32bit or 64bit vista?

I have the option to install either one on my laptop. I am dual booting this with XP. XP will be used mostly for work. My laptop specs are in my sig. I was thinking about teh 64bit because I have 4gb of memory and from what ive read there is a little performance boost. Thanks for any input.

 

Im using 64 bit on my new XPS 1530.. And I love it!

 

I would go with 64 bit. It has worked great for me the few months I have used it.

 

I saw on the HP Website they had 64bit drivers for Vista Buisness and Vista Enterprise. I have Vista Ultimate. I assume the drivers for those would work the same?

 

Ya, They should work just fine.

 

Not too many applications for 64 though.

 

Please stop spreading this FUD. You are insinuating that one must have all 64-bit applications to run on a 64-bit OS, and that is absolutely false. Almost all 32-bit applications run with no problems on the 64-bit version.

 

Orev, it really amazes me how myths seem to live forever and ever. The fact is 64-bit does not have nearly the compatibility and driver issues it once had. Yet, something is posted everyday about how this or that doesn't work in 64-bit or how there are still rampant driver issues. I just don't understand it.

 

monkeyman, i am disappointed in you.

 

What is FUD?

Let's see I'll try with other words to make myself better understood, this is just an example, ok? Let's say we have an anitvirus called AV4YOU, and a great game called DON'T PANIC, both work on a 32 platform, but they would be much, much faster if they were done for a 64 platform, then it would be good if they would exist for the 64 platform, BUT THEY JUST DON'T.

What do you think, is it more clear now?

Here I have another analogy, would you buy a car with a pulling factor to pull heavy boats, but you will only use it to pull a very small trailer because in your city we don't sell big boats?

 

32 bit applications run at the same speed on 64 bit vista as they would on 32 bit vista.

FUD: fear, uncertainty, doubt.

 

Of course, but what about an application called AP, it comes on 32 and 64 flavors, which one do you think it will run faster in 64 platform?

 

Neither. They will both run the same. 64-bit is NOT about speed. You do NOT get some magical speed boost just by switching to 64-bit. The benefits of 64-bit are that it allows you to have a more stable and secure system, and access to more RAM. If your applications need the RAM, then you will get the performance that way.

The raw speed of any app running on 64 vs 32 is virtually the same.

 

^^ what he said.

 

Not completely correct. Programs that work with very large numbers or very high precision decimal values can run faster if optimized for 64 bit. That said, almost all programs out today are highly optimized for 32 bit environments, so you won't see much if any benefit on 64 bit. However, 64 bit can be conceivably faster, it's not just urban myth.

Also, the claim that 64 bit is inherantly more secure to 32 bit is a falicy. 64 bit hardware allows faster processing of stronger encryption, which effectively increases security, but it is not an inherant quality of the fact that the system is 64 bit. 32 bit can be just as or more secure than 64 bit, but it will run slower at the same level of encryption. This is related to the first paragraph in regards to working with large numbers.

 

The claim that 64-bit is more secure has nothing to do with encryption or data processing. It's because Intel/AMD processors running in 64-bit mode allow the enabling of the DEP protection which greatly reduces the effectiveness of buffer overflow attacks. Also 64-bit allowed Microsoft to make some changes to how drivers are structured, improving the overall stability. They also added the driver signing requirement.

It's not directly related to 64-bit computing, but it is part of the Vista 64-bit OS as a whole.

 

I have to admit that 64-bit Vista is awfully stable. It doesn't seem quite so badly plagued with the stability issues that come with other versions of Windows, including Vista 32-bit. It runs and feels a lot like Windows Server 64-bit, in fact.

 

That's not true at all, I have no idea why you don't see it.

Let's say that you can read or load 64 bits of data in one second (it's just an example), then you have an application written for 32 bits data transfert in one second, then you put it in the 64 bits platform, then it will perform as the same as in the 32 bit platform, but what about if I modify the script and now I can transfer 64 bits in one second, is it slower or faster as per you?

Games in special are very data hungry as they play with all these colors and forms and images resolution and motion, and high FPS, if the application can deliver 64 bit data to the platform it will definitely work faster if it was designed with a 32 bits data limitation.

It is not faster at this moment because we are still running 32 bits applications, but it would be another thing if they were real 64 bits applications.

If you don't understand this, I don't know what you will.

 

In your case, going 64 bit would be advantageous for the OP because you are bound to use a couple 64 bit apps, leading to faster computing. With no loss of raw speed since 32 bit will work just as fast as it did before.

 

Cool, thanks for the info. But yeah, it is still true that 64 bit computing isn't inherantly more secure; it is a function of the specific software and hardware that just happens to be 64 bit.

 

The reason why I don't see it is because it's not there to see. 64-bit data structures allow for wider data, but that doesn't make it 2x faster. It's like saying which is faster:

• a 10 foot truck full of DVDs driving at 55MPH
• a 20 foot truck full of DVDs driving at 55MPH

They are both going at the same speed, but the 20 foot truck is getting more throughput. Most computer applications rely on sending more trucks, not bigger ones.

An application written for 64-bit will have 64-bit integers, 64-bit real numbers, 64-bit pointers, etc... But if your calculations don't need the extra space, as many don't, then those extra bits are sitting there unused. They don't get used for something else. The size of the data is not like a school bus where you can fill up part of it, then if you have room left over you can put more bits into it.

Yes, some apps will benefit, especially those that do a lot of calculations, like 3d renderers, photoshop, etc... but for a majority of apps it's like adding another CPU core, it's nice, I guess, but it doesn't even really make sense to use it.

 

orev, he's basically agreeing with you. You both aknowledge that with native 64 bit apps, 64bit will run faster, but most apps aren't 64 bit. Also, to say that the bits sit there "unused" is immaterial. If you are doing arithmatic on 64 bit wide variables, it will operate on all 64 bits whether only the lowest order bit is on or if all of them are. Running calculations with 64 bit variables will ALWAYS take longer on 32 bit hardware, regardless of the actual value stored in the variables. The reason 64 bit is not noticibly faster now is because developers do everything they can to use 32 bit variables, because they do run so much faster on most current environments. Make no mistake though, when developers start making regular use of 64 bit variables, REGARDLESS OF VALUES OF THOSE VARIABLES, 64 bit will run faster.

 

Of course, it is worth noting that it is the HARDWARE that makes the biggest difference here, so even if the OS is 32 bit, if it is aware and capable of utilizing the full width of the CPU, it can approach the speed efficiencies of a native 64 bit OS on 64 bit hardware.

 

So, 32bit or 64bit vista?

Because orev, sirmetman and my comments, I think the right conclusion would be, is useless to go 64 bit for the moment, cuz the lack of 100% 64 bit applications, but as these application start making surface in the market, a 64bit platform will make sense indeed. I think adobe is already transitioning into 64 bit. Another reason to wait to get a 64 bit, is to allow time to solve the many glitches of the 64 bit Vista.

 

64 bit Vista is fine. I went for it. It's just irrational/unfounded fear for the most part that keeps people off of Vista 64.

 

I guess you are all set for when the 64 applications will start coming up, that's a good thought too.

 

monkey, how long did u use vista 64?

i disagree, vista 64 bit is fine for the majority of vista users

the bs about drivers is way overblown!!

 

LOL, if more people started using 64 bit OSes, more developers would develop 64 bit applications. So it's not useless to go to 64 bit, its actually beneficial.

 

There are plenty of 64-bit applications out now. http://www.start64.com.

Also, MS isn't exactly new to the 64-bit thing. Windows XP 64-bit has been out for a few years, as well as Server 2003 64-bit. Vista x64 isn't some radical concept, it's pretty straightforward. Note also that Vista is code-aligned with Server 2008, which means an extra bit of confidence since that's somewhere MS doesn't want to screw up.

Please name the "many glitches" in Vista x64.

 

I'm curious of which "many glitches" of 64bit vista you are referring to.

 

To those that people post here in the forum.

 

One question, how many data/address/control lines has a serial bus in a 64 platform?

 

I don't have it, so it is not a personal thing if is that what you are trying to alude to.

Allow me to retrack myself, useless wasn't probably the best word, the Op was asking 32 or 64 vista, and my answer was, depending on the use I think 32 is the best for now.

64 Vista has done certainly much better than XP 64, I agree.

 

What serial bus are you talking about? All serial busses have only data TX/RX, then maybe a control line. That's maybe 3 or 4 lines. That's what "serial" means, it sends one at a time.

Chips on a motherboard use a parallel bus, but the number of lines depends on the architecture. They might decide to use 64 lines, or they might multiplex the data over fewer lines.

In any case, that's seems totally irrelevant here.

 

monkey

all I'm trying to allude to is that in my mind you are putting down 64 vista, trying to make a case of why most users should NOT go to x64--> when you obviously have never personally used the OS yourself and have no actual/personal knowledge of any glitches in it. And others that post BS are, IMO, in the same boat. They continue to perpetuate myths about Vista x64-- and that's what most of them are, myths and exaggerations...........

And Dual Core processores (and Quads)are a perfect match/fit for Vista 64

 

Sorry, I was talking of the FSB, Front Side Bus, delete serial, I just wrote too fast.

So, if it was a 64 lines as per the architecture, would you agree then that a full 64 application would run faster than the same application written for 32.

 

Obviosly you are taking this personal again, the threads are open to everyone so they can share their opinion, if you think I'm BS then you should keep it for yourself because is irrelevant to the question on this thread.

You should answer to the OP not to me, unless is something constructive.

I have nothing against the 64 OS, and I was planning to upgrade last month, but based on my use I have decided to wait.

Now, I may have discoverd through this thread that a 64 OS might not be related to the mobo architecture, and that is a good info influencing me to wait until I have a 64 mobo.

 

I disagree on this point. A 64-bit OS is not only potentially faster, but it also has some amazing security features; for instance, remote connection attacks are 99% impossible against x64 Vista.

More on this here: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x64.asp

Not to mention that x64 is the stepping stone for moving on to better hardware; people will have to switch to x64 sooner or later as more applications demand more RAM.

 

I apologize, it was really a poor choice the word "useless", I do think the 64 OS is potentially faster, but why to pay more for the OS if today you can only run the same programs for 32 and a handfull 64's, that's was my point. Furthermore, what I'm hearing now is that the "64" is disconnected from the actual FSB capacity of the mobo, in other words it doesn't take advatage of the extra lines (32 to 64) available in the mobo.

Please keep teaching us, this is a great subject!

 

Applications will not get across the board improvement from migration to 64 bit. The only places benefits will be seen is where larger integer values and/or larger or more precise floating point values can be levereaged for speed. That is far from all applications.

 

There are too many factors involved to answer such a question. Now we're getting deep into hardware design, which is not really so relevant, nor would it have a significant difference in performance.

My bottom-line points are these:

• 64-bit Vista will work just fine for many people, so it's not useful or fair to repeat rumors meant to scare people away from it.
• 64-bit is not about performance, it's about the next step. 32-bit has been around for a long time, and 64-bit is the future. You might get performance as a side-effect of 64-bit, but it's not the main point.

 

no, not personal in the least

i just feel that persons that have used the OS themselves have a much better grasp of the pros and cons of an OS, compared to someone that read someone else's comments, that read another's comments, etc.......

And to show you even further that it's not personal I'll give you a hint on how to make better posts-- if you use Firefox, turn on your spell check. If you use IE 7, get Pro and use it's spell check. Hope you find that helpful my friend.

 

But, if after processing data we can sent it to the video card for instance in packet of 64 rather than 32, wouldn't this speed up the overall process? Now, doesn't the RAM architecture match a 64 lines rather than 32? In other words, is very diffferent to get out of the RAM just 4 bytes at a time than to get out 8 bytes, isn't it?

I think what I need is to understand better the "64" OS nomenclature, I think I'm confusing it with the mobo architecture, but again, shouldn't they go hand by hand, the OS and the architecture?

 

Good advice!

And don't forget, I'm also internally debating whether I should go up to 64 or not, so the final answer on this thread is very valuable for me too.

 

WOA! what happend to my thread lol. Well I got it installed and having used 32bit just before this I can tell you that the Windows Experience score was dead on the same. Also my NOD32 would not work with the 64bit version. Apparently it will only support 32bit. Other then that its working great.

 

What, you just read it?

 

lol yeah. I didn't get an email notice until about an hour ago and the last time I checked was yesturday. Great info and thx to all for the replys.

 

Excellent article, this confirms my concerns about hardware, drivers and applications incompatibilities.

One thing I didn't see though, the processing speed factor, do you have an article on that subject?

 

Monkey

remember that the article was last updated almost 1 1/2 years ago...........

while some basic information is still valid, a lot is not...........

 

It's weird when people say certain antivirus programs don't work in 64-bit. I am running Kaspersky Internet Security 7.0 in 64-bit, and it runs flawlessly.