# Vista Ultimate 32-bit or 64-bit?



## Vigor (Apr 19, 2007)

Which one should I choose?  I don't really know which one I should choose.


----------



## holdenssx (Apr 19, 2007)

well is the the computer that you are going to put vista on in your sig or is it a new build?


----------



## PC eye (Apr 19, 2007)

The best question here would be for a primary or secondary OS? Due to the software and game being saturated with 32bit applications and games you may want to consider staying 32bit if you are a regular gamer to avoid certain incompatibilty problems. On the other hand the difference and stabilty may prove better with a 64bit version just like 32bit prevailed over the old 16bit formulas seen with Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, and 95 prior to the OSR2 release.

 While the 64bit version has a degree of 32bit compatibility like XP has with older 16bit programs it's like comparing XP to Linux at this time in some ways. It will still take several years before 64bit will ever become the actual standard with a volume of games and apps available.


----------



## Vigor (Apr 19, 2007)

PC eye said:


> The best question here would be for a primary or secondary OS? Due to the software and game being saturated with 32bit applications and games you may want to consider staying 32bit if you are a regular gamer to avoid certain incompatibilty problems. On the other hand the difference and stabilty may prove better with a 64bit version just like 32bit prevailed over the old 16bit formulas seen with Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, and 95 prior to the OSR2 release.
> 
> While the 64bit version has a degree of 32bit compatibility like XP has with older 16bit programs it's like comparing XP to Linux at this time in some ways. It will still take several years before 64bit will ever become the actual standard with a volume of games and apps available.



Thanks, I guess 32-bit fits me, if it has less issues and problems such.


----------



## jutnm (Apr 19, 2007)

i heard 32 bit is easier bc it has more drivers.


----------



## PC eye (Apr 19, 2007)

The idea of 64bit is obviously a more stable OS there. In fact Linux also has one or more 64bit type distros. But where are the applications and games for 64bit versions?  

Even after the last few years with the 64bit version of XP Pro drivers for these versions are now becoming more available for hardwares and apps while softwares? For a second OS not primary at this time I may replace the surrent XP Pro installation with?   That's the XP backup drive there. The second sata may see Mandriva dual boot with Solaris 10? You never know here!


----------



## Geoff (Apr 19, 2007)

I would strongly recommend going with a 64-bit OS if you have a 64-bit processor, since it will be alot more "future proof".


----------



## zaroba (Apr 19, 2007)

yea, future proof is the main thing to look at.  i doubt cpu developers will put out any more 32bit CPUs, any new motherboards will probably support 64bit systems, i woulden't be suprised if soon companies start releasing only 64bit programs aswell due to the fact that 32bit hardware is now becoming obselete.

as for compatibility, i haven't yet had any problems running 32bit programs on 64bit systems.  was using 64bit xp since i built this pc back in september and am now using 64bit vista.

looking at the other end of it...
the pc in your sig will run just as well with a 32bit os as it will with a 64bit os and there aren't many programs designed for 64bit systems *yet*.  if your already running 32bit vista, there isen't really any need to upgrade to 64 bit yet unless you want to have more then 4gb of ram.

but, if your going to build a new pc, it'd probably be better to just put 64bit on it right away to save yourself the trouble in the future.


----------



## PC eye (Apr 19, 2007)

The amount of memory 4gb plus is stretching that a little. The 64bit version doesn't require anymore memory then the 32bit. 98 a newer 32bit version then the 16bit 95 didn't require more but simply supported more memory. And 98 was an upgrade not just another format there. Vista won't run more then 4gb like XP. The main difference is the higher level of stability while not being any faster.


----------



## StrangleHold (Apr 19, 2007)

PC eye said:


> Vista won't run more then 4gb like XP. The main difference is the higher level of stability while not being any faster.


 
Vista Basic 64 will run up to 8gb, Premium 64 will run up to 16gb and Ultimate-Enterprise 64 will run up to 128gb. All 32bit Vistas are the same as XP.


----------



## zaroba (Apr 20, 2007)

PC eye said:


> The amount of memory 4gb plus is stretching that a little. The 64bit version doesn't require anymore memory then the 32bit.



i didn't say that you had to have 4gb or more to use 64bit vista.
i basicly said if he wanted to use more then 4gb of ram he would need 64bit vista.


----------



## The Purple Champ (Apr 20, 2007)

i use 64 and i have no problems with it.


----------



## PC eye (Apr 20, 2007)

StrangleHold said:


> Vista Basic 64 will run up to 8gb, Premium 64 will run up to 16gb and Ultimate-Enterprise 64 will run up to 128gb. All 32bit Vistas are the same as XP.


 
 Running a 64bit OS like the XP Pro version or even the Linux 64bit version is like comparing 32bit to Fat16bit in that sense. Windows Server 2003 is known for 32gb. The drawback seen on the 32bit versions of both XP and Vista is the problems seen with 4gb of memory installed showing as low as 2.5gb in some cases.



zaroba said:


> i didn't say that you had to have 4gb or more to use 64bit vista.
> i basicly said if he wanted to use more then 4gb of ram he would need 64bit vista.


 
 For someone running CAD or some intense graphics design applications besides the video memory for that the requirement for a large amount of ram is then necessary. But for the average user with the usual games and desktop apps a good 2-3gb will smooth things out without waste. 64bit OSs are obviously running a different platform to start with.


----------



## StrangleHold (Apr 20, 2007)

PC eye said:


> Running a 64bit OS like the XP Pro version or even the Linux 64bit version is like comparing 32bit to Fat16bit in that sense. Windows Server 2003 is known for 32gb. The drawback seen on the 32bit versions of both XP and Vista is the problems seen with 4gb of memory installed showing as low as 2.5gb in some cases.


 
The Question was should I run Vista 32 or 64, I just showed the difference in ram capabilities between the 2. 
  What does XP-Linux and Fat16 have to do with anything or the question?


----------



## shawn_selig29 (Apr 20, 2007)

only thing with 64 bit.. is not all programs are supported by it... i can't say i ran 64 before but i run a chat room and have heard some stories....it is suppose to be a bit faster then 32 bit... just by the sounds of it 64 causes more grief then 32 bit...


----------



## ADE (Apr 21, 2007)

Dude, don't get Ultimate. I hear 95% of the stuff you get compared to using home premium you wont even use. If its for gaming, get the home premium.


----------



## PC eye (Apr 21, 2007)

StrangleHold said:


> The Question was should I run Vista 32 or 64, I just showed the difference in ram capabilities between the 2.
> What does XP-Linux and Fat16 have to do with anything or the question?


 
 Besides the increase in memory capability that goes well with newer boards seeing 16gb capacity there. But unless you are running some LARGE CAD program where you actually need a large memory capable machine you have to look what the general requirements are for the average softwares in use on most 32bit systems. If a program only requires 512mb to run why would you need 8gb to 16gb? For other then a primary OS at this point then the decision would be to get familiar with what a 64bit OS could offer at some point over the next several years.



shawn_selig29 said:


> only thing with 64 bit.. is not all programs are supported by it... i can't say i ran 64 before but i run a chat room and have heard some stories....it is suppose to be a bit faster then 32 bit... just by the sounds of it 64 causes more grief then 32 bit...


 
 Up until XP after 95's initial release later seeing OSR2 you have been running 32bit versions of Windows. The current problem is the backward to 32bit support is somewhat limited in the new 64bit versions of Windows XP and Vista alike while the software companies are still promoting 32bit games and apps. 64bit will eventually prove to be a more efficient OS like 32bit compared to the older 16bit versions.

 The main problem now is regardless of which edition you decide on Vista was only released at the end of january and still needs to see the improvement in driver/patch support. The Ultimate version does offer the hardware protection feature and the three others in the comparison chart seen at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx


----------



## StrangleHold (Apr 21, 2007)

PC eye said:


> Besides the increase in memory capability that goes well with newer boards seeing 16gb capacity there. But unless you are running some LARGE CAD program where you actually need a large memory capable machine you have to look what the general requirements are for the average softwares in use on most 32bit systems. If a program only requires 512mb to run why would you need 8gb to 16gb? For other then a primary OS at this point then the decision would be to get familiar with what a 64bit OS could offer at some point over the next several years.


 
Still has nothing to do with XP-Linux or Fat32. That whole statement sounds good but does not mean anything. The Question was (Should I get Vista 32 or 64) he was not talking about Fat 16-32, Linux or XP. He was not talking about dual booting or how much ram he needed! I think Microsoft made a mistake by releasing a 32 bit Vista anyways


----------



## zaroba (Apr 21, 2007)

PC eye said:


> But unless you are running some LARGE CAD program where you actually need a large memory capable machine you have to look what the general requirements are for the average softwares in use on most 32bit systems. If a program only requires 512mb to run why would you need 8gb to 16gb?



its a well known fact that more ram = faster pc.  you can't really argue against that.
you have less paging file access, you can run more applications if you need to, and it can also make up for having a not so good video card.
please don't tell me that you actually believe that a game will run just as fine with its minimum required ram as it will with double or triple its recommended amount of ram.

Oblivion only requires 512mb ram i believe.
when i had 1gb ram and 32bit vista ultimate, i had to play it on the lowest detail settings and it was still laggy.
when i added more ram, upto the usable 3.25gb in 32bit, i was able to play with the settings on high, got around 10fps.  so it was still a bit jumpy.
when i upgraded to 64bit vista, my pc could then use the full 5gb of ram thats installed.  granted that there compatible with my video card, i can now play games with the highest detail settings without any lag at all.



no matter what way you want to look at it.  its still a fact, if he wants to use vista and wants more then 4gb of ram, he has to use the 64bit version.  regardless of what he might be useing it for, and regardless of what the 'general requirements are for the average softwares' are (which have nothing to do with the topic in the first place)


----------



## PC eye (Apr 21, 2007)

I know from custom building here that just simply adding a large amount of memory by itself is all that is needed to increase overall performance. What was seen here when going from a matched pair note "matched" pair of Corsair xms series performance dimms to a pair of 1gb Kingston Value Ram DDR400 PC3200 dimms on the old Socket A board the games and other applications ran far smoother while not seeing any great degree of speed inscrease.

 If you install 100gb of memory and have a crap video and sound setup the games you have will still run like... The best performance regardless of OS used is seen by the fine tuning of all hardwares overall. The initial boost is seen when going from 512mb to 2gb with the 32bit versions of both XP and Vista alike.

 The 64bit structure is what allows for the larger amount of memory to be used without problems to a point. This is like comparing 98's 512mb limitation to XP's 4gb in that sense. But the main decision on which OS to use depends more on application and the type of system being used over what each will or won't support. The reference to minimum requirements refers to being able to run some program where there is only 512mb installed not how high various settings in a game are.

 When you were running the 32bit version of the Ultimate edition was that the 1/31/2007 full release or the RC1 or RC2 "beta" versions? Beta and finished producr are two different things. Beta means "evaluation only" while a full release means the actual retail product with support(supposedly -  whenever).


----------



## zaroba (Apr 21, 2007)

"The reference to minimum requirements refers to being able to run some program where there is only 512mb installed not how high various settings in a game are"
thats correct, its only enough to get the game running, not necisarily playable unless you don't mind having less then 5fps and long load times.  so you shoulden't act like there is no need to have more then a program requires 

the vista i had was the released version.  not a beta.

"If you install 100gb of memory and have a crap video and sound setup the games you have will still run like..."
so what, you think ram will have nothing to do with how well a game runs?
but you just agreed that it does boost pc performance.
might i add that i did say i can play ALL games with the highest settings now.

even slightly older games such as GTA San Andreas.  when i had 64bit xp and 1gb ram in this pc i had to limit the drawdist and it got laggy occasionally.  64bit vista, 5gb ram, highest detail settings, fluid appearence in graphics.

FarCry is another example.  i was playing farcry last night with the highest detail settings.  didn't play it before the change, but i can honestly say i don't remember it looking so beutiful.


a video card alone wont make graphics good.  even if you get 2 8800GTXs and SLI them together.  if you only have the minimum ram a game needs, it will lag.  you need the ram to load all the textures, character/npc animations, videos etc that the game uses.  a video card just processes them and displays them on your screen.  its the ram that there stored in, along with info on the npcs for ai calculation by the cpu.  which brings us back to more ram = faster performance due to less pageing file access because it can store more info in it.


----------



## Geoff (Apr 21, 2007)

ADE said:


> Dude, don't get Ultimate. I hear 95% of the stuff you get compared to using home premium you wont even use. If its for gaming, get the home premium.


Some of the stuff you get you most likely wont even use, but in addition to that stuff, you can use up to 128GB of RAM with the 64-bit version of Ultimate.


----------



## The Purple Champ (Apr 21, 2007)

[-0MEGA-];642015 said:
			
		

> Some of the stuff you get you most likely wont even use, but in addition to that stuff, you can use up to 128GB of RAM with the 64-bit version of Ultimate.



it will save you from buying a new os in the future


----------



## PC eye (Apr 22, 2007)

The one thing that the 64bit version of any OS offers(XP, Vista, Linux even has one) in the difference in structure to allow that increase of physical memory on a system. But you have to remember that most programs and games alike are only going to see a gain to a certain point only when the actual amount is increased? Why? They are designed to run primarily on systems with far less then 100gb or even the more common 8gb and 16gb boards now seen available.

 With many games and programs geared for a 512mb minimum with the exception of a few newer ones looking for slightly more like 768mb in XP and 1gb for Vista you won't see any real gain after you reach a certain amount there. Large engineering apps, CAD, Graphics design, and other programs intended to use any and all memory available are the ones that would see the benefit at this time. Boosting over 2gb mainly sees some improvement when multitasking over running just one program or game.

 The leap from 512mb to 2gb even in Vista is a much larger jump then the slight gain when going from 2gb to 4gb total. When 64bot games finally start coming out in the eventual progression then the key word will be "memory"! The demands there as you can imagine will be incomparible.


----------



## zaroba (Apr 23, 2007)

are you STILL crying that having more then a few gb is useless?  have you tried gaming on a pc with 5gb of ram or more and on a pc with 1gb and then on a pc with 3gb to see the differences?  have you tested all these theorys that your saying?  if not then you really need to stop assuming that having 5gb of ram will only benifit a few programs.

how many times do i have to say it before you read my post?
I HAVE SEEN A GREAT IMPROVEMENT IN *ALL* GAMES DUE TO HAVING 5GB OF RAM.
stop acting like i'm lieing.


why does the thought of having over 4gb of ram bother you so much when it comes to gaming?
it is a benifit to gaming. it doesen't matter if a game wont use it all, it still helps the pc perform better.  why would you be against somebody making there computer experience better?


----------



## Geoff (Apr 23, 2007)

zaroba said:


> are you STILL crying that having more then a few gb is useless?  have you tried gaming on a pc with 5gb of ram or more and on a pc with 1gb and then on a pc with 3gb to see the differences?  have you tested all these theorys that your saying?  if not then you really need to stop assuming that having 5gb of ram will only benifit a few programs.


You wont notice any difference in gaming having 3-5GB of RAM.

In fact having 5GB of RAM over 2GB of RAM is worse, since you can not run your RAM in dual-channel mode.

And again, if you have 2GB of RAM and you dont have a PF, while still having over a gig of free RAM, then anything over that is useless.


----------



## PC eye (Apr 23, 2007)

The very structure of XP and VIsta alike at this point(32bit) has the obvious problems with seeing 2.5gb to 3.5gb only while having 4gb installed. Boosting the overall system performance by adding memory has to coincide with the OS installed as well as the softwares/games you install. The games currenly out and soon to come out are geared around the average user's machine often prebuilt with no large amount of memory installed. For CAD and other engineering, calculus, graphics design type applications you are working a totally different platform where things can go on and on and on.... 

On the old build here the idea of going from 1gb of performance memory to 2gb of note "Value Ram" saw improvement overall while still having the dual channel available. Many boards will automatically default to single channel when all dimm slots are filled. That can be a performance loss right there. By going to 4gb here I wouldn't see any real gain with games while maybe seeing some improvement more with video capturing and editing and certainly when running WMP! That chews up more ram then even most new games out as well as the increased load on other things like cpu time and of course video memory where a 512mb card would only then be an investment to consider.

OMEGA also touched on a few good points there as well. CRYING ABOUT MEMORY? Not likely here. I usually the first one looking to grab more for a work horse build. The drawbacks surround the software environment geared around systems generally seeing less. If you are a software designer you have to look at what is seen most often for hardwares in prebuilt systems that are the most common type sold. Some of us simply want to build our own for the options we then can choose from. But software is still wrapped around it's own limits there. Softwares fall behind hardwares however. simply look over the last 5yrs. to see which sees the most changes. It won't be MS! Likewise it won't be EA Games or Activision or even Steam: Source there. But you know are staring at quad core cpus and boards that can run 16gb of ram? Hardwares keaving softwares in the dust there.


----------



## StrangleHold (Apr 23, 2007)

zaroba said:


> are you STILL crying that having more then a few gb is useless? have you tried gaming on a pc with 5gb of ram or more and on a pc with 1gb and then on a pc with 3gb to see the differences? have you tested all these theorys that your saying? if not then you really need to stop assuming that having 5gb of ram will only benifit a few programs.


 
I,m one of the first ones to say the more the better but that only goes so far. If you have 2gbs and never use more than 2gbs upgrading to 4 is pointless. It really depends on what you do with your computer, but 5gbs is alittle overboard. 4gbs would be better because you could get it to run in dual channel on most boards. I dont know what you would be doing to eat up more than even 4gbs, like running a huge program in the background, burning a DVD, encoding another one and playing a game all at the same time!
  But like I say unless your using up all the ram you have, adding more will not make any difference.


----------



## PC eye (Apr 24, 2007)

You lose effeciency after a certain point. This is obvious when the OS fails to fully detect the full amount of ram installed. Some have been getting by 3gb seeing no problems while not seeing any great benefit over simply having 2gb for an even dual channel configuration. Vista sees better performance with the simple increase from 1gb to 2gb due to new features added being loaded up along with Windows there.

 Those are loaded into ram just like Windows or any other OS. The system takes a small piece and the primary still remains available for your games or apps you decide on running. The simple idea with two channels is to drive the background services seen in XP as well as Vista seeing more added there while the main apps run out in front in that sense.

 To start off with having more then 4gb max is worthless unless seen on a 64bit not 32bit system. The only 32bit version of Windows that can utiliize a larger amount of ram is the Windows 2003 server edition upto some 32gb there. At least there was a tweak for the older Fat32 versions to see over 512mb then. So far nothing has been found for XP and now Vista. Sooner or later you will probably see 100gb boards out but no support seen for 32bit OSs or softwares. No gain there. And after 64bit eventually 128 followed by 256 to be followed by 512bit and then ...?


----------



## zaroba (Apr 25, 2007)

> You wont notice any difference in gaming having 3-5GB of RAM.


funny, i sure did.  games were runing at 5fps with max settings when i had 3gb of ram.  with the full 5gb available games run smoothly.
i do believe i said that a few times already in this topic.



> In fact having 5GB of RAM over 2GB of RAM is worse, since you can not run your RAM in dual-channel mode.


i'm guessing that you say that because 5 is an odd number
while true that for ddr2 you do need matching sized sticks that does not mean it can't equal 5gb with 4 sticks of ram.  2x 2gb sticks and 2x 512mb sticks = 5gb and both sizes are matched pairs.  so yes, it can be run in dual channel mode.  this is even confirmed by CPU-Z telling me my 5120 Mbytes of ram is runing in dual channel mode.

like i said several times already.
games use textures, models, videos, animations, sounds, music, etc which all need to be loaded into your ram before they can be used.  if you have enough ram, then your os will NEVER need to access the hard drive to get these things while your gaming.  thus your games will run smoother and faster.


like i said a few posts ago.  if none of you have actually compaired having 1gb, 3gb, and 5gb ram in a pc with gaming, then you probably shouldn't be assuming that things are the way you think they are (its ok to not know, nobody can know everything about computers).  with 64bit OSs released, and everybody still used to the old 32bit limitation of 4gb of ram, its not a suprise many will think that having 5gb is useless.  but then, thats probably what they said about having 1gb of ram 10 years ago 

hey look, my computer is currently useing %50 of my ram even though its just sitting here with 2 small internat game clients running, internet explorer, trillian, and utorrent running.  why?  simply because it now has the ram to eliminate accessing the hard drive for anything except loading programs.

if you think that its useless to have enough ram to speed up your computer by eliminateing the need to access a paging file on the hard drive, then you've gotta also think it would be useless to have a 10k rpm hard drive to speed up loading times


----------



## PC eye (Apr 26, 2007)

what you seem to be missing is that the market along with the games are all 32bit. Windows Server 2003 can run upto 32gb of ram and that is a 32bit server type OS there. Increasing memory on a system depends primarily on the type of OS run. The increase of ram on any system will see prorams run "smoother" while not necessarily seeing any performance gain past a certain point. While running 98 on a system with 1gb of ram no gain was seen there. 

For the 32bit versions of XP and Vista alike no one has tweaked past the 4gb barrier like a simply line added to the autoexec.bat batch file in 98 saw double the 512mb barrier there. Even while the 64bit structure is an improvement there the OSs are still falling behind the advances in hardwares and memory capacity seen on newer boards.


----------



## zaroba (Apr 26, 2007)

> what you seem to be missing is that the market along with the games are all 32bit


no, i know that.  but you seem to think that it matters.  the games still need ram.



> Windows Server 2003 can run upto 32gb of ram and that is a 32bit server type OS there


what does that have to do with the worthfulness of having more then 4gb of ram for gaming?



> Increasing memory on a system depends primarily on the type of OS run.


nawww, really?  hence why i said back on the first page of this topic that if the guy wanted vista and wanted to have more then 4gb of ram he would need the 64bit version.



> The increase of ram on any system will see prorams run "smoother" while not necessarily seeing any performance gain past a certain point.


exactly, the computer will run smoother.  finally you see what i've been telling you for the past 3 pages.



> While running 98 on a system with 1gb of ram no gain was seen there.  For the 32bit versions of XP and Vista alike no one has tweaked past the 4gb barrier like a simply line added to the autoexec.bat batch file in 98 saw double the 512mb barrier there.


uhh...why are you even bringing this up?  it has nothing to do with vista, gaming, or the usefulness of having over 4gb of ram.



> Even while the 64bit structure is an improvement there the OSs are still falling behind the advances in hardwares and memory capacity seen on newer boards.


just because hardware has advanced beyond software is no reason to think that maving more then 2 gigs of ram is useless.



my god, i feel like i'm talking to a tech support person via e-mails and having to repeat stuff over and over since they don't read any other posts and can't even directly reply to stuff


----------



## StrangleHold (Apr 26, 2007)

zaroba said:


> my god, i feel like i'm talking to a tech support person via e-mails and having to repeat stuff over and over since they don't read any other posts and can't even directly reply to stuff


 
Live and learn, he will start talking about socket As and and Windows 3.1 next! But (I) would drop 1 gb and run 4gb in dual channel. I dont really see what you would be running to eat up all 4gbs


----------



## Geoff (Apr 26, 2007)

PC eye said:


> what you seem to be missing is that the market along with the games are all 32bit. Windows Server 2003 can run upto 32gb of ram and that is a 32bit server type OS there.



Right now the market is for 32-bit games, since thats what the majority of people had for processors and OS's.  Now with Vista and every new CPU being 64-bit, very soon games will be made for 64-Bit OS's.

And Windows Server may support 32GB of RAM (if thats true), but a 32-bit processor can only access up to 4GB.


----------



## PC eye (Apr 27, 2007)

[-0MEGA-];646458 said:
			
		

> Right now the market is for 32-bit games, since thats what the majority of people had for processors and OS's. Now with Vista and every new CPU being 64-bit, very soon games will be made for 64-Bit OS's.
> 
> And Windows Server may support 32GB of RAM (if thats true), but a 32-bit processor can only access up to 4GB.


 
 The only way to see how Windows Server 2003 could work with that much ram onboard is to look at multiple cpus on one board there to get past the limitations of a 32bit cpu. But you are missing one thing there. For 4yrs. there have been 64bit server type cpus out as well as desktop models. Opteron 940s are one quick example there. As far as Windows 64bit will still take some years before it becomes the desktop standard. Being that the market is loaded with 32bit you can see where all that has to fade away while introducing the newer 64bit versions of anything.

 You first have to develop tthe market for 64bit OSs to see game manufacturers shift focus there. The transition from 16bit to 32bit was far more rapid since NT was already 32bit to join up with 98-ME(MS flop there) to merge all as NTFS NT Cored and still have a Multimedia/gaming friendly OS as well as NT based. Instead of putting XP Pro on the first sata I could have grabbed the 64bit OEM version for $50 to run a second experiment like Vista is currently seeing here. If they had a 64bit version of DOSBOX you would then see... Duke Nukem on a 64bit version of Windows?


----------



## PC eye (Apr 27, 2007)

[-0MEGA-];646458 said:
			
		

> Right now the market is for 32-bit games, since thats what the majority of people had for processors and OS's. Now with Vista and every new CPU being 64-bit, very soon games will be made for 64-Bit OS's.
> 
> And Windows Server may support 32GB of RAM (if thats true), but a 32-bit processor can only access up to 4GB.


 
And why wouldn't you see 64bit cpu in servver cases or 32gb on a multi-cpu server board that got by that limitation? 98 was tweaked past 512mb. While everyone now is running a 64bit model cpu the market for making the 64bit versions of Windows the standard is still far off. As a second OS the gamer will still make out now with the 32bit market.

 For simply running a most likely more stable OS for the limited amount of programs available the 64bit OSs make their entry. Presently the 64bit version of XP Pro can be found for $50. If DOSBox ran there then you would see... "it can't be!" Duke on the 64bit version of Vista?


----------



## Supercool (Apr 27, 2007)

Best to keep to 32bit for now, upgarde later in future when more software available.


----------



## Geoff (Apr 27, 2007)

Supercool said:


> Best to keep to 32bit for now, upgarde later in future when more software available.



Even the 64-Bit version of Vista can use 32-Bit apps, it just runs in compatibility mode.  Besides, 9f your spending $200-$400 for an OS, why not get one that will last, and not one that you will have to replace for another $200-$400 ina  year or less?


----------



## PC eye (Apr 27, 2007)

[-0MEGA-];646813 said:
			
		

> Even the 64-Bit version of Vista can use 32-Bit apps, it just runs in compatibility mode. Besides, 9f your spending $200-$400 for an OS, why not get one that will last, and not one that you will have to replace for another $200-$400 ina year or less?


 
 Gee you better not run XP as a first or second OS then. What happens when Vienna or another newer version of Windows comes out and it's still 32bit?


----------



## zaroba (Apr 27, 2007)

PC eye said:


> Presently the 64bit version of XP Pro can be found for $50. If DOSBox ran there then you would see... "it can't be!" Duke on the 64bit version of Vista?



the latest version of dosbox (0.70) works on 64bit vista.


i can't imagine another OS being 32bit.
i don't think they should have even released a 32bit version of vista when 64bit hardware has been out for more then a year.


----------



## PC eye (Apr 28, 2007)

Despite backward compatibility from 64bit to 32bit not everything is going to work there. And not everyone is all 64bit ready! Don't forget many still run systems with 32bit only cpu and hardwares. How do you install a new 64bit OS on a 32bit system? You don't!

 That's what MS looks at there as well anyone else(Apple, Linux, SUN) has to look at as well. It will be a gradual process to see people even think about XP Pro 64bit let alone the latest version MS puts out. With the increased drive space here I could eaily place either of the 64bit versions of Windows along with a 64bit Linux distro at some point. With two more 500gb satas added in the present built it would be a surprise not to at least one 64bit OS installed here.


----------



## zaroba (Apr 28, 2007)

who says that these people with the old 32 bit hardware have to try and install these new 64bit operating systems on there 32bit computers?  they could just stick with there old 32 bit operating system and run 32 bit programs.  theres even still people useing windows 98 on pentium 3s out there.  there comes a time when you have to upgrade.  if you can't then you get left behind with the old hardware that you have. how do you think computers have advanced all these years?  it wasn't by constantly supporting old technology instead of moving into new technologies.  if you think OSs should constantly support old technology instead of moving to new technology, then wheres that 16bit version of XP or 98?    16bit got left behind after 32 bit was released.  just like 32bit should be now that 64bit is out.

if old 32 bit hardware is constantly being supported, then people wont see much of a need to upgrade to 64bit and thus deveolpers wont see the need to support it at all.  and thats where we are currently, more then a year after the release of 64bit hardware and OSs and theres still not much program or driver support for them.  geeze....more then a year already, its already old.


----------



## The Purple Champ (Apr 28, 2007)

zaroba said:


> who says that these people with the old 32 bit hardware have to try and install these new 64bit operating systems on there 32bit computers?  they could just stick with there old 32 bit operating system and run 32 bit programs.  theres even still people useing windows 98 on pentium 3s out there.  there comes a time when you have to upgrade.  if you can't then you get left behind with the old hardware that you have. how do you think computers have advanced all these years?  it wasn't by constantly supporting old technology instead of moving into new technologies.  if you think OSs should constantly support old technology instead of moving to new technology, then wheres that 16bit version of XP or 98?    16bit got left behind after 32 bit was released.  just like 32bit should be now that 64bit is out.
> 
> if old 32 bit hardware is constantly being supported, then people wont see much of a need to upgrade to 64bit and thus deveolpers wont see the need to support it at all.  and thats where we are currently, more then a year after the release of 64bit hardware and OSs and theres still not much program or driver support for them.  geeze....more then a year already, its already old.


thats the reason i bought vista 64. and if you find someone running windows 98 and they arent someones grandmother they need to be slapped. ya digg?


----------



## zaroba (Apr 28, 2007)

actually...i stand corrected.  64bit has been out since 2004 or so.  its already 3 years old!
3 years and STILL only a small amount of driver and program support, probably because people don't use it much because companies insist on continueing to support 32 bit technology and thus developers don't see the need to support 64bit which adds to the reasons people don't use it.

64bit is to 32bit like 32bit was to 16bit.
technology moved on from 16bit to 32bit despite the fact that everybody still had 16bit hardware.
technology has also advanced in hardware despite everybody having old hardware.  ISA -> PCI -> PCI/AGP -> PCIE

why do people/companies not want to move to 64bit now that it is out?
its time to get out of the 32bit era.


----------



## PC eye (Apr 28, 2007)

The main reason for seeing a swift changover from 16bit to 32bit is that the OSR2 release for WIN 95 was the first for home users while NT was already a 32bit OS. The second release WIN95 PLUS! saw OSR2 included. 98 fully became the first 32bit version for home and not network/sevrer application. As far as the newer OSs supporting older hardwares they haven't even caught upto the faster paced hardware trend leaving Windows behind!


----------



## Geoff (Apr 29, 2007)

zaroba said:


> actually...i stand corrected.  64bit has been out since 2004 or so.  its already 3 years old!
> 3 years and STILL only a small amount of driver and program support, probably because people don't use it much because companies insist on continueing to support 32 bit technology and thus developers don't see the need to support 64bit which adds to the reasons people don't use it.
> 
> 64bit is to 32bit like 32bit was to 16bit.
> ...


The reason is because the only consumer 64-Bit OS was Windows Pro x64, which besides being a 64-bit OS, offered nothing new.  So there was no reason for people to upgrade, which resulted in a very low percentage of people having it, which then resulted in very limited driver support.

Windows Vista x64 should change all that.


----------



## hells3000 (Apr 30, 2007)

Ive talked to the Microsoft Press and if you buy vista 32 bit you can later get the 64-bit version for free...


----------



## Bl00dFox (Apr 30, 2007)

[-0MEGA-];648731 said:
			
		

> The reason is because the only consumer 64-Bit OS was Windows Pro x64, which besides being a 64-bit OS, offered nothing new.  So there was no reason for people to upgrade, which resulted in a very low percentage of people having it, which then resulted in very limited driver support.
> 
> Windows Vista x64 should change all that.



What difference is there between Vista 32 and 64? I thought there was no other difference (no new features, etc)...

Am I wrong? Will the 64bit Vista have a lot more features than the 32bit?


----------



## Geoff (Apr 30, 2007)

Bl00dFox said:


> What difference is there between Vista 32 and 64? I thought there was no other difference (no new features, etc)...
> 
> Am I wrong? Will the 64bit Vista have a lot more features than the 32bit?


No they have the same features, but upgrading from 32-Bit XP to 64-Bit Vista is a big upgrade, unlike from XP to XP Pro x64.


----------



## PC eye (Apr 30, 2007)

I wouldn't say the 64bit version of Vista will change that much. It will see a larger amount of users however. But the main trend in software is still 32bit at the present and near future unlike the faster changeover to 32bit after the 3.1 and 95 ended fast. From 95 on plus the opening up of the internet saw more what? "Home users" getting online and the faster turnover of both laptop(convenience) accompanied by pc games drawing in more and more into the 32bit world. The new DX10 games everyone is screaming for will still turn out to be what? 32bit as usual.


----------



## Bl00dFox (Apr 30, 2007)

PC eye said:


> I wouldn't say the 64bit version of Vista will change that much. It will see a larger amount of users however. But the main trend in software is still 32bit at the present and near future unlike the faster changeover to 32bit after the 3.1 and 95 ended fast. From 95 on plus the opening up of the internet saw more what? "Home users" getting online and the faster turnover of both laptop(convenience) accompanied by pc games drawing in more and more into the 32bit world. The new DX10 games everyone is screaming for will still turn out to be what? 32bit as usual.



Are you saying that DX10 games WONT WORK AT ALL with Vista 64? Thats no good...


----------



## PC eye (Apr 30, 2007)

People seem to forget often that backward compatibility doesn't actaully cover all. XP is backward compatible with Fat16 as Fat32 while most 98 programs won't even install let alone run on the newer version there. You can install XP on the older type of partition even while it is usually incompatible to most things. DOSBox couldn't even get the 16bit programs or games like Duke2d running while the 8bit originals saw working results in a "virtual" environment there. Some things will others won't between 64bit and 32bit there too.

 Some games and many apps that run in XP either won't work or run too well in the 32bit versoin of Vista. The compatibility problems still come into things. While the 64bit structure sounds like a more stable base to start wtih the market is still 32bit geared. The system requirements for each game or application will be the thing to be looking at to see what it will run on.


----------



## john5582 (Nov 27, 2007)

*run 32 bit on a 64 bit*

i was wonder how can u run a browser as 32 bit on 64 bit system. The reason i ask that ask question becuase my flash player is not working on my internt ex7 anymore......help please.thanks


----------



## john5582 (Nov 27, 2007)

*help please*

i was wonder how can u run a browser as 32 bit on 64 bit system. The reason i ask that ask question becuase my flash player is not working on my internt ex7 anymore......help please.thanks


----------



## john5582 (Nov 27, 2007)

*help please*

i was wonder how can u run a browser as 32 bit on 64 bit system operation Vista. The reason i ask that ask question becuase my flash player is not working on my internt ex7 anymore......help please.thanks


----------



## PC eye (Nov 27, 2007)

First thing is not to bring up old threads. You should have started a new one for this problem. You probably need to update the Java runtime to see the flash player work. For the latest update go to  http://www.java.com/en/


----------

