64 bit and 32 bit Vista differences

Compatibility issues if ussing 64 bits which computers can take advantage of this?

 

It's more software issues.

 

Hardware support is good in Vista 64. Software wise, its Vista and probably not the x64 architecture causing compatibility issues.

 

I have found very very few things that work in vista x86 that wont work in vista x64. Those few things happen to be software from like 2004 or earlier at that and are no longer supported.

 

32bit is Nice

 

For the last millennium yeah...sure.
32 bit is nice only for 32 bit CPUs. 64 should go with 64.

 

64 bit will be nicer when everything moves to it

 

unless you're using over 2 gigs of RAM, you really don't need to use a 64-bit OS just yet.

 

if you plan on increasing ram from 2gb to 4gb then get 64, just to future proof a little bit.

 

Software, devices, and drivers are not all up to 64-bits yet on the PC operating systems. Been generally available on mainframes since around the turn of the last century, though.

Read this for more info on where Microsoft is with it.

 

I Second the statements above. I have only experienced minor glitch in few non 64bit software. (like right click menus on some apps). But overall it's basically as compatible as 32bit. I can't speak for games tho.

I disagree, I'm using x64 on my 1GB HP desktop and it's faster and more stable than when I had 32bit on it.

 

Mandatory driver signing and everything No more getting drivers when you want more performance, you get them whenever the WHQL drivers come out. Are all your current drivers WHQL approved?

 

incorrect, you can bypass this with 10 seconds in the command window.

I had to for say my xbcd drivers.

If I am not mistaken easybcd even has a option to turn this off for you aswell and that takes a whole 1 second to do and nobody can mess it up, and then turn it back on when you want.

 

Any kernel-mode drivers are required to be signed, for all 64bit versions of Vista unless you are testing, and then it disables all high-quality output for media, etc. while booted into the debug mode, and then disables the unsigned driver on the next reboot. Basically that means you will never be able to run any unsigned video, filesystem, or sound drivers, as well as any other devices that require DMA type accesses, which basically means anything on the PCI/PCIe/AGP bus. Your XBCD drivers are user-mode, and not subject to the same restrictions. My title may say Linux geek, but I work with Windows a lot

 

exactly but you can bypass it. How hard is that to understand???

 

and again I remeber the option being there in easybcd aswell so you dont have to do it the manual way.

I have quite a few drivers installed that are not signed.

So eather you know alot more than me and im wrong, or I am right on this one and just tought you something.

I however was true to the extent that not all drivers need to be signed, im proof of that.

 

i tested both the 64-bit and 32-bit version on a dual core machine and can report quite the opposite, actually. the only allure to 64-bit Vista is that it can effectively handle much more RAM than its 32-bit variant.

i can see purchasing and installing it now to future-proof your PC a tiny bit longer.

 

Have you played a DVD at full resolution since then? How about protected HD media? I believe that is the main side-effect of disabling the driver signing. It downsamples and restricts the quality of your media when you aren't running signed drivers. You can force it to load signed drivers (which you will note I said before), but it will not function fully.

 

Don't understand why it would be the opposite

 

Have not tried, my downloaded stuff works fine, but have not put in a normal dvd to play. however I must admit I never have played a normal dvd on my computer I download everything.

I'll put your theory to the test tho, I will get a dvd to play later.