!
I recommend using a multiboot environment: XP 32bit,
Vista 64 bit! XP 64bit sucks, the performance is even smaller than in 32bit! On the other side the performance in Vista 64bit is about 20% greater (I've personally tested in 3DMArk; also other programs seem to work faster) than XP 32bit! More mature drivers will only increase the performance in the future. There are many 32 bit programs that work in Vista 64bit!(Until now only Virtual Clone Driver and a few anti-viruses doesn't work and of course 16 bit apps but for these i use XP)
I'm using Vista 64bit Ultimate for about 2 months and I'm very pleased; it's a very robust system and has never crashed till now. For my modem i use a driver written for XP64 and works without any problem!
Vista x64 Cons:
You're not going to believe me but the only problem i had was with a virus!!! Security is not that great! A virus (trojan - Registry Cleaner i believe it's called) has successfully entered my PC(BTW Avast antivirus sucks), deactivated my Windows Security Center and programs began to cease working. Finally i removed the virus from the system but it was to late, i could not connect to the Internet anymore nor activate Security Center. I had to format HDD and reinstall Vista. BTW the virus was a 32 bit app! LOL!
Conclusion: Do not uninstall XP from your computer, not yet! Keep it at least for a few months until software support for Vista will be at an acceptable level! If you have a 64 bit CPU and especially a PC with the latest technologies then Vista 64 bit is a must. If you're not so interested into the performance thing then i guess you could use the 32bit version!
NB: Sorry that my english is not so good!
Thanks for sharing your experiences. It is interesting that your system got infected by a virus. Maybe it didn’t happen if you had a better anti-virus software. I think, this is a general problem. There are probably many security-related programs which don’t run under Vista x64 because they sometimes work like drivers.
thanks for this informative article, based on what I need Vista for, it does not seem I need or want 64 bit, esp. since the expense of putting in 2G of ram let alone more, 4G, etc. 2G is already considered by home users to be high end.
It is not completely true that x64 Vista does not support File and Registry Virtualization. It does not support File and Registry Virtualization 'for x64 applications'. Microsoft thinks those apps must be ready for the futur right now and will not provide any workarounds for them.
x86 applications are still able to use File and Registry Virtualization on x64 Vista.
So what if someone like me installed Vista x64 but now thinks that might have been a mistake? Can I install Vista x86 over the top of x64 without problems?
Thanks very much for this post. Really good information.
I have a new Dell E521 computer with Windows Vista Home Premium. I have 4Gb of RAM and I am installing a new BFG NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS OC 640MB PCIe video card into it and a larger power supply. This video card supports Direct X10 and and 64bit Vista. I am having a hard time deciding wether to use the 64bit version or staying with my 32bit Vista. Does anyone have some good feedback for me on if it is worth it or not. They both have Windows AERO capability. Also for some reason even though I have 4Gb of RAM, my system only detects about 3.33Gb of it. Is that because I am using 32bit version and it is not cabable of using all of it? Thanks
By the way I have a AMD Athlonâ„¢ 64 X2 Dual-Core 5600 processor on my computer for the previous posting. I am hoping the video card fits, I may have to make some modifications based on the size of the card. I spoke with BFG and it should fit.
By the way i have a AMD Athlonâ„¢ 64 X2 Dual-Core 5600 Processor on the computer I listed in the previous post, if that makes a difference.
Mark, that is an interesting question. If you upgrade from XP, Vista replaces the complete OS and then migrates user data and programs to the new machine. Maybe this also works with Vista as source OS. Search for “Steps for Migrating to Windows Vista� on this page for more information. Let us know if it works.
I'm running Vista Ultimate 64-bit, with WinXP on a separate partition as back-up. So far, I've only needed to boot into XP in order to download security updates for it. =D
Overall system performance is silky smooth, UAC prompts notwithstanding. I haven't run across any game compatibility issues, either. And all 4GB of RAM are usable.
Before making a similar move though, I'd take a full inventory of your hardware, including motherboard components and external peripherals. If there isn't a 64-bit WHQL driver for every item, then be prepared to replace those items.
Also, while *most* 32-bit apps work, there are known exceptions. One rather disappointing one for me was Nikon Capture NX. The ironic thing there is, it isn't the program itself that has a problem - it's the 3rd party anti-piracy API they insist on using. Sad.
Hi,
It's really great info. After reading this article I have choosed the right system.
Right info!!!!!
I am a proud Vista x64 Ultimate user with a brand new PC built specifically for vx64 (Q6600 OCed to 3.2, 4g DDR2, 1.25Tb, 1k Power Supply, and 6700 GTS 640mb video). I love the operating system and feel there is great potential. I did have problems (still do) installing an HP Printer, Bluetooth Dongle, Tuner HVR-1600 WMC card...all "Vista Ready". I am sure the driver issues will be resolved shortly as many hardware mfg are manning up for 64-bit advancement.
I have been thinking recently about getting Vista. I am leaning way more to the 64bit version because I am getting 8gb of ram and want to be able to use that.
I have also been trying to find the specs on my motherboard to see if it will supoort 8gb of memory. Its an ASUS P532N-SLI-Se deluxe.
Also with vista, I am stoked for the DX10. Should be good with my 8800 Ultra :P.
I also do a lot of graphic and web design work with 7+ adobe products so this much ram running lots of programs I think would be benefitcial. What do you guys think?
Kory, you are working in a field where it makes sense to go for Vista x64. As long as you only need a couple of applications from which you know that they work with 64 bit, you probably won’t run into problems. As to your motherboard. Did you check their Web site? They should have this information there. I think most motherboards for desktop PCs still only support 4GB.
I was persuaded to install 64 on my new rig to access the extra memory.
ASUS Striker extreme
Q6700
4 gig ultra low latency memory
8800 GTX Ultra
Raptor 10,000 rpm
24" Dell monitor
Should be great eh?
Nothing but frustration caused by the lack of driver support. Had to replace scanner.
Nikon Cool Pix - no support for 64 bit.
NO USB flash drives work.
Sony HD walkman - no support.
Seagate back drive not recognised.
I installed a hotfix which solved the Seagate problem.
Two days later it unfixed itself and the email from Microsoft with the download info including password disappeared from my inbox!!!
I'm giving it one more week then pulling 64bit out by its teeth!
MOH Airborne - not designed for 64
ArmA - not designed for 64
Let the buyer beware!
i installed windows xp on my c drive and then leter windows vista on d drive somehow i had to reinstall xp and i installed fresh xp on c drive but when i rebot my pc after installation windows vista was disappeared from the start where it used to give me 2 options if to go in windowsxp of in windows vista now windows vista ultimat eversion still lies in my d drive but at the start only windowsxp options come can anyone plz let me know how can i bring back my windows vista option ?
[...] Originally Posted by mgrmgr Any thoughts? And any thoughts on the need or wisdom of going with a 64bit XP or Vista? this info could be userful 4sysops - Vista x64 vs. Vista x86 - 32 bit or 64 bit Vista edition? [...]
Comment by faha — November 7, 2007 @ 11:38 am
"i installed windows xp on my c drive and then leter windows vista on d drive somehow i had to reinstall xp and"
When creating a dual boot rig always install XP first on the D: partion then Vista second on the C: partion. By default, Vista wants and will take the C: partion. Be patient with Vista when starting the install from the CD on a dual boot rig as it can stall on the pretty screen with just the mouse pointer to play with for sometime before it finally continues with the installation. Very frustrating...
MajorDan
@MajorDan
No matter where you will install Vista C: or D: as long you will install XP first and Vista second! If you install XP after Vista then the option to boot in Vista will disappear! You can fix this by booting from Vista installation DVD and chose the repair option(works only your Vista is genuine)!
I'm going to buy Windows Vista but cannot decide if i should get 32bit or 64bit. The computer will mostly be used for gaming and i'm pretty sure that all my hardware supports 64bit.
I now have 2gb ram but will probably upgrade to atleast 4gb in the near future.
My Computer, will probably upgrade in the future:
MSI P35 NEO-F Socket-775 DDR2
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750
2gb 6400 DDR2
8800GT 600Mhz
Samsung Spinpoint T166 SATA2
Samsung DVD SH-S203N
HP w2007v
What should I get? Will most programs support 64bit in the near future or will I have lots of problems if i get it?
Will I be able to play most games? New and old... I suppose most new games work but it's the older ones i worry about.
Thank's for a great article. Unfortunatly i'm still not sure what to get.
It depends on when you plan to upgrade to 4GB. Notice that Vista x86 only supports up to 3GB. However, I suppose most games will do just fine with 2GB. Usually, you only need more RAM if you run multiple apps at the same time. I don’t know much about computer games, but I suppose some of them will have problems with Vista x64. So I would go for the the 32-bit version in your case.
Thank you for the response.
Will I get a lot of problems with x64 or should it mostly work fine.
Is incompatible drivers the biggest problem? It seems like most larger companies like HP, Creative, Logitech, NVidia, AMD has x64 drivers, and some smaller.
I really want this computer to last some time and be able to uppgrade the hardware without changing OS. Do you still think that x64 is a bad choice, because it feels like it will be better for the future.
Drivers are not really the problem if you buy a new computer. As I’ve said before, you might run into problems with some of your games. Games are for the consumer market, Vista x64 is not. That is, most gamers probably use Vista x86. You could just check the specifications of your favorite games to see if they work with Vista x64. I would also ask this question in a games forum. The specialists there might be able to tell you which games have problems with Vista x64.
I have a Emachine T5224 with a Intel Pentium D 820 Processor Dual-Core
64-bit processor with Intel® EM64T Technology.
This computer came with Windows Vista Home Premium 32bit preinstalled. Strange...a 32 bit operating system on a 64 bit PC....
Now, my question is; Is it possible for me to install and upgrade to a Windows Vista 64 bit operating system without having driver issues or will Vista x64 come with all the drivers required?
@ GeirH
Vista comes with its own driver database but I don't recommend using those(It may detect all your hardware or it may not)! The vendor that sell you the PC should have provide you with the drivers (one or more CD's)! Also try to update those from the Internet!
The compatibility of Vista with some older programs is improving almost every month with the updates from Microsoft!
BTW: In general 32bit drivers are not compatible with 64bit OS'es!
I'm looking at a 2 duo processor 2.2 ghz, 800 mhz Intel Cor 2 duo with 4GB. I'm trying to decide between Vista Home Premium 32-bit and Vista Ultimate 64 bit. This is for a college student.
If you are going to run Vista with more than 3GB of RAM you need to use Vista x64.
32-bit versions of windows (XP and Vista) will not use more than 4GB TOTAL. That's including Video RAM and other stuff like I/O mapping. Vista x86 will only see up to about 3.25GB depending on your setup.
I wouldn't recommend running Vista with less than 3GB if you want it to work fluidly. I run Vista x64 with 4GB of RAM and an excessively overclocked AMD x64 processor and it runs smoothly. It didn't run smoothly with only 2GB of RAM and thrashed the hard drive constantly until I added more RAM.
The only real big bummer with x64 is that a lot of printers and scanners and similar such things don't work with it at all. Thankfully, stuff that's labeled Vista Certified is required to work with x64 and x86 flavors of Vista.
In my opinion, you really shouldn't get Vista unless you are going to use the 64-bit version. In a year or two, you'll need at least 4GB of RAM just to use it, and the 32-bit versions leave you stuck. XP 32-bit is fast enough with 3GB of RAM for almost any purpose, so stick with that if you're not going for Vista x64.
BTW: Microsoft is officially supporting all flavors of XP through 2014 for security updates.
I've been running a 64 bit OS for qite a few years now. The bigges mistake I found in your article is saying that 32bit applications will not run faster. That is flat out wrong. I have rendered large 3D scenes and found a huge increase in speed when switching to 64. This is because on the core level it is still executing 64 bit commands. Some scenes rendered in roughly 2/3 the time it did in 32OS. (even though I was still using a 32 bit program)
Even if you programs won't actualy execute faster, all the processes running in the background will, leaving more room for your programs.
As far as compatibility goes, only OS specific software like ativirus software will have to be switched out. But you will be doing that when you switch to Vista 32 anyways. Other than that I have not run into a single program that does not run in 64bit; and I run a LOT of programs.
To me, buying a 32bit OS for a 64bit system is stupid and wastefull. Most hardware companies caught on to the hole 64 bit thing with xp64 (which I ran betas and eventualy the final version). Most of the drivers for Vista 64 are just resigned and tweaked versions of xp64. Unless you have obsolete hardware that probably shouldn't be running Vista in the first place, you should be fine.
The only company who is putting a major drag on 64 is Adobe who, for some reason, still has not made a 64bit flash plug-in for windows or linux. But 64bit Windows comes with a 32bit and 64bit Internet Explorer, so you will be stuck using the 32bit until Adobe "gets around to it."
Why anyone would undermine themselves and get a slower OS is beyond me. But if you still want to get Vista 32 be my guest. Me and my computer will be blazing past you.
Just to anser some questions:
1. No you cannot upgrade Vista 32 to Vista 64 without a fresh install.
2. A 64bit OS cannot use 32bit(x86) drivers.
3. If you can't get a program to run in Vista, it will most likely run in administrator mode and/or legacy mode.
Built a PC just especially to run Vista 64 using an ASUS P5E board with a Intel Q6600 4GB RAM. Running mostly Office 2007 and a few other programs so far no problems, even using the Matrix Raid controller in Raid 10 mode.
My only thought is you can keep a copy of XP in a Virtual PC if you need compatibility for a specific program. Virtual PC 2007 x64 is a very fast emulator and compared to running it on an older machine it can actually be faster, and you can always assign it more memory.
This also allows you to run 16 bit programs etc...
This is a question for Nipitmaster:
What do you think of Xp64 vs Vista64?
I´m convinced to go for 64bit but I´m not sure about Vista. It seems to be using too much resources to play with pretty stuff. I need efficiency and I was happy with Xp looks, still as you said, if I get new 64bit processors, a 32bit OS doesn´t make sense. So is Xp64 more conservative on resources, or is it a lesser Os than Vista?
Thanks in advance
T
If you need a machine for efficiency, XP64 is better for you. XP64 is actually win server 2003 modified to run like XP. Vista is great to look at and it dums down if you need to, but it will never be as fast xp64 in my opinion. Vista has too many features you can't turn off. The only shortcoming of xp64 is less driver support, but as long as do you your homework on each part before you buy it, you'll be fine.
Thanks Nipitmaster for your answer. Still, You seem to say that the driver horizon for xp64 is pretty limited. Could I use a latest generation AMD Phenom 9600 (quad) with xp64 for example? How about ATI graphic cards, SSD drives, and all the peripherals that are available?
Thanks again
T
The best thing to do is go to the vendor's download page to see what drivers are available for XP64. ATI has pretty good XP64 support but is limited on some lines. If you decide to go with XP64, check the driver support for each part before you buy it. It's probably better to find parts that have good vista support just in case you decide to switch in the future.
I know 64bit processors with a 32bit OS doesn´t make sense. I know this, but I just want to run todays apps on futuristic hardware. All my hardware will be 64bit compatable. When im ready to utilize my hardware I can just buy new software. My current software runs 32bit on XP32 and I dont want to deal with driver issues right now. Plus, no hardware will need to be replaced for couple years knowing my comp is 64bit ready.
How significant performance loss will that be?
Joe, Have you tried installing xp64? It might seem like a waste of time and money to most non-geeks but you might want to at least try 64. I don't know where your computer needs lie, (or you comp specs) but you can't really know the difference in YOUR experience until you try 64. Who knows, your hardware might work perfectly. If it doesn't work, oh well, at least you didn't buy Vista for a comp it doesn't work on.
Besides, if you run an OS that most people are too squeamish to use, you'll be safer from some viruses.
As for the performance loss due to using 32 in place of 64, it gets a little blurry. Whenever you are waiting for your computer to crank some numbers (start-up, loading an app, etc..) your wait will be cut by a third. (it did for me, no guarantees) The difference between xp64 and xp32 is different than in vista. Because xp64 is built from Windows Server 2003 x64 and holds a slightly different architecture, it may run even faster than the difference between Vista 32 and 64. It is entirely dependent on the system. Try googling your motherboard to see how other people have experienced 64 on your hardware.
[...] Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows: Windows Vista Feature Focus: 64-Bit (x64) Support Vista x64 vs. Vista x86 - 32 bit or 64 bit Vista edition? | 4sysops If you want to compare the performance of both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista, check link [...]
IMO, a professional programmer that isn't have feature set of man-o-ms shouldn't use 64 -bit versions of MS OSes but anything efficient that if HyperV onx86 editions serves over VMWare with hardware virtualization. 64-bit, that is certainly unmature on MS environment and there no really any need to entrapment on MS if the case is 64bit. It is simply not feasible for worryfree enviroment, specialised hardware and bundled software of mature brands like SUN, IBM, HP on 64-bit nix ware are far better choice i think.
I've been running Vista Ultimate x64 for a few months now and just like philips14c in comment #1, I too got a virus while using Avast. I have since uninstalled Avast and don't ever plan on using it again. My biggest concern though is after I upgraded my Vista x64 to SP1, I had 3gb left on my 20gb partition! Thats ~17gb OS install wtf! I only made my Vista partition 20gb because (without thinking) I assumed that would leave plenty of room for apps; and now I can't get the partition to resize for some reason, I get an error every time. I still have XP installed on another partition and I have been using that a lot more lately.
I have a Dell E521 with 4GB RAM, and it's running WVU x64, I have used vLite and done some bloteware removing so that vista would not be that big on the install.. I realy like the vista x64 ed, better than I do 32-bit ed.. I'm not a gamer, I just do alot of testing app's and encoding AVI's .. this systems ROCKS 🙂
[...] Re: Windows Vista Questions. Vista 32 bit can theoretically support the full 4GB, but your hardware is going to allocate some of the address space (not the physical RAM) to the PCI bus, the video adapter memory address space, and other resources. 32-bit OSs need to use part of the full 4GB address space to address these resources. So effectively approx 3 gig is all you get out of 4 gig of ram . 4sysops - Vista x64 vs. Vista x86 - 32 bit or 64 bit Vista edition? [...]
I've got a question, i just got a new sony vaio sz79gn that pre-installed vista business 32 bit version. Is it possible for me to upgrade it to any vista x64 versions? (I do need a fresh installation, right?) how much does it cost me? and do i need a new cd-key if i only upgrade it to the same vista business x64 version?
Thx!
AW, you may upgrade to any 64 bit vista or 32/64bit Server 2008 editions, shift from 32-bit will require you fresh install as of setup executable is 64-bit. your notebook has 2gb onboard and 2 banks reserved, if you install a 64 bit os on a regular notebook it will possibly bog on faster on it's reduced resources than any desktop or solid mobile workstation. if there isn't solid reasons on 64 bit shift, 32-bit vista business seems pretty efficient and robust for your notebook's profile.
AW, as far as I know you can order the Vista x64 DVD from Microsoft. You have to tell them your product key. I suppose they will send you the DVD only if you have the right to use it.
My Vista Ultimate x64 is pretty slow. I have 2x1GB DDR2 667 RAM and Processor C2D 2.2ghz (E4500) L2 Cache 2MB. My graphics card is PCI-E ASUS GeForce EN8500GT which i don;t find that good for games like NFS Pro Street, but I don;t know for Video Editing and other graphics design software.
I keep checking the usage of RAM, but I see that even at 60% usage the PC takes like 5 seconds sometimes to execute and load a program. Even, when moving from one folder to another, it freezes for few seconds saying "Not Responding".
I'm planning to upgrade my system next year to Core 2 Extreme Quad 2.6ghz at least, with at least 4GB DDR2 1066 RAM. I might want to go for DDR3, but I'm now sure whether or not it would be really worthed. I use Photoshop CS3, Dreamweaver alot, and sometimes Edit Videos.
I also, need to know which Mobo would be the best, that supports at least 8GB RAM and FSB 1066/1333.
Well, anyone there to help me with some information?
Thanks!
Hi Arnav,
I have just upgraded my system and found the Asus P5KC motherboard an excellent choice for the C2Q processor - and it's also great for overclocking.
It has native 1333MHz support.
This Mobo also supports upto 8Gb DDR-II memory, and up to 4Gb DDR-3 if you wish to upgrade later.
Vista 64 works brilliantly on my system and loads quicker than I have ever seen any OS load.
Specs:
C2Q Q6600 (4x 2.4GHz) - G0 Stepping Version
Asus SilentKnight II cooler
- this is brilliant for OC'ing and is very quiet.
Asus P5KC Mobo
Sapphire ATi Radeon 3650HD x 2 (in X-Fire mode)
4Gb DDR-II 667
Soundgraph iMon Ultrabay II
HP LightScribe DVD-RW
NEC LabelFlash DVD-RW
80Gb Seagate SATA-II hdd (boot drive)
160Gb Seagate SATA-II hdd
400Gb WD SATA-II hdd
500Gb WD SATA-II hdd
Plan is to upgrade memory to low latency stuff and get a raptor in place of the boot drive for the 10k speed. Am a little worried though about the heat these must kick out as the ones I have seen come in a heat sink to fill a 5.25" bay!
Hey all,
I have a couple questions I'm finding hard to get definitive answers to on the Vista Ultimate x86 to the x64 Ed migration. My question is this:
I do have a system that I believe to be fully x64 ready (I'll add a breakdown at the end of the post). My only concern is what I have been hearing about this "digitally signed driver" issue. The reason for this is I run gobs of software that has it's own "unsigned drivers" ie Virtual CD/DVD rom mounting software like MagicDisc/MagicISO as well as some other titles. Am I still going to have issues running these apps or has this been fixed by Microsoft / software developers since some of the earlier 2007 threads and posts?
Second, as a "part-time gamer" and "media encoder/enthusiast", how significant of a performance increase can I expect by moving to x64?
Any insight or additional information would be greatly appreciated.
Here is a breakdown of the system I currently use (although not the fastest is does the job =P)
Asus M2N-E SLI mobo w/ X2 4200+
-Cmedia CM6501 onboard audio
2 GB Corsair Dom. 667 DDR2 (willing to upgrade)
2 160 GB WD SATA2's in raid Array
2 BFG 8600GT OC's in SLI
2x 500GB SATA2's for storage (addicted to ripping movies)
here is a questionable hardware piece i run as audio IO for recording studio:
-Creative EMU 1212M PCI pro sound card
Thanks again and look forward to hearing from you all!
As far as unsigned drivers are concerned there are two options. One is to check the website for each program/hardware device you will be using to see if they have signed drivers. (The best option) Your second option (and lesser known) is to enable unsigned drivers at boot time. You can either press F8 each time you boot and select enable unsigned drivers. (not what i would do) or change your boot manager to enable unsigned drivers on its own every time you boot. It entails a few command prompt entries and rolling back a few updates. Here is a guide: http://thebackroomtech.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/howto-disabling-driver-signing-in-windows-vista-64-bit/
@XFactorXXL:
The things with Vista64 are not that bad as people say! I dint had many problems 1 year ago finding drivers and now things are much better!
BTW: MagicDisc/MagicISO works with Vista64, in fact every known disc emulator works with Vista64! And I also believe that there is a Vista64 driver for your sound card!
Check this out:
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/04/daniel_k-who-fi.html
"Creative purposely modified the Audigy drivers to disable some features when Vista is detected and also purposely introduced some bugs to prevent some XP utilities from running."
I guess I will not buy anything from them anytime soon! LOL!
Thank you all for the timely responses! I looked into MagicDisc etc and saw they were in fact x64 compliant, thank you for the info on that as well as the unsigned drivers info .. you put my mind at easy and am planning making the switch this weekend.
Another good thing I found out is after going to the EMU website and researching my Creative E-MU 1212M in the professional equipment pages/daughter website (www.emu.com) I found that they are in fact also fully Vista x64 capable with drivers for download.
If any of you are curious about these cards this is the url for mine...
http://www.emu.com/products/product.asp?category=505&subcategory=491&product=9872
The E-MU® 1212M PCI in a nutshell:
-Mastering grade 24-bit/192kHz converters - the same A/D converters used in Digidesign's flagship ProTools HD 192 I/O Interface delivering an amazing 120dB signal-to-noise ratio
-Comprehensive analog and digital I/O plus MIDI - 12 inputs and 12 outputs, plus MIDI I/O
-Compatibility with most popular audio/sequencer applications - ultra-low latency 24-bit/192kHz ASIO 2.0 and Stereo WDM drivers
-Modular design allows you to customize your system add a MicroDock to your 1212M for increased analog and digital connectivity and/or connect E-MU's Sync Daughtercard to your Digital Audio System for SMPTE, Word Clock and MTC sync
-E-MU Production Tools Software Bundle - includes Cakewalk SONAR LE, Steinberg Cubase LE and Wavelab Lite, Ableton Live Lite 4 for E-MU, IK Multimedia AmpliTube LE and T-RackS EQ, Minnetonka diskWelder BRONZE, SFX Machine LT, plus E-MU's Proteus X LE Desktop Sound Module - everything you need to create, record, edit, master and burn is in the box
I installed Vista ultimate 64 last week and apart from a few problems with flash player not working in firefox (recitified now) I think it's pretty good. Looks better than XP and with service pack 1 seems to be very stable. It seems faster than XP professional to me as well. And I only have a modest system. Obviously if you know certain drivers / software aren't available yet then it's not for you.
-DS3 Gigabyte mobo
2 gig ram
E6300
Help! I have a custom built system with 8gig of ram but when I ordered the system I accidently chose the 32 bit Vista home premium not the 64 bit version. I haven't even turned the system on yet but before I do.. should I get the 64 bit home premium or upgrade to the ultimate 64 bit ?
what are the drawbacks to leaving in the 32bit? will it really not recognize all the ram?
thanks for the help
hi cindi,
First, with 8 GiB of memory you should definetly go for 64-bit editions because 32-bit OSes have 4 GiB direct addressability limit.
If all of your hardware and peripherals have signed drivers you won't have any mojor drawback to mention. 32-bit emulation of 64-bit MS OSes are robust and efficient. Some 32-bit software that has 16-bit deployer may pose a temporary problem during installation until any workaround possibly there available.
Ultimate edition has nearly double the price of Home Premium. Compare editions below and consider if ultimate edition's differences that you need worths the money. If you require Bitlocker Drive Encryption is maybe only reliable difference I can report.
Ithink it is clear that third party media and virtualization softwares are far more successful and efficient than those vista has integrated inside.
If it is a new custom system you may consider having a recent CPU that has a large cache at least 6 MiB cache and 1333 Mhz bus speed that has good price/performance ratio. If it is a mobile system I recommend T9300 CPU at least.
Bye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_editions
http://www.powerdonkey.net/signup3.php
Switched from Win 2k to Vista 64!
HP m9360f
Q9300 (2.5)
8 GB
nVidia 9800GT (512)
Performance is amazing. No driver issues so far. Haven't tested all peripherals as yet.
This article is outdated at this point in time - December 2008 as I am writing this. Compatibility issues have faded as most of the hardware that didn't support 64-bit is reaching the end of it's lifespan anyways. Most PC hardware and peripherals produced since Vista was released support Vista 64.
The biggest problem is printers and scanners, since many older models are still in use at offices everywhere. Scanners can last a very long time and new drivers are rarely released. Because of this, most of the non-64bit compatible hardware doesn't work in any version of Vista anyways. The good news is that printers and scanners are cheaply available and can just be replaced when going to Vista64.
If Vista follows similar path to XP & Win2k, it will effectively require more and more RAM as updates and service packs are released. Getting Vista 32-bit doesn't leave much headroom for that. It takes at least 2GB of RAM to make it run well currently, and only supports a maximum of around 3.5GB. If it grows by 50% or more, like XP has (remember when XP only needed 512MB RAM to be fast?)
All that said... I'd recommend anyone installing Vista on a new machine should use Vista64 and as much RAM as their machine supports. Vista64 is actually a completely different operating system than Vista 32-bit and seems to run a lot faster and smoother in my experience
This article is outdated at this point in time - December 2008 as I am writing this. Compatibility issues have faded as most of the hardware that didn't support 64-bit is reaching the end of it's lifespan anyways. Most PC hardware and peripherals produced since Vista was released support Vista 64.
The biggest problem is printers and scanners, since many older models are still in use at offices everywhere. Scanners can last a very long time and new drivers are rarely released. Because of this, most of the non-64bit compatible hardware doesn't work in any version of Vista anyways. The good news is that printers and scanners are cheaply available and can just be replaced when going to Vista64.
If Vista follows similar path to XP & Win2k, it will effectively require more and more RAM as updates and service packs are released. Getting Vista 32-bit doesn't leave much headroom for that. It takes at least 2GB of RAM to make it run well currently, and only supports a maximum of around 3.5GB. If it grows by 50% or more, like XP has (remember when XP only needed 512MB RAM to be fast?) it'll need 4GB in another year or two.
All that said... I'd recommend anyone installing Vista on a new machine should use Vista64 and as much RAM as their machine supports. Vista64 is actually a completely different operating system than Vista 32-bit and seems to run a lot faster and smoother in my experience.
I use Windows Server 2008 HPC Edition(x64) on my laptop.In my experience its the best OS Microsoft has released so far.Its very stable and is significantly faster than Vista 32 bit editions which I have used(Home Premium and Ultimate).If anyone wants to go for Vista I recommend him to get
Server 2008(either x86 or x64) or HPC edition(only x64) like what I have done.The Server OSes are really "optimized Vistas" and they are how Vista should have actually been.
Driver Support:Most of the Vista x64 drivers work on WS2008 HPC.I dont use Printers and scanners so no comments about the driver support here.Some 32 bit apps like Nero Burning Rom have certain problems in working,but other 32 bit apps work perfectly fine.
Virtualisation softwares work perfectly.PC Games(both DX9 and DX10) also run really fine,some games even better than XP32 and Vista32.Memory Management is really a plus point of this OS.
So in my opinion dont go for Vista32 or 64,instead get WS2008(x64),convert it into a Workstation OS and feel the difference.........and dont forget to get more than 4G ram.
dell vostro 1500
2 gigs 667 mhz ram
nvidia geforce 8400m gs 128mb
intel t5470 core2duo 1.6 ghz
to Peter
I saw your system on Newegg.
Quite decent system for doing anything on workstation.
I hope that it isn't disturbingly noisy as it is a major brand made which is good on efficient thermal discharging.
to chinchin85
Server OSes are more stable than desktop counterparts but Server 2008 has no support for BDA architecture which is new defacto architecture for DVBs TV card drivers. Porting BDA from Vista to WS2K8 doesn't worked for Technisat Skystar 2 card.
Hello
I was wondering about this too and used google for more info and there's a lot to find about this subject.
At the end, those articles / postings of people who compared 32-bit and 64-bit OS in real life (not in theory) and experienced with the 64-bit OS:
1. driver issues have been resolved by now,
2. it is able to address RAM above 4GB and,
3. it even feels faster, subjective
These were enough reasons for me to chose the 64 over 32 version.
One side note ... you think 4GB is more than enough ?
Haha, I remember the time when Microsoft said "640 KB are more than you'll ever need", resulting in the pre-historic burden many generations of PCs carried forward.
We don't need that shit again.
64-bit .... that's it.
[...] encontrado son este artÃculo de Phoronix(algo antiguo), que lo hizo hace tiempo con Ubuntu, y este fantástico análisis de 4sysops que compara Vista x86 (32 bits) con Vista x64 (64 bits) y en el que concluye que en la mayorÃa de [...]
hi, i am using x64bit vista and have no problems, with programs or drivers, till now I discovered only 3-4 games that are not working on x64 vista, even the 32bit programs works great.
I think the virtualisation is also present, because some games need to save the profiles of the player in c:/program files and without permission u can not do that. the program will use the hidden folder for example "C:\Users\%YourUser%\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files\Activision\Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare\players\profiles\" to save the necessary info
[...] regarding windows 7/Vista and mobility modder.. i read here, 4sysops - Vista x64 vs. Vista x86 - 32 bit or 64 bit Vista edition? that with 64 bit OS's u cannot instally unsigned drivers. I thought that the modded drivers are [...]
This is a good example of plain english. Keep up the good work.
Regards
Raymond
I bought an Acer 9410 in 2007 with Vista 32bit.I recently accuried a 64 bit Vista Ultimate.I replaced the hard drive and have 2 gigs of ram.When tring to install the 64 bit it sent a message saying "system wont support Vista 64bit.Is it because of divers,what do I need to to do to get the computer to accept the 64 bit Operationg system.The Acer has a Duo core 186 Intel processor.Please help if you can....Thanx
i am having gateway MD7818u model havin config. 4Gb RAM,500 Gb HD , WINDOWS VISTA HOME PREMIUM,with 64 bit os,having a folder in my c: of program files X86,is it k.wat i want to ask is that X86 is for the 32bit os how come it is showin in my laptop.