Printable View
I have a 64bit processor and reently noticed the copy of Windows Vista that came with the laptop is the 32-Bit version :unsure:
Would I get a big (noticable) speed difference by installing a 64-Bit version?
One thing this would mean however is formatting a legit version of Vista 32-Bit and installing a pirate 64-Bit edition.
Ta :happy:
You probably wouldn't notice any difference except it's harder to find drivers for the 64-bit version.
I haven't had any problems with drivers, though I admit I haven't noticed a performance benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
However, I suspect that the lack of performance improvement is more related to the software available than anything else.
So then, the question I put to you two wizards is as follows:Quote:
Originally Posted by lynxI haven't had any problems with drivers, though I admit I haven't noticed a performance benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
However, I suspect that the lack of performance improvement is more related to the software available than anything else.
Why the reticence of the industry to start pounding on the lack of 64-bit development while continuing to dangle it's promise like a nicely kippered herring?
Clocker-
I have the x2 processor.
My nerve is dwindling.
Shit. :whistling
I'm in this same dilemma.
I have a 64bit CPU, and am looking to upgrade to vista fairly soon.
I was originally thinking of going the 64bit (OS) route, just to save me from having to upgrade again in a couple of months once the software catches up.
But I am unsure of the inconvenience, if any, of the 64 bit OS today.
But that is my question-Quote:
Originally Posted by kaiweiler
You say, "in a couple of months once the software catches up"...Hell, 64-bit XP is several years old, now.
How many "months" do they need, ffs. :whistling
There's actually quite a lot of 64-bit software around, the main problem seems to be that too few suppliers want to really push the 64-bit versions.
It doesn't help when the 64-bit versions want to install into the "Program Files (32-bit)" folder, though I can't really see the point of having 2 folders in the first place.
That said, 32-bit versions of the software will run quite happily on a 64-bit OS (just as long as you don't need them to access memory above the 4GB boundary) so that's really no reason to hold back from installing 64-bit versions of the OS.
Yeah, it seemed to me we'd gotten to a comfort zone as to driver/program compatibility, but none of it really takes advantage of 64-bit, as you've noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Next time I need to lay hands on an OS (XP or Vista), it'll be 64-bit, no matter what.
I also have the x2 processor, I have a program running called everest which keeps tabs on temp and clock speeds for me, every now and again it tells me that im running 32bit vista and to get a better performance i should upgrade to 64bit, Cant really see how much better the performance will be I already have 4gb RAM so I'm going to stay as I am for now, be interesting to find out how much difference the change will make though - have to be a pirate copy though too LOL :)
How much RAM can 32-bit Vista actually see...3.12GB.Quote:
Originally Posted by dotcomsimon
Limited just like XP was/is.
Mine sees 3.25G.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerHow much RAM can 32-bit Vista actually see...3.12GB.Quote:
Originally Posted by dotcomsimon
Limited just like XP was/is.
I guess there is a range...that alone is enough to make me drop the dough for 64-bit...:whistling
The restriction of how much memory your system can use is based on how many bits your processor is. Not the operating system (unless the OS has its own artificial limits).Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Mine sees 3.25G.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
I guess there is a range...that alone is enough to make me drop the dough for 64-bit...:whistling
4GB is what XP can support. Thats because XP is using the 32bit enviroment.
32bit register = 2^32 addresses or 4 gigs of ram that can be addressed.
64 bit register = 2^64 addresses or 17,179,869,185 gigs of ram (16 exabytes)
Clearly Vista or any other 64bit OS isn't going to support 16 exabytes of RAM. There is no reason to create memory maps for 16 exabytes of RAM (due to hardware restrictions 16 exabytes won't be around for a few years). So, 64Bit Operating Systems create artificial limits on how much ram they allow. For example, Windows Vista Ultimate supports 128 GB of Ram. Apple's Mac Pro support up to 16GB i believe.
As for installing 64bit Vista. Depends on if you trust Microsoft's WoW64. WoW is the emulation software vista uses to handle the 64bit-32bit difference. So if your playing a 32bit game in a 64bit environment its running in a virtual environment (virtual is never as good as actual). If WoW is good (i haven't had a lot of experience with it) then the 64bit Vista is probably better. If WoW is not efficient then stick with 32Bit Vista.... i don't know enough about WoW to voice a strong opinion. But, what i do know is that NTVDM (i think thats the name) was the process windows used to emulate 16bit apps in a 32bit Windowsenvironment and it seems to work pretty well.
I knew that. :whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by scottwileThe restriction of how much memory your system can use is based on how many bits your processor is. Not the operating system (unless the OS has its own artificial limits).Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
4GB is what XP can support. Thats because XP is using the 32bit enviroment.
32bit register = 2^32 addresses or 4 gigs of ram that can be addressed.
64 bit register = 2^64 addresses or 17,179,869,185 gigs of ram (16 exabytes)
Clearly Vista or any other 64bit OS isn't going to support 16 exabytes of RAM. There is no reason to create memory maps for 16 exabytes of RAM (due to hardware restrictions 16 exabytes won't be around for a few years). So, 64Bit Operating Systems create artificial limits on how much ram they allow. For example, Windows Vista Ultimate supports 128 GB of Ram. Apple's Mac Pro support up to 16GB i believe.
As for installing 64bit Vista. Depends on if you trust Microsoft's WoW64. WoW is the emulation software vista uses to handle the 64bit-32bit difference. So if your playing a 32bit game in a 64bit environment its running in a virtual environment (virtual is never as good as actual). If WoW is good (i haven't had a lot of experience with it) then the 64bit Vista is probably better. If WoW is not efficient then stick with 32Bit Vista.... i don't know enough about WoW to voice a strong opinion. But, what i do know is that NTVDM (i think thats the name) was the process windows used to emulate 16bit apps in a 32bit Windowsenvironment and it seems to work pretty well.
Good post, actually.
Lends to my understanding, like.
Actually you are right - the OS has its own artificial limit
Moreover ,64 bit vista contains a 64 bit version of WMP which has a much superior audio stack which does not even resample non ac3 or dts video or audio. Also HD movies will run smoother
More good factage...:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by zzzMonster
i'm running and have been running win vista 64-bit ultimate edtion for a year now and i don't have any problems with it. i have ALL the drivers for all my hardware and everything works fine. that being said, upon upgrade of my pc i'm not sure if i wanna use the 32bit or 64bit versions of vista. i have both, but i'm thinking this world still isn't ready for a 64bit os and the 32bit will be more compatible for future proof. i may change my mind for i may run 4gb of ram and if i run 4gb i want it to recognize all of it. so, i may just run the 64bit. idk, we'll see. dilemmas.