64-bit vs. 32-bit Vista...advantages / disadvantages

In view of the fact that Vista is not overly expensive when going the OEM route, I think I might get Windows Vista after all. I wanted the Ultimate, but I will settle for the Home Premium version. I can get it for $119 at TigerDirect.com…not bad. I’ll buy it in a month or so with my tax return.

My question for those in the know:

Should I get the 64-bit version since I have an AMD Athlon 64…or would having the 64-bit version be more troublesome in regard to drivers and such? This is an advantages / disadvantages over 64-bit vs. 32-bit Vista thread. Advice please…thanks. :slight_smile:

have a look here

anyway imho it will be a good idea to wait until sp1 is released before using it on a daily basis , also by that time there will be better driver/software compatbility

I will run Vista in a multi-boot setup (being 2nd after XP Pro) until the “bugs” are worked out. I can just download sp1 when it comes out.

Thanks for the good link…I’m reading. :slight_smile:

In regards to 32bit vs. 64bit, it all depends on what you’re doing. If you’re doing some heavy number crunching or large database parsing type stuff then sure, go with the 64 bit as it addresses memory more efficiently. However, for the regular Joe 6-pack they’ll never see any advantage to it. At least they won’t for a long long time. It’s not like it was when going from 16 bit to 32 bit back in the day.

Besides, the 64bit version of Vista has some heavy DRM involved. We wouldn’t want that now, would we? :wink:

I’m running the 64bit version of Home Premium, after evaluating both the 32bit and 64bit versions of Vista from the very early beta’s.

[B]Pro’s 64bit[/B]
It is noticeably faster than the 32 bit version in all areas (perhaps because of better memory management on systems with more than 1GIG of RAM).
The desktop is faster and all applications seem to start faster.
Most well known applications run perfectly well on the 64bit version.

Some forward planning is needed as the 64bit version of Vista requires 64bit Vista drivers, unlike the 32bit version where you can in some cases use XP drivers.
64bit drivers are in some cases primitive compared to the 32bit version.

To sum up.
If you have 64bit Vista drivers for all your hardware. I would go for the 64bit version. :slight_smile:

I have 1.5GIG of RAM.

Thanks…I’m leaning toward the 64-bit.

It’s a catch22. From my experience with Vista RC2, 64-bit runs much better than 32-bit (agree with [B]Dee-27[/B] on the speed), but then you need “signed” 64-bit drivers for all your hardware. And although 32-bit software will run in 64-bit Windows, you’re not getting any additional advantage there.

I stopped using 64-bit Vista end of last year because there was no driver for my Matrox video-card and no SATA-RAID drivers for my mobo either. The disappointment was ever bigger with 32-bit when I couldn’t burn DVD’s properly on my nForce3 system. Look at the following “Create Disc” images and the Buffer and CPU Usage graphs.

First screenshot is 32-bit Vista, buffer and CPU go all funky in the second half of the burn. And this is only an RW-disc at 6X speed, 16X speed burning is out of the question. Second image is 64-bit Vista, rock steady buffer and low CPU usage all the way (CPU spikes at the beginning are just Vista doing its thing, file indexing or defender scanning, who knows - there was a lot of hard disk activity). Both are spanking clean installs on the same system as found in my sig, which I did this afternoon - to check that everything I’ve been saying here previously wasn’t a fluke :stuck_out_tongue: . Changing from (Vista provided) nVidia IDE drivers to standard IDE drivers on 32-bit didn’t improve the issue.

Everything for x32 I’ve used (with the exception of Antivirus programs) seems to work fine on X64 :slight_smile:

Except Dvd playback … no “protected digital path”, my arse :a:a:a

It’s Ok though, I’ll just download the Divx rips from P2P rather than buying more DVD’s. Divx/Xvid avi’s play fine :stuck_out_tongue:

This is somewhat of a sticking point for me in regard to the 64-bit version:

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

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

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


PatchGuard… :frowning:



OK, spent some more time with Vista RC2 since Matrox has come out with drivers for the G550. It was a bit confusing as in 32-bit they would download via Windows Update, but not so in 64-bit. On 32-bit they still crash like the XP-drivers I used previously (garbled image requiring a reboot). 64-bit works fine in this department as well, now that a “digitally signed” driver is available.

So I’m all for 64-bit Vista and have to advise anyone with an nForce3 board against buying the 32-bit version. Not only is it more sluggish ([B]Dee[/B], was it on your nF4 system that you noticed this? I’m thinking it may be specific to nForce. At least nF4 is supported with nVidia drivers now), but the DVD-burning problem really kills it for me.

There’s another problem with nForce3 + X2 Dual Core + ATI AGP-cards (Error Code 43), which I’m sure nVidia isn’t eager to solve (I only saw this in 64-bit with a Radeon 9200). So let’s hope nVidia will still do something for nForce3 users (http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/11832).

The better performance with the 64 bit version is noticable on all my systems.
PC1 Dual core 2 duo E6600 (Intel I975x) 2 GIG ram Graphics nVidia 8800 GTS
PC2 Althlon Dual core 4400+ (nForce 4 SLI) 2 GIG ram: Graphics nVidia 6600TD
PC3 P4 3.2GIGhz (Intel 915) 1 GIG ram: graphics nVidia 7300GS

I’ve not had problems burning media on any of my systems though, either with the 32 or 64 bit versions. So i think you may be right in saying this a problem related to the NF3 chipset.

I should say, that once a 32bit application is running, there is no real difference here on the 32bit or 64bit systems. Where i really notice the difference is in using the desktop, file copy, IE7 64bit etc etc.

As for the few 64bit applications i have, then there is no contest. The 64 bit version is simply awesome.:smiley:

What 64-Bit apps do you use? What about 64-Bit games? It’s been a while since I really checked into that…are they coming out yet?

I’m still leaning to 64-Bit. I think I’ll have a few extra headaches with the 64-Bit at first, but I just feel like 32-Bit is a step back. I want to move forward into the 64-Bit future. I don’t think it will be that long until a lot of software has a 64-Bit counterpart. Anyway, I don’t mind if I need to boot into XP for a few apps until I get Vista working the way I want it.

Most 32B apps work fine in X64 version.
You find a few which don’t … And then you’ll figure out which ones you really need, aye?

Can you still rip a DVD…and if so, will the rip play?

it is always better to go with the 64 bit version if everything (your hardwares and softwares) is fully compatible.

I’m running Vista 64-bit now - I can play DVDs, both originals and back-ups, with NO problem. I didn’t even use extra software. WMP will run them. :smiley: :stuck_out_tongue:

The following versions have a MS DVD decoder inbuilt:
Home, Home premium & Ultimate.

The business editions, you are on your own :stuck_out_tongue:

Have you tried with an RPC1 dvd firmware? :slight_smile:

Okay…I didn’t remember you had the Business Edition.

Yes. It is running fine in a P4 3.2GHz, 512MB RAM, Mobo with intel 765 chipsets and using on board video. The drive is an older NEC 2500@2510 with latest RPC1 firmware.

I tested DvdFabDecrypter, DVD Shrink and ImgBurn.

No issues so far.

I can also do this with an RPC1 firmware and the result plays fine on any other system.
Have you tried actually playing a DVD (either original or copy) on an RPC1 drive with Vista x64 - business version OS?