32-bit vs 64-bit for Gaming

[fuzzybabybunny]

Guys, I am kinda confused. Looking into buying Vista, but can't figure out which version is 32 or 64 bit.

http://www.viosoftware.com/Win...utm_campaign=66I-00003

Specifically, I'm looking at the $104.99 Windows Vista Home Premium OEM DVD.

1. Is this 64 or 32 bit? I need 64 bit. It doesn't specify.
2. Should I be getting the OEM version? It's cheaper, yes, and it's a full version, but it can't be transferred between computers. So when I do a major upgrade like a mobo change I'm screwed. Should I just get the $100.98 Home Premium Upgrade then (I have a previous version of XP)?

 

[dajeepster]

You can run a dual boot.
I have several systems with dual boot:
system one:
asus P4C800-E
raid0 partitioned into two... Xp32 bit and Vista32bit
vista32 bit is a little flacky... i need to reload vista32

system two:
Asus A8N-Sli deluxe
raid0 partitioned into two... xp64bit and vista64bit
stable both OS

system three:
intel D975XBX2
raid0 partitioned into two... xp32bit and vista64bit
stable both OS

system four:
Asus P5W DH deluxe
raid0 Partitioned into two... xp64bit and vista64bit
I keep crashing the bios on this one... i'm working on my third bios chip cause my dumbass decides to try and flash the bios from within vista64..twice.....

so to answer your question... yes... it can be done
I partitioned the drive into two.
I formated one of the partitions with xp32 and didn't do anything with the second partition (didn't even format it yet) and loaded xp32 one the first partition (c drive)
once xp32 is done...
load the vista64 disk and format the second partition using vista64.
I keep a seperate drive in each of my computers that I use as a storage drive... mainly set up as raid1.
I only load the OS and software on the raid0 setup.

i recommend keeping secondary drives disconnected while loading the raid0 OSs... and once both OSs are loaded, then connect of the secondary drive...

When load the dual boot systems... load the xp os first... and then the vista os...
when running vista.. it labels the vista partition as drive letter c... even though xp is in the location c: under xp... vista will label the xp partition as the next available drive letter.

I had a triple boot system at one time of XP32, XP64 and Vista64... but it just got too confusing as to which drive was which because when I loaded XP64, it loaded into drive D and listed as drive D when I was running xp64...

and reading this email... i think I just gave too much info and not enough info and just made it more confusing than it needed to be....

but to answer your question...
yes... you can have a dual boot system with xp32 and vista64... load them on seperate logical or physical drives... load xp first and vista second

 

[CZroe]

It's too bad that dual booting can't share the same partition like it once could with previous operating systems.

 

[RMSe17]

Originally posted by: apoppin

truly spoken by someone that hasn't used Vista

XP is primitive by comparison
-and to think some of you guys chided me for sticking with Win2K ... Win2K to XP is like Win98 in comparison without the SE ... in contrast, XP to Vista is like Win98 compared to Win2K or XP
-get with the program or get Linux ... you will have to upgrade for DX10 gaming[period]


IF you have all brand-new HW, then Vista 64 is probably for you
--i chose WinVista32 because it is OEM and tied to my MB which i expect to replace in a couple of years

Now, truly?
I disagree with pretty much everything you just said, except the DX10 line, which is still some time away.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: RMSe17

Originally posted by: apoppin

truly spoken by someone that hasn't used Vista

XP is primitive by comparison
-and to think some of you guys chided me for sticking with Win2K ... Win2K to XP is like Win98 in comparison without the SE ... in contrast, XP to Vista is like Win98 compared to Win2K or XP
-get with the program or get Linux ... you will have to upgrade for DX10 gaming[period]


IF you have all brand-new HW, then Vista 64 is probably for you
--i chose WinVista32 because it is OEM and tied to my MB which i expect to replace in a couple of years

Now, truly?
I disagree with pretty much everything you just said, except the DX10 line, which is still some time away.

truly

you're free to disagree ... it's kinda hard for me to see why however so i'll just ignore your reasoning.

DX10 is already here.

 

[funks]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

One application (Supreme Commander) is hardly a proof that everything is pink how you state it. The 2GB barrier exists for msot games, and they are built to not use more than 2GB.

Now, if that barrier can be moved to 3GB, it means 64-bit adoption is gonna be even slower.

That barrier will never be moved. The 2GB/2GB application/kernel split isn't going anywhere for 32-bit consumer OSes, as there are too many poorly written drivers that map into that address space, and many applications break if you force the /3GB switch. MS would have relaxed the restriction on Vista 32-bit if they wanted to do that. Instead, you'll need to move to Vista or XP 64. I would expect Vista to be the last 32-bit Windows version that most people will be on, with Vienna being the last version offered in a 32-bit flavor at all.

any 64 bit program will generally consume 30% more than than their 32-bit counter part.