Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

[System]

After building a new computer and pulling stuff from my old one, IE the OS, I need to go out and buy a new OS so I can put this old OS on my old computer.


Basically, My thoughts are to get a 64-bit Vista home premium OS so that it'll run smooth and utilize 4gbs of ram.

From what my friend has told me though, he says 64-bit sucks. Nothing is compatable with it, yet. He owns a 64-bit xp os so its not just a random comment.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to ask if the speed difference between 32 and 64 is really noticable?

Bottom line is:

32-bit has freedom with a 3GB ram limit

64-bit is somewhat isolated, but faster and can access 3+ gb of ram - not in its prime yet.

[Minicoop503]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

well, your freind has xp 64 bit, which is different than vista 64 bit.

I dont think xp 64 bit really ever caught on that great, but I think since vista is all new and stuff, the 64 bit will be supported.

as for speed, I've never tried 64 bit before, but I would think it would be faster. Ill leave that answer to someone else..

[System]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

Yeah, I agree xp 64 bit never caught on good and now with Vista being released in 32/64 bit packs, it will catch on better thus bringing more support to the 64bit side.

But I wasn't trying to say anything about XP, just curious as to whether 64 bit is worth buying yet. I think in the end I'll buy 2 gigs ram and a new HD with vista 64. That way I can boot up on xp 32 or vista 64.

[camper.]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

64 bit is worth buying, yes. You can always run a 32-bit OS on dual-boot...

[Sir. S.A.S]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

i run xp pro x64 and vista ultmate x64. And i can say x64 is quick and seems to be more efficent than x86 to me!

[Stormy{CAN}]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

Vista 64 here, and have had zero problems with it so far. Haven't had any driver problems despite what everyone seems to think. Everything just feels quicker in 64, even if most programs are still 32 bit. As far as that goes the longer that Vista has been out there are more programs that are starting to come out that are native 64 bit as well (don't remember the list but there are a few games that are getting 64 bit patches, Far Cry being one of the first quite some time ago).

Also Nvidia seems to be finally getting their thumbs out as far as Vista drivers go. They just released another set of drivers for both 32 and 64 bit Vista today, and the BF2 performance (only game I tried so far) has gone up.

[System]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

Hmm, looking nice for 64bit (as I thought it would).

Though performance isn't an issue for me, I'm just not content to sit on a 64-bit capable system and run it at 32bits. It just sounds wrong, Like eating cold "hot" dogs when you have a nice bon fire next to you - you just don't do that!!!

[BoloMarkXXX]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

I work on computers for a living XP x64 is the best OS ever, however x64 drivers are not profitable so hard to come by. On the right hardware you cant beat it. I do run x32 XP in VirtualPC 2007 x64 as an app like any other just to print to my wifes old Lexmark printer.

XP Pro x64

Cons:

1. Driver support, But if you do your homework on your hardware and are tech savvy its not a problem.

2. Hates cheap or older hardware.

Pros:

1. Supports 128 gig on-board RAM and 16 terabytes Virtual memory.

2. Runs x64 apps.

3. All my games scream on it.

4. Very stable and fast x64 Server kernel and memory management.

5. I actually utilize ALL of my x2 x64 AMD processor

Theres more but I have to go to work.

[bspun3D]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

i had my xp x64 since it came out and i loved the ride. never had a driver problem cept 1 thing damn web cam! seemed like no company wanted to release web cam drivers imo. its been rock solid for me other wise when i get vista i will definitely be getting the 64 bit version.

[gankjer697]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

Vista 64 is slower than 32 bit XP. There are almost no games written that have been written to take advantage of any 64 bit OS. So far the only benefit to 64 bit OS's seems to be the ability to take advantage of insane amounts of RAM. But as things are right now 2 gigs outperforms 4 gigs on every test i've ever seen, so what good having 6 terabytes of ram is beyond me. I have yet to see any reason to give Microsoft money for Vista. I really think the majority of people shelling out the $ for it are simply going for the new look of the OS and not looking at what it actually is. All of the window dressings and fancy little "features" Microsoft put into Vista doesn't mean crap to me. There are a hundreds of programs to make XP look as good or better than Vista. And the Digital Rights Management built into vista is pure BS. No thanks microsoft, I won't be paying an insane amount of $ for an OS that so far has underperformed your last OS. All I ask for is a stable, efficient OS that does what I want (Not what Microsoft wants). But I guess eye-candy sells....

[System]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

Well thats quite the storm there. This is opinionated but I'd rather read facts than huge exagerations (yes, some of it was true too).

Vista 64 is slower than 32 bit XP.

Maybe. I can see someone with minimum requirements for vista saying this but I'm sure vista runs faster when you exceed the bare minimum as I read it starts faster than XP, that was vista 32 bit I might add too.

There are almost no games written that have been written to take advantage of any 64 bit OS.

No, not many probably. However, more drivers are coming out from what I've read and from being a consumer, 64bit is getting a piece of the stage now. By that I am stating that a year ago I didn't know it even existed, now 64bit is talked about a lot. So and so will support 64bit, comes in 64 bit - get my drift? Something is cooking...

So far the only benefit to 64 bit OS's seems to be the ability to take advantage of insane amounts of RAM. But as things are right now 2 gigs outperforms 4 gigs on every test i've ever seen, so what good having 6 terabytes of ram is beyond me.

Please try not to exagerate that much...

As for comparing the 2 gigs vs 4 gigs, I can't say I've seen tests to prove anything yet. One thing I can't see though is 2 gigs of ram outperforming 4 gigs. Though, all the ram does is hold the information your accessing - So for someone who multi tasks I think they would notice a difference vs a gamer who optimizes his/her computer to run one task at a time for pure performance...

I have yet to see any reason to give Microsoft money for Vista. I really think the majority of people shelling out the $ for it are simply going for the new look of the OS and not looking at what it actually is. All of the window dressings and fancy little "features" Microsoft put into Vista doesn't mean crap to me. There are a hundreds of programs to make XP look as good or better than Vista. And the Digital Rights Management built into vista is pure BS. No thanks microsoft, I won't be paying an insane amount of $ for an OS that so far has underperformed your last OS. All I ask for is a stable, efficient OS that does what I want (Not what Microsoft wants). But I guess eye-candy sells....

Ok thats just vista. From what I hear too, its crap. But I think XP had its problems too when it was first released. Surely enough, its got a SP1 and SP2!!! Vista will prolly follow in its foot steps...

As it stands right now, buying Vista home premium 64-bit is cheaper than xp-pro 64-bit. So thats why I said I'd get vista and not xp. I personally am happy with XP.


I respect your opinion but Someone who runs a 64bit system was just sayng how great it is and fast. Then you come along and trash it, yet you've only indicated that you read things not to mention over exagerated.

[bspun3D]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

if drivers are scarring u go to the companies sites and check that the have vista 64 bit drivers. for 2 or 3 years i couldnt use my webcam from logitech till vista came out and them bums finaly made a windows x64 drivers for it. like i said it was my only gripe with x64. my x64 comp runs rock solid 24/7.

[gankjer697]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

I first want to say that I am a fan of 64 bit OS's. I, like you, want only the best performing system possible.

2gig Vs. 4 gig:
There have been many tests on this debate, I was going to link the latest I have read but if you dig deep enough you will find it. From all the tests I have found the "sweet spot" for RAM right now is 2 gigs. I agree with you that this should not be the case. It's more of the developers (of both games and operating systems) catering to the masses rather than striving for the best performance possible. Not too long ago DICE was (if you can believe it), with it's B1942 series,a cutting edge software developer in developing a game that challenged our systems and required a large amount of RAM. The move from 1 gig to 2 gigs as "the Norm" was not an easy one. I'll get a link for you ASAP, but I belive it may have been Anandtech that did the latest "4 vs 2" memory benchmarks.

Vista vs XP
I'll start out with a comparison of Vista 32 bit Vs Vista 64 bit. PC world mag, Feb 2007, pg 20: "Apps run faster on 32-bit windows Vista"...Now keep in mind, this is NOT Vista vs XP, but Vista 64 bit vs 32 bit Vista, and 32 bit vista wins. Now don't get me wrong, I do not believe this should be the case, I think 64 Bit applications have the POTENTIAL to outperform 32 bit, but as of yet they have not. Only a few games such as DOOM 3 running in extreme high-res have been able to slightly outperform 32bit while running in 64 bit.
I have read quite a few benchmarking articles comparing Vista to XP, but the best summary I have found is on page 60 of CPU magazine, March 2007 issue. A few highlights:
"...Vista has MUCH more operating system overhead than WinXP..."
"...Microsofts stated goal is to be within 10 to 15 % of Win xp..."
"...generally, in benchmarkings such as 3Dmark03 and 06, Vista measured between 3 and 18% slower than XP,but some games felt slower than that..."
There are many other issues addressed in that article, but that gives you an idea of what both Microsoft and an independent magazine (CPU) have summerized about Vista.
Has XP had problems? Hell yeah it has. I'm no "FanBoi" of XP by any means, I just am not sold on Vista as a solution to everyones' quest for a decent OS. And I do have a dual-boot system with XP64 pro as one of my OS's. Granted, I have not played with xp64 for awhile just due to the fact that it did not outperform my 32 bit os and driver issues were there. (This was around the time that BF2 first came out, maybe these issues have been resolved now, maybe I'll crack open xp64 again and see if it can do better,but I don't expect much).
As a power PC user, I want 64 bits to be mainstream as much as anyone, but up til now it's been nothing but a disappointment. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, however. 64 bit Op's in Vista do outperform 32 bit in multitasking ops, with a dual core + processor. This can only mean that given the right aps, 64 Bit procs CAN outperform 32 bit systems. But we already knew that they COULD.......now lets see some real world performance benefits. Til then, no Vista for this amigo.

This sums it up better than my limited intelligence will allow:

http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3135&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=0

One other thing that really bugs me about Vista, see the little sidebar with the clock, news ticker, and stock ticker etc? Well guess what? Any XP user can use Sidebar (a free download at cNet.com) and get that same exact interface on XP. Nothing gained there in Vista. Now so many are calling Vista's new interface "awesome" etc. that I wonder just exactly what they are looking at. I have run apps that do everything that little Vista sidebar can do and MUCH more and have been, quite frankly, totally unimpressed. I mean, if you want to check your local weather or stock quotes, isn't it easy enough to open your browser and hit your fav site rather than have an app constantly running in the background and eating up resources? The one exception to this I have found is objectdock: it just plain rocks. It is one of the very , very few apps that I will keep running on my comp in the background even while playing BF2/2142 just because it works so well. Other than that, why have system apps running in the background like that in Vista???

[Stormy{CAN}]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

.Vista has MUCH more operating system overhead than WinXP

Why yes it does. Vista's memory management is also far superior to XP's. Open BF2 with Task Manager open (dual monitors helps) and you can see Vista move almost everything over to the pagefile even before the game has really started to load, that's Superfetch in action. Yes Vista uses more memory than XP when just in Windows, but Vista also frees it up faster and more efficiently than XP.

One other thing that really bugs me about Vista, see the little sidebar with the clock, news ticker, and stock ticker etc? Any XP user can use Sidebar

Been there, done that. Only difference is I have Vista so I used the real Vista Sidebar in XP,

http://www.aeroxp.org/board/index.php?showtopic=7728

An addition to the memory bit above involves the Sidebar and the latest version of Everest. Everest now comes with built in Sidebar support allowing you to see anything that Everest can monitor (cpu usage/temps, memory usage, etc). Have used it in both Vista and XP, and while Vista can be using somewhere between 3-500 mb more when just in Windows than XP, once a game or other memory intensive app is launched the difference is usually less than 100 mb.

Also as far as memory usage goes there is an old saying that "unused memory is wasted memory". So what is the big deal if while just in Windows if Vista uses the memory and frees it up as needed. It has also been shown on numerous sites that Aero has little to no affect on gaming whether it is enabled or disabled.

in benchmarkings such as 3Dmark03 and 06, Vista measured between 3 and 18%

Can't speak about ATI drivers other than what I have read as I have an Nvidia card, but 2-3 months ago when the article you are referring to (a link would be nice) was written Nvidia's Vista drivers for the most part sucked. For me up until the release of the 158.XX series of drivers almost all games were unplayable in Vista due to stuttering (and for a lot of others), but since the new drivers came out games for me have been nice and smooth. So maybe the articles author needs to revisit his tests using the latest drivers.

As for the comments about 3d Mark same thing applies. Using the latest drivers at least for me the scores are a lot closer to what I was getting in XP (less than 5%, which can happen in XP just between one run and another).

Another advantage of Vista over XP is that Vista supports multi-threading natively without the need of an extra driver. And I can also attest that while BF2 is not a multi-threaded app it does benefit from it on Vista, as I just recently changed from a single core A64 to a dual core a the difference in BF2 is quite noticeable.

And yes I am running Vista 64 and have had zero driver problems.

For anyone that thinks all Vista is is XP with a fancy new interface you might want to give this a read,

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

[gankjer697]

Re: Q - 32-bit vs 64-bit pros/cons?

Hey if you like it and it works for you, great! Personally, I have not actually tried it myself, as every single article both online and in mags that I have read has not given me one reason to buy it. I realize that Vista has been designed to work better than XP, it just in real world aps does not (yet). Also since I use my computer for professional applications as well as gaming, I cannot risk upgrading to an OS that has not only been verified to have stability issues, but data loss and corruption issues as well.
Native multi-threading? Yes I believe Vista does do this one particular task better than XP, as I stated above it has shown some advantages over XP on dual-core+ processors running multi-threading benchmarks. But that is the only area I have seen it do anything better than XP as of yet.

Do I want Vista to work? Of course. Who doesn't want a fancy new OS that can run our new dual and qaud - core systems better. As of yet, Vista has not delivered.

Perhaps the best review I have seen:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMxOCw5LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Conclusion: A lemon.

And then there is this nice little feature that Vista gives you for free:
"Another common criticism concerns the integration of new forms of Digital Rights Management into the operating system, specifically the Protected Video Path (PVP), which involves technologies such as High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) and the Image Constraint Token (ICT). These features have been added to Vista due to an agreement between Microsoft and major Hollywood studios.[10] Microsoft claims that movie studios and other providers of "premium content" will only allow their data to be played back on PCs if sufficient protection is granted. This will concern, among other things, play-back of protected content on HD-DVD and Blu-ray discs.

In essence, the Protected Video Path mandates that encryption must be used whenever content marked as "protected" will travel over a link where it might be intercepted. This is called a User-Accessible Bus (UAB). Additionally, all devices that come into contact with premium content (such as graphics cards) have to be certified by Microsoft.[10] Before playback starts, all the devices involved are checked using a Hardware Functionality Scan (HFS) to verify if they are genuine and have not been tampered with. Devices are required to switch off or artificially degrade the quality of any signal outputs that are not protected by HDCP. Additionally, Microsoft maintains a global revocation list for devices that have been compromised. This list is distributed to PCs over the Internet using normal update mechanisms. The only effect on a revoked driver's functionality is that high-level protected content won't play — all other functionality, including low-definition playback, is retained.[10][11]
"

Doesn't that just sound dandy?