32 or 64 bit vista?

[Ethereal]

Hi I'm building my new rig on Friday and installing Vista Ultimate. What I'm wondering is if I should install the 32 or 64 bit version.

Are there any application compatibility issues with the 64 bit version or is it backwards compatible.

My computer will be:

Core 2 Duo E6420
2 GB of OCZ pc2-6400 800 MHz
Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 S775 i965P ATX MB (Raid/GbE/SATAII)
Coolermaster eXtreme Power 600W SLI/CF Power Supply
EVGA8800GTS 320MB PCI-E DDR3 320BIT 576M

Thanks for any help or suggestions.

 

[mechBgon]

64-bit isn't completely backwards-compatible. An example would be Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0, which Adobe insists is for 32-bit Vista only. Knowing them, they've booby-trapped the installer so it'll refuse to install on 64-bit Vista, too. :roll:

Other than that, lots of "normal" 32-bit non-booby-trapped software seems to work OK on Vista x64. Stuff that doesn't work right on x64 might not work right on 32-bit either. If the programs in question are installed on your computer right now, run the Vista Upgrade Advisor to see what it has to say about your software and peripherals.

 

[Ethereal]

Thanks MechBGone. Very helpful..

 

[n7]

This has been asked a number of times in GH (here) & the OS forum.

For maximum compatibility, 32-bit is safest, but overall, i'd still suggest 64-bit (as long as you know nothing you plan to run has issues w/ 64-bit).

I foresee 4 GB becoming the norm for enthusiasts running Vista quite soon, so 64-bit is somewhat necessary.

Personally, i'm happy running 64-bit thus far.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: n7
This has been asked a number of times in GH (here) & the OS forum.

For maximum compatibility, 32-bit is safest, but overall, i'd still suggest 64-bit (as long as you know nothing you plan to run has issues w/ 64-bit).

I foresee 4 GB becoming the norm for enthusiasts running Vista quite soon, so 64-bit is somewhat necessary.

Personally, i'm happy running 64-bit thus far.

I agree with this. 64bit will become the standard soon enough. May as well use it if you can.

 

[jkresh]

Vista 64 is nice and fairly compatible (also great with 4+ gigs of ram). As others have said there have been a lot of topics on this (I may even have started one at one point..) Main comments are it wont work with 16bit programs (without something like dosbox) or with software that includes its own drivers and that does not have 64bit support (some adobe programs ...)

 

[tonie]

I would stick with 32bit, 64bit runs way slower on 32bit applications. Most people with 4gb on their rig doesn't even utilize all the juice, just the right to brag.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: chizu
I would stick with 32bit, 64bit runs way slower on 32bit applications.

This is not true.

 

[stash]

The security benefits of the 64bit versions make it worthwhile even with less than 4GB of RAM.

 

[tonie]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: chizu
I would stick with 32bit, 64bit runs way slower on 32bit applications.

This is not true.

Spybot and adware ran way faster on XP32bit than vista64

 

[bsobel]

Spybot and adware ran way faster on XP32bit than vista64

There may have been an isoalted issue with these apps (which I doubt). However you posted that 32bit apps run 'way slower' on 64bit Windows. This is false. The apps run natively at native speed.

If you want to prove your point, please show some benchmarks showing otherwise.

 

[tonie]

I don't run benchmark but believe what you want. I don't have to prove anything, find out for yourself and run those applications.

Edit: That's just my experienced.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: chizu
I don't run benchmark but believe what you want. I don't have to prove anything, find out for yourself and run those applications.

Um... burden of proof is on the accuser. There's no good reason that 32-bit apps would run more slowly in a 64-bit environment, at least by any significant degree (the VM layer may have to do an additional remapping or translation, and context switches might cost a little more, but that's about it.)

There may well be an issue with those programs on Vista in general, but I doubt that 32/64-bit has anything to do with it.

 

[toekramp]

64 owns

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: chizu
I don't run benchmark but believe what you want. I don't have to prove anything, find out for yourself and run those applications.

Thats not the way it works. You made a false statement without facts or supporting evidence. You are the one who needs to prove it correct. To date all benchmarking shows 32bits apps on Vista 64 run basically at native speeds (some a bit slower, some a bit faster, average is similar). 64bit versions tend to run a bit faster than their 32bit counterparts.

Also, if you simply want to be antedotal. I am running Vista 64 with a zillion 32bit apps. I do not see the slow down you claim.

 

[tonie]

I have said it was my experienced and you experienced something different. Some people on HF also experiencing the same thing as I did.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: chizu
I have said it was my experienced and you experienced something different. Some people on HF also experiencing the same thing as I did.

Where is the phrase 'in my experience' in the following untrue statement "I would stick with 32bit, 64bit runs way slower on 32bit applications. Most people with 4gb on their rig doesn't even utilize all the juice, just the right to brag."

Further, my experience is backed up by benchmarks from every respectible PC magazine and review site. Your 'experience' is backed up by 'some posts on....'

Lastly, 4gig is nothing to brag about. They can brag when they get a real system

Bill

 

[bwatson283]

Originally posted by: chizu

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: chizu
I would stick with 32bit, 64bit runs way slower on 32bit applications.

This is not true.

Spybot and adware ran way faster on XP32bit than vista64

Those two blow as spyware tools. Buy one, you get what you pay for, buy one and be better protected.

BPS for life!

 

[videopho]

I who has been a happy x64 user for 1.5 yr now am in the process of building a 2nd rig using Vista 64 Home premium (just received the dvd 64 disc upgrade from MS last week).
64 bit OS all the way!

 

[imported_karen]

I just installed 64 bit windows vista on my new computer a couple weeks ago and I love it. My computer has 4gb of ram, and I notice a lot of things start up way faster than my windows xp partition. The only problems really are some things don't work on 64 bit vista, like intel thermal tat and my fav game caesar iv

 

[tonie]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: chizu
I have said it was my experienced and you experienced something different. Some people on HF also experiencing the same thing as I did.

Where is the phrase 'in my experience' in the following untrue statement "I would stick with 32bit, 64bit runs way slower on 32bit applications. Most people with 4gb on their rig doesn't even utilize all the juice, just the right to brag."

Further, my experience is backed up by benchmarks from every respectible PC magazine and review site. Your 'experience' is backed up by 'some posts on....'

Lastly, 4gig is nothing to brag about. They can brag when they get a real system

Bill

You're right, I didn't put it in the phrase but I'm sure you get my point. I haven't provided any benchmarks and you have?

 

[bsobel]

You're right, I didn't put it in the phrase but I'm sure you get my point. I haven't provided any benchmarks and you have?

The entire community, sans apparently you, is aware of the benchmark numbers. I dont' need to prove to someone who posts that the sky is green that it's actually blue. You made up the statement, for reasons I admit I dont understand, and you got caught.

 

[tonie]

Ok, here are some benchmarks http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page11.html

even though it's vista x86 but read the conclusion.

It looks like people installed x64 just so they can have 4gb in their rig.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: chizu
Ok, here are some benchmarks http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page11.htmleven though it's vista x86 but read the conclusion.

I'm starting to think your not just wrong but trolling. You post that 32bit apps on Vista 64 are slower than on Vista 32. When pushed, you provide XP vs Vista benchmarks that are irrelevant. You then say 'check the conclusion' which backs up what I've been saying all along (e.g. your wrong)

"Although we only looked at the 32-bit version of Windows Vista Enterprise, we do not expect the 64-bit edition to be faster (at least not with 32-bit applications)."

No-one said 32bit apps would be faster, YOU claim they are 'way slower'. Your still wrong, get over it.

 

[tonie]

Well, I'll stop here since it's useless to post back and forth. You may think the X64 is good for now because you invested a good amount on RAM but there isn't enough applications worth to switch to x64.

And "way slower" to me might not be to you?

Edit: It looks like you need to chill out, no need to get upset over this.