Quick Question - Vista 32-bit or 64-bit?

I have a question. I just ordered my Vostro with Vista Home Basic but found not too long after that Vista Home Basic 32-bit version doesn't support 4gigs of RAM. I'm wondering whether it's worth it to upgrade to the 64-bit version so that my computer can recognize 4 gigs of RAM and run in 64-bit mode. If I were to upgrade, would I be able to achieve any major performance gains as a lot of drivers now support 64-bit functionality? Are there any upgrades available that would allow me to move to a 64-bit version of Windows from 32-bit Home Basic?

EDIT: Would this affect my gaming performance

 

i would definitely upgrade cuz home basic sux period and there is a large compatibility nowadays for vista x64 and extra ram is always useful.

if ur under a budget get vista 64 home premium. if not then either buisness or ult 64 are good 2.

 

Do you know where I can get the upgrades for a decent price?

 

I think MS's website here probably lists retail...though a discount WOULD be nice. O_O

 

You can get an OEM Home Prenium X64 for $100 at newegg.com or any other parts resseller. If you wanna keep home basic, you can get it for free.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=120228

 

Vista x32 can recognize 3.6gb of RAM while Vista x64 4gb and up. 64bit programs are specific but Vista x64 can also run 32bit (x86) programs under compatibility mode. If you're just doing basic word processing, internet and with occasional photo and video editing Vista Home Basic is fine.

 

I have 64-bit and prefer it over 32-bit that I tried earlier. For some reason to me it seems more stable and slightly better performance, I dont have numbers to back it up it just seems that way from daily use.

 

umm... if your computer came with home basic would installing home premium be a good idea? i mean whats your wei score? more ram might help but if your gpu can't handle it...

 

I agree, for the basics, not much of a need for an upgrade.

 

It is important to note that although vista 64 can support 4gb and above there a very few notebooks out there that have the necessary chipsets to support 4gb. Your notebook will not support 4gb no matter what OS you put in.

 

Personally I don't really see a clear benefit yet for 64-bit. I'm 64-bit ready, but I still use 32-bit Vista.

 

Who cares?
If you can go x64 then go x64. This kind of mentality is what still makes x86 mainstream.

 

I'm having a similar dilemma in that I currently have Vista x64, but I have two paid-for programs that will not run with it. Diskeeper 10 and Paragon Drive Backup currently will not install under x64. I guess I haven't checked on Diskeeper in awhile, but Paragon does not have a patch out yet.

I love my x64 install, but I have both discs, and it is tempting to go to x86 to take advantage of money already spent. What do you all think?

 

If you need them then ask the manufacturers for x64 versions. I believe that Diskeeper works, not sure about Paragon.

 

I say stick with 32 bit for now. 64bit is nice, i like it personally, but until Microsoft will allow you to install unsigned drivers in 64bit, i say NO! You will quite possibly find yourself unable to install useful programs because of this. The only way around this is annoying and involves you manually disabling driver signing on boot EVERY TIME! You probably don't need that much ram, so i would recomend sticking with 32 untill:

A) microsoft allows unsigned drivers.

or

B) you desperately need all 4 gigs of ram (i can't imagine you needing that though)

 

That's a stupid argument. What was the last unsigned driver you tried to install?

 

Stupid? I think its perfectly valid. Alot of laptop utilities, such as rm clock, nhc, and ANYTHING else that uses an unsigned driver will not work. This means that the company has to pay to get the driver signed, which = software (that uses unsigned drivers) is no longer free for the consumer. And since its a problem related directly to 64bit vista, I would say it is 100% relevant and in fact, not stupid.

 

Lets see...Rmclock uses an unsigned driver so it won't work on 64bit vista, as well as if you use driverheaven's mobility mod tool to mod your graphics drivers for mobile use...

 

I agree. In fact, I just mentioned two programs that will not work under Vista x64. The companies only make Professional versions that currently work under x64. Why? Because most consumers (that may find value in their product) are not yet running on x64. That's just the way it is.

I want x64 technology to progress, but I do not want to sacrifice current utility of my machine to help it along. I only have 2gb of RAM, and don't game enough to need more. Therefore, I think I'll go to x86 for awhile.

 

So who's fault is that?
Anyway, someone posted a RMClock x64 version.
Consumers in general are stupid. They only get what they've been given. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft didn't force the OEMs to use their x64 version. Anyway, I haven't seen anyone complaining about here about how good their x64 OS works or how many applications work on it without any single problems. I have seen stupid remarks about it though. If something doesn't work it's not necessarily Microsoft's fault. Developers should update their products, since it's a different platform. Besides 16 bit applications only a few programs don't work.

 

I said i liked it. It is more efficient, and i believe slightly quicker.

WRONG SIR! In this case, it is SPECIFICALLY Microsoft's fault. They chose to not allow unsigned drivers on their 64bit, and have gone out their way to release security updates further preventing people from using them.

 

Right, just because some developer didn't bother signing his drivers it's Microsoft's fault. It's for security reasons this way by default. Stop blaming Microsoft and start talking to the developers of your programs.

 

I agree that it is not Microsoft's fault, and I applaud the company for pushing x64 to mainstream with Vista. However, one could argue that it is "stupid" to run a 64-bit OS when I currently get no real benefit. I have two programs that I paid for, that will work on Vista x86. I blame the manufacturer for not pushing out a consumer 64-bit version, but at the same time, I have both discs. I am going to revert to 32-bit until I have a reason to switch back.

There is nothing wrong with my x64 install. It runs great. But honestly, I want to get my money's worth from those programs.

 

Great point you made here. If developers were really trying to at least start to write some drivers and stop blaming Microsoft things would really be different.

 

Alot of developers don't want to pay for signing a driver, because their software is free. Requiring people to have signed drivers gives very little protection. So in order to get marginal security increase, the user must give up its freedoms and be restricted to paying for software, no thanks. And it is microsofts fault, because its not that developers haven't pushed the new 64bit software, there are plenty available, its that they have to sign it. This is pointless in my opinion. People will still get viruses, and doing this doesn't really prevent anything. Most viruses are installed through active x or some other backdoor, not through the kernel anyways.

 

Who said you have to pay? If you want it to work you will release your signed drivers. Period. If not, you will blame Microsoft, say that it's their fault and in the end still get your drivers signed because people want them like that.
Lame comments from the developers don't help. I've seen how many avoid fixing problems and blaming Microsoft, just because it's easier to do so.
Besides some programs the rest work more than fine and a lot of people are trying to force x64 into going mainstream. Why? Because it's the future, because it works and because it's needed.

 

Ok enough of this. Here is the deal:

1) Yes Fade to black is right. 64bit is the future. (near future) It is more efficient system with almost limitless capabilities.
2) It is still new, so a user might have problems getting some applications to work. (especially those requiring unsigned drivers) While most drivers are now offered in 64 bit versions, there might still be some you use that are not available yet (although i doubt it).
3) In less than a year from now, people with 32 bit will find themselves wanting to move to 64bit as more and more things will become 64bit optimized or specific.

The question you have to ask yourself is how important are certain programs to you now? In a short time, this won't even be a factor as everything will most likely be compatible with vista 64bit (drivers signed/ available).

 

2. It's not new at all. It's a few years old.
3. Probably no.
You have a problem with signed drivers. Besides you I haven't seen anyone complaining about the signed drivers problem (which is a developer's problem actually).

 

I'm sorry...but if you haven't heard this complaint about Vista x64 you haven't looked (probably because all of your devices worked). Google "Vista driver signing"

One thing that is a positive of driver signing is that it is a way to ensure stability. Microsoft doesn't allow drivers to be installed that may be sketchy or unstable. This creates a better overall user experience, which is one of their main goals.

 

x64 give you much better performance

 

To qualify that comment, do you have numbers? What are you testing this with? Everything I have read, and witnessed, seems to indicate that performance is very close, and depends on the application. Most applications are not yet coded to take advantage of x64.

 

wow.... Sorry sir, but the thread is about vista 64bit which is new. xp does not have a issue with signed drivers, it has other problems but i won't get into that. 64bit is good. But it is not without its problems. I was just trying to illustrate what some of those problems are so a user can figure out what is best for them. I know you are really happy to use 64bit, but try not to be biased.

 

Yeah, it has that driver signing issue too (XP x64 version).
I have to say that I know there are problems with signed drivers, but Microsoft provided the OS, the developers are the ones that need adjusting to.
I'm not biased. I can admit some problems, but many are just isolated.
And no, x64 is not going to provide you double the frame rate. Maybe a few extra FPS.

 

I concur Fade To Black.