32bit Or 64 Bit Vista?

[luumak]

i doubt many apps are written for the 64bit OS but will the machine run faster with it? Do I risk yet more issues with running legacy s/w?

thanks

[Richard-BKK]

A Windows Vista 64 or another operating system will not run (currently) faster then its 32-bit version. Matter of fact, some processes work even slower, the main advantage of Vista 64 is it ability to address more memory then 4GB.

Something, what the marketing machines of Microsoft, Intel and others not tell you is that the current IA64 is not a complete 64-bit architecture, the Intel 64-bit capable processors support 64-bit flat virtual address space, 64-bit pointers, 64-bit wide general purpose registers, support for 64-bits integers and memory addressing up to 1 terabyte of memory.

Personally, I will stick with Windows XP for now. Windows Vista even after SP1 is much slower then Windows XP. And Windows Vista looks maybe more fancy, but then I past the years I installed software to show-off, no-a-days I need my computer to work and work as fast as it can.

Using Windows Vista is in my eyes something similar as driving a Ferrari and mount a rooftop carrier rack for luggage and attach a hook at the rear to pull a caravan.... Yep, you drive a Ferrari and you look good but what a laugh you are... slow as a snail and not even able to outperform a 1.8l. Opel Astra (with the same rooftop carrier and the same caravan)

Edited April 21, 2008 by Richard-BKK

[Guest Reimar]

I'm testing the 64 Bit versions of Vista Ultimate and Server 2008 right now.

The first Test I've done was with 4 GB memory each,, result: Server 2008 faster than Vista Ultimate.

The second test done with 8 GB Memory each, result: Vista get faster than Server 2008 and a lot faster than Vista 32 Bit!

The spec form the test computer:

CPU: AMD Atlohn X2 5000

MB: Gigabyte S3

Memory: DDR2 800 2 GB x 2 (1. test) and x 4 (2. Test)

Graphic Card: Nvidia 8500 GT extreme

HDD: Hitachi 320 SATA 2 x 2, one for Vista and one for Server 2008

The OS's installed each on one HDD without Bootmanager, I use the Bios function (F12) to choose the Boot HDD.

On each HDD the same applications installed ond the only difference is the OS!

The computer runes with low amount of memory better with Server 2008 but with high amount better with Vista.

And I believe, if I tweak Vista, which means disable all the fancy staff Server 2008 didn't have, it will even run much faster!

Cheers.

[cali]

Something, what the marketing machines of Microsoft, Intel and others not tell you is that the current IA64 is not a complete 64-bit architecture

What do you mean by not a complete 64-bit architecture? I can't quite figure out what you are getting at.

And is IA64 (google it) by chance a typo since that refers to a different kind of microprocessor not used on desktop & notebook systems? I assume you are talking about x86-64.

[wpcoe]

Personally, I will stick with Windows XP for now. Windows Vista even after SP1 is much slower then Windows XP. And Windows Vista looks maybe more fancy, but then I past the years I installed software to show-off, no-a-days I need my computer to work and work as fast as it can.

I am one of those early-adopter Vista suckers, and lamented the speed loss when using Vista vs XP. Actually, I can't say programs ran slower, but the Vista system itself didn't seem as perky and peppy as XP. But, as time has gone by, I've found tweaks (extremetech.com has some excellent suggestions) that make Vista much better.

To be honest, as time went by I had actually done the same for XP: registry tweaks, turning off unneeded services, removing clutter, etc.

So, these days, my Vista setup is almost as responsive as my old XP. Granted, such tweaking should not be necessary, but I can't fault Vista specifically, as I had to do the same with XP.

My recent spare-time hobby has been installing various Virtual Machines (using the Microsoft Virtual PC that came with Vista). For kicks, I even installed Windows 98/SE. It gave me an appreciation for how far we've come in the past 10 years.

[luumak]

i went w/ 32bit vista.

yeah yeah blah blah XP XP - but buying legacy OS is just stupid. XP totally meets all my needs - but is microsoft listening???

I'll winnow down vista for maximum hp but you guys are denying the future...

as wpcoe said everyone bad mouthed XP (comapred to 2000 but who remembers that OS?)

but i thank you all for deatilaed responses - 32bit it was!

proud owner of 2000tx HP laptop.

wpcoe: where can i find out more about virtual machices? do yo uhave a link?? my friend is cfacinated with them and their similarity to unix in this manner.

Edited April 21, 2008 by luumak

[wpcoe]

wpcoe: where can i find out more about virtual machices? do yo uhave a link?? my friend is cfacinated with them and their similarity to unix in this manner.

Rather than hijack/derail this thread, I started a new thread "Microsoft Virtual PC 2007" with a reply.

[luumak]

thanks again to everyone. esp wpcoe you rock!

sorry i did not mean to bad mouth anyone (xp fanboys). yes, its faster...

but i used to work in i.t. and recall vividly the whinging when xp came out and all the security issues as well. now, you cant live without it :-)

truth is...on hp site only the crap compaqs are being sold w/ xp. also, laptops are built for specific os often. when ms does gets its act together fully w/ vista - you best be there. cant upgrade laptop h/w.

i can fully understand if you are i.t. prof and want xp to run on your machines for consistancy and stability - but im just lone wolf.

besides 3gb of memory solves alot ;-)

THANKS AND SORRY I.T. GUYS