Microsoft Vista OS: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

Brief question--for Microsoft Vista OS, what functional advantages, if any, does the 64-bit version offer over its 32-bit counterpart?

Thanks,
Ken

 

32bit uses less disk space than 64bit. It also is the preferred choice if your system memory is less than 4GB. If you are a gamer 32bit applications written back when Vista was released had a better chance of running a little more stable.

Honestly if you have the system specs, 64bit is the way to go today and even gamers are using 64bit Windows 7 as games are now taking advantage of the OS which takes advantage of system memory over 3.5GB.

 

If you have over 4 GBs of RAM, go with 64-bit.

32-bit has less compatibility issues, especially dealing with ancient 16-bit programs, however, it doesn't support over 4 GBs of RAM and booting up a 64-bit OS is slightly faster.

 

Grossly understated gentleman. The application of 64 bit is a revolutionary advancement; it opens up a whole new world in modern computing. Its like comparing today's modern jet flight to travel by covered wagon. Unless you like the smell of manure, this choice should be a nobrainer.

 

very true

Even on a systems with 2 GB RAM I always install the 64 bit OS

a 64 bit os can run 32 bit apps just fine. It install them in c:\program files (x86)

Back in the days when 64 bit Vista Came out it was a hassle finding drivers and stuff but now 64 bit is the standard I would never imagine goin' back to the dinosaur 32 bit OS

 

64 bit windows has a variety of advantages in terms of security over 32 bit windows, that should be reason enough.

 

32-bit can only use 4GB of RAM OOB - YES
32-bit is always restricted to 4GB - NO!

Windows Vista 32-bit editions BY DEFAULT can support up to 4GB of RAM (with slightly less usable RAM depending on VRAM, etc). With a little engineering and some slight technical ability you can patch the kernel image with PAE support for support of up to 32GB of RAM on Vista SP2 systems and Windows 7 SP0.

Link: PAE patch updated for Windows 7 SP1 « wblog3

 

32bit will only see and use 3.1gb ram even if you have 16gb loaded
64bit will use the full ram

as mentioned back when it was released there was so much confliction with hardware and drivers and 64bit

im not even sure its offered as an option now as windows 7 is the norm

 

even if the 32 bit OS can see more than 3.2 GB RAM it can ONLY USE 3.2 GB. That is the architecture its made on

so no patch will enable a 32 bit OS to use more than 3.2 GB RAM!

 

From Eset's blog: Rovnix bootkit framework updated | ESET ThreatBlog

 

I don't see what the merits of PAE are. Unless if you need to run 16-bit programs, x64 is superior in every way.

PAE is an OS feature that, on consumer versions of Windows, is negated by an artificial 4 GB RAM limit hardcoded into the kernel. The higher end 32-bit versions of Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 officially support and use up to 64 GB of memory through the use of PAE. For example:

Memory Limits for Windows Releases

This patch basically removes the artificial limit, giving Windows Vista and Windows 7 the same capability as server versions of Windows. Though as I mentioned above, I don't see why anyone would do this rather than just move to the 64-bit version of Windows, given how a 32-bit product key can be used on the equivalent 64-bit version and vice versa.

 

Another reason 64 bits is preferred is that it can mean faster processing in some cases (if you are using data items that fit better into 64 bits than 32 bits, you might be able to reduce the number of operations necessary for the cpu to complete a computation)