32-bit & 64-bit Vista...Which Is Better.

[Triple_7]

Probably a dumb question but oh well :-/

Was looking into ordering a copy of Vista Home Basic for my new system.  Noticed there is a 32-bit retail with the option for a 64-bit version.  So whats the real difference between the two.  Everything in this system says its ready for 64-bit.  But why spend the extra if theres not much difference.  Main thing is performance and what the 64-bit version has over the 32.  Which version would be a good choice.

System specs:

Intel Core Duo E6850 processor, 3.0 GHz, 1333 Mhz FSB.  (Release is today so should be ordering it by next week.)
2 Gigs of PC8500 DDR2 Dual Chanel RAM.
512 MB PCI-E DX10 GeForce 8500GT 128-Bit GDDR2 Graphics Card.
THIS motherboard.
160 GB SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive
430W Thermaltake PSU
DVD/CD Burner
Windows Vista...when version is selected.

System is very near completion.  With Vista and a processor it will finally be ready to fire up for the first time.  Hoping to have it running in the next 2-3 weeks 8-)

[Ashton Lawson]

At the moment, 32-bit and 64-bit are pretty much the same.  It's just that you need 64-bit if you want to use more than 3Gbs of RAM.  Currently you have 2Gbs, so go with 32-bit.

32-bit will do you well, because you're not going for large amounts of RAM, and most programs are written for 32-bit anyway.

As long as you have the option, you can change whenever you want.

[Gunny04]

Get 64 bit, I run it and have no problems, Windows Vista ultimate 64 bit. Sure no 64 bit programs yet, But they will come in time, I have no problems what so ever, and in the rare case that I do, XP is on the drive as well, you'll love it.

Gunny

[dcunning30]

Well, I'd stick with 32 bit.  I've been hitting several 3rd party companies wondering when they'll be releasing Vista versions of their software for devices I currently own.  And every single company has stated they're planning/developing 32 bit Vista versions of their software.  Not one has announced any plans for a 64 bit Vista version.

[Ashton Lawson]

well, just get 32-bit.  u hav no need for 64-bit,

untill u actually need it, stick with 32-bit.  whilst there is no significant difference between the two, u may as well stick with the tried, and tested, and most secure method (32-bit)...

[Gunny04]

64 bit runs 32 bit apps, Saves you money in the long run and runs everything pretty well, and why not use it? Why keep on using 32 bit when you have a 64 bit software? Heck..... Why did MS Even Waste their time making a 32 bit version? To keep old technology from 5 years ago going? Seems like a propper waste to me. I run the 64 bit version and the only problem I really have is adobe flash won't work, one thing doesnt work and everything else does. If you have a 64 bit cpu, get the 64 bit version, it runs a lot better than my XP ever has on all three computers I had it on.

Gunny

[dcunning30]

As I said before, it's all about software support.

http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1426/vis ... x64_vs_x86

[Politically Incorrect]

Considering that the Vista DVD contains every edition of Vista made all you would need is the authorization code to unlock it. What your paying for is not the DVD itself but the authorization that allows you to run a specific version.
You could probably buy the cheapest version and purchase a upgrade of which ever key you need for what you want from MS.

[Nick N]

32bit is for boys
64bit is for men

If you dont want to deal with the little quarks that may arrise such as having to find a 64bit driver every now and then, stay with 32bit unless you want to have full 'true' support for memory mapping over 3.2gig.

You are not going to see any massive game performance change, although I find all MSFS versions run smoother on x64.

But when the new games and titles start being 64bit addressed, you will be missing quite a bit. that just wont be for another year or so.

So unless you are willing to deal with a few driver problems and workarounds, stay with what is easy for you.

[dcunning30]

But when the new games and titles start being 64bit addressed, you will be missing quite a bit. that just wont be for another year or so.

Only if the software developers see a market for 64 bit titles.  32 bit titles can run on both platforms, 64 bit titles will only run on 64 bit platforms.  Once they do that, they limit their customer base right off the bat.

[Nick N]

But when the new games and titles start being 64bit addressed, you will be missing quite a bit. that just wont be for another year or so.

Only if the software developers see a market for 64 bit titles.

[Nick N]

and BTW

its not game developers who stifled x64

It was INTEL

because they were behind AMD in processor technology and the one thing they could use to FIGHT BACK, was stifle the use of x64  

now things are changing

like I said, expect to see an FS11 x64


Professional system such as Adobe already use the base and have been using it. There is no comparison and it is going to happen in the next year or so.

[dcunning30]

Phil Taylor even admits FSX would be better ported to 64bit but was under the gun to remain in 32 but the amount of data per millisecond is over the top for 32bit to run which is why the ground texture blur issues and stutters.

And why is he under the gun?

[Nick N]

Its not a matter of if, its a matter of when

I've never disagreed with that.

Good then we agree, x64 is the future and will become streamlined in the next several years. but as I said, it is not for the person who does not wish to work with the OS for minor things such as drivers they may need to search down, or, a harware limitation because of that.

But, those limits are no where near as bad as they were a year or even 6 months ago. Just about eveything now will run in x64 and as far as I am concerned, just because the disk access is much, much better in x64, the advantages to the OS far outweigh any small disadvantage one may see.


dataflow is better in x64 regardless of the software being run which is why games tend to run a bit smoother.

However, the layman who thinks they can install x64 and just go, needs to stick with x32. You have to understand the OS to get the most out of it.

[Triple_7]

Well, the retail version is 32-bit.  Seem to only be able to get the OEM version in 64-bit right now.  But as of Sunday afternoon I managed to snag a brand new full retail version of Home Basic for $115 including shipping.  In fact the guy still has 29 copies on Ebay at the moment if anyones interested (Theres only about 16 hours left on it though.)  According to what I found there is information on how to get the 64-bit version included with the retail.  Depending on the extra cost, if any, I will probably go ahead with the 64-bit.  All the hardware is ready for it even if the softwares not.  Will probably get the disk in the mail within the next couple days.  Wont have a processor for a couple weeks yet so I have a little time to wait on a 64-Bit version to arrive if necessary.

Just figured I would ask before I got everything together and ready to install.  Didn't think there was to big of a difference but wanted to make sure.  Hopefully this new system wont be like my past and have to be wiped out every year, so once Windows is installed I don't want to mess with upgrading again later on.  So 64-bit it is unless they say it will take forever and a day to get the disk or the code :-/