Should I get 32 bit or 64 bit?

Apologies, this has probably been discussed a lot before. But I just ordered a sager 9262 with quad core 9550 processor and 4gb of ram. I ordered it with vista premium 32 bit but now i'm thinking that it would make more sense to get the 64 bit version.

I'd heard a lot of stuff about it being hard to find drivers for vista 64 bit and that a lot of programs couldn't be run on it, but this was probably a few years ago when I was reading this stuff. I didn't really look into it before ordering my new laptop, but having read some stuff on this site and others it seems that 64 bit is better supported now?

I'd really like to hear from people who use 64 bit vista as to whether they have difficulties running some games/programs and also how noticeable the performance improvement is over 32 bit?

Thanks for any help!
minds_i

 

I would use 64 bit, there aren't any compatibility issues really, besides with really old apps.

 

64 bit.



.

 

Okay cool. What's the difference in performance like?

 

the difference in performance isn't really huge. Maybe say 3-5%.

 

It isn't noticeable unless you push the limits of the system; ie, if you play high-end games, video editing, CAD, etc.

The main benefits of x64 is the greater RAM addressing (as x86 has reached its limit), improved security and stability. The improvement in performance is not noticed by average users.

 

Actually, x86 isn't at its limit.
x86 is 64bit. x86 is 32bit.
Its all still x86, otherwise, Windows wouldnt run.
So, they should be referred to as "32 bit" and "64 bit".

 

+1 for 64-bit.

I still play old/classic games and still use older apps, which run great on my 64-bit OS.

 

I'd simply do a little research on the Sager and its specific components. As long as there are good 64-bit drivers for the hardware that you're getting (and I'm sure there will be) then go ahead and get 64-bit Windows. I've yet to run into any application incompatibilities.

 

Definitely go 64bit. If I had a rig like yours, minds-i, I would definitely run 64bit Vista. I'm just running 2GB ram and a 2.0ghz core 2 duo and I'm really impressed with Vista 64. One cool thing that i noticed about this OS is that there is no need to run an antivirus since almost all viruses and trojans are written for x86. Security is def better and I have never found a program that won't run on my laptop. If your gonna use a 64bit OS, I would use Ultimate for two reason, 1 when you buy Ultimate, you get both 32bit and 64bit versions and 2 you will get added features like security and encrypting.

 

Ah yeah I hadn't thought about the virus side of things, that's an interesting point.

So the Ultimate version is really worth an extra £45 for the average home user, bearing in mind i'm not going to be doing any networking tasks and things like this?

 

id thot about posting a question such as this. i bought the 32 bit ver for my vostro. i just went trhough microsoft and bought the 64 bit version( it was only 16 dollars WITH rush shipping!) i did a google search for programs that will and will not work and like another user said its nainly older program and other crap i wont use. as for the anti-virus thing....makes sense! but, i didnt have no idea of it ...cool!


i would def go 64 in about 2 more yrs it will be standard on all factory computers. and if i had to do again i would DEFINTELY get ultmiate just for both 32 and 64 bit versions

 

64bit will be the default OS that most of us will be using at 3-5 years. As for security check out this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securi...ew_to_Windows_Vista#x86-64_-specific_features

This gives a basic run down of the security add-ons and features.

 

Vista x64 is a very solid OS. Unless you need extreme legacy support for old programs you should have no trouble with it.

 

There really isn't any negative to using Vista 64

 

Is there a speed difference? With the advent of faster processors, memories and more efficient programming there isn't any speed difference except if you're doing extensive gaming or graphics/multimedia. 32bit programs on 64bit systems can only use around ~4gb I believe. So to take advantage you must have 64bit programs for maximize use. I too have 8gb but it only uses around 3.6gb when fully running, I'm using Ultimate x64.

 

The best way that I understand the difference between 32bit OS and 64bit OS as far as speed and utilizing CPU power, think of it as 32bit being a two lane road that can handle mostly passenger cars and maybe a few semi's. The cars are tiny packets and semi's represent large packets of data and the road is 32bit architecture. 64bit architecture would be a major highway, where there can be more semi's (large packets of data) that can travel at once. I believe that this only can only be used with programs that run in 64 bit and not in emulation.

Check out this thread for all the info you'll need on x64 OS: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=186030

 

can u still run 32 bit software on 64 bit os?

 

Yeah 32 bit software works fine. There is no support for 16 bit applications though.

 

Most but not all. Have to read the specs whether a 32bit program or driver can run on a 64bit system.

 

Yes, you're right. Thank you for correcting my misused terminology.

 

Yes but for whatever reason manufacturers like to use "false" notation, like with graphics card. They like to use GDDR2 & DDR3 rather than DDR2 and GDDR3 (the worst being that GDDR3 has nothing to do with DDR2, it's undervolted DDR2!). They use X86 to name the 32bits version and X64 for the 64bits version. Only some use X86_64 , which is the right one

 

Not your fault. Microsoft itself sort of does the same thing. When you download the 32-bit version of something it generally uses "x86" in the file name, and the same package in 64-bit generally has "x64" in the file name. So they're actually perpetuating the idea of x86 = 32-bit.

X86 of course is just a platform.

 

Thanks for your help guys. I've emailed Kobalt to hopefully get them to put vista 64bit on there instead