Thanks in advance!

Ok, so 32-bit Vista VS. 64 bit Vista has been discussed EVERYWHERE! And analyzed from every different angle imaginable, or has it?

So, I pose a question to all my fellow geeks out there, given my critera of PC usage, which O/S version would you recommend? And please, if you say because it is "newer", or "cooler", than please explain your case, just don't rely on buzzwords. I have found 32-bit suiting me fine, perhaps the real question is, is there really a need for it? In other words, what has the 64-bit edition have, that the 32-bit version does not?

PC uses:
Writing. First and foremost, I use my PC to write. The program I am currently using is MS Word 2007.
Research. Usually for writing, which involves internet, email, etc... Skype for communication, Outlook for calendering etc..
Music. My PC is my repository of all my music, due to me using Ipods, Itunes is my music player.
Games. Rarely do I play games anymore. = ( However, when I do have the time to crank up TF2, or COD4, or TF classic, UT2004, etc.. I would still like to play these games.

PC concerns:
The above really encompasses all except one. Security. From what I understand, the 64-bit version is "more secure" due to its kernel being closed to outside API's? Is this correct? Also, is Vista 64-bit like XP 64-bit? In that, your running two kernels? Does this put an extra load on the system?

Here are my PC's specs:
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHZ
2GB DDR2
BFG Geforce 8800GTS OC/2 740
PC Power & Cooling 512 watt PSU
Audigy 2 ZS
WD Raptor, 74GB
WD 250GB SATA-2

For writing, research and music, you can use any PC made in recent years and even back to Athlon XP or even Pentium 2 450MHz processor days. Windows XP works perfectly well for these tasks. Vista would give you the much, much better system search engine. If you write a lot and need to access you system's files (your work) quickly, Vista is miles ahead of XP regarding Search.

Looking at your specs you appear to be a computer enthusiast to some extent. If you are currently using Windows XP don't bother with Vista 32 except for the reason already mentioned. However, if you want a machine capable of running 8 gigs of RAM and spinning your 64 bit E84 more efficently than XP's 32 bit Prefetch system, then get Vista 64. All the crazy things you hear about Vista 64 being 'difficult' or 'driver insufficient' is being stated by a bunch of techno weenies. Since SP1 Vista 64 is as smooth as XP only like a fully grown up, much more intelligent version.

Thanks, Badge!

I am running Vista-32 bit as of now, and was wondering: Should I really move to 64 bit? What big advantages would there be, per my already stated questions in my previous post? Of course, aside from being able to say "Hey! I'm running a 64-bit O/S!"

I only have 2GB of ram, would that be an issue? Aside from writing, multi-tasking, games, is there a compelling reason to move to 64-bit? Again, thanks!

Well, there is so much information. I used Vista Beta 1 and 2. Then Vista 32 bit. I have two Vista 64 machines now. 2 GB RAM is sufficient, but most people report a nice increase in performance at 4Gb and 8GB. This article is old, but explains a lot about Vista's inner workings. I would also say having a 64 bit OS that shines as well as Vista 64 does is the single most aspect of personal computing I enjoy the most. I wanted a 64 bit OS for years though. The idea was compelling.

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/s [...] i=2917&p=4

This was posted in this section recently

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=506

Thanks, Badge.

I did read those articles, so I guess what I'm trying to figure out here is, what have I missed? "A 64-bit OS that shines so well", in what way does it shine? If the only difference between 32-bit & 64-bit is a performance increase if I double my ram, I don't think I will be moving to 64-bit anytime soon.

I understand the kernel is more secure, which pleases me, however, other than that, again, what advantages are there other than what we and the articles have already covered? Because I'm getting the feeling that it is identical to the 32-bit version, with the only exception being more ram=more power? Am I wrong? Again, any insight would be most appreciated. Thanks! = )

Haha, well a 64 bit processor has a 64 bit OS feeding information threw a straw this big 'O". And your 64 bit processor has a 32 bit OS feeding information threw a straw this big 'o'. So that's my non-technical explanation. Also, having 4 to 8 gigs of RAM addressed through Superfetch with the added cache of Readyboost is a 'huge' upgrade from the 3 + gigs a 32 bit OS can address or work with. You would know instantly you were working on a machine with 8 gigs of RAM configured in a 64 bit OS with Superfetch and Ready boost. But, then a configuration like that is for the enthusiast, not just the average user. Vista 32 and 2 gigs will do anything my system will. Just a lot slower.

Badge,

Thanks for the insight. So essentially, I need to get 4GB of ram? This way, I can notice a difference in performance and it will actually be worth it? I wouldnt really see any performance increase with just 2GB of ram, would I?

I am glad 64-bit is finally "catching on", it has been available for awhile. And, with ram so cheap, why not right? I don't believe I will go to 8GB however LOL.. For me, that would probably be overkill.

The elure for me is alot of multitasking. Which, this would really pay off. Once again, thanks Badge, I really appreciate your insight. If there is anything else you feel I should know, please don't hesitate. Thanks!

I worked on same system with both the 32 and 64 ver, both worked well, but 64 bit felt better. i have old x2 3800@2400 with 4gb of ram, only 3.5 usable but mombo. With hardware you have and your needs what you have will do just fine. And if you will upgrade 2 64 bit ver, make sure you have your printer, scanner web cam etc...drivers, and add some ram.

Arkadi,

Thanks for the insight! I just wiped my Vista 32, and installed Vista 64. And so far, I do see where things are little "tighter", or flowing better. However, as I knew, and everyone warned me, 2GB of ram is not enough. I need to go to 4GB, it takes twice as long to load, boot, open programs etc.. LOL... Thankfully, ram is cheap right now. ; )

Congrats to crimsonking! Nice.

Some good tips on tuning Vista: http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/70563-boot-up.html

Thanks for the link, Scotteq. = ) It is most appreciated.

Hey guys, just an update. So I ordered another 2GB of ram identical to the RAM I already have inside. Bringing the total now to 4GB. However, after using Vista 64 for a few days, here is what I nocticed:

After day two, whenever I would Boot, the boot times became faster.
Overall operating speed, program speed, everything actually... has become much faster than the initial install. One must love superfetch! Vista-64 was much slower than Vista-32 on my PC. See specs in sig.

At any rate, the point is, I was using the 32-bit version is vista with 2GB of ram. I installed the 64-version to find it alot slower in every aspect. With just a few days usage, the performance has increased dramatically. I'm still using 2GB of ram, I can't wait to see the performance with another 2GB inside!

Vista-64 has surprised me. In a good way actually. I notice the O/S is alot like the 64-bit server OS's I manage. I have only had one incident: My monitor would not "wake up". I don't use sleep, or hibernate, it's on until I shut if off. I always shut my monitor off though. When I came in after it was on for a few hours I turned the monitor on, and moved the mouse. The monitor just blinked. I had to hard boot the PC. = ( The monitor is a Samsung syncmaster 226BW. This happened with Vista 32 as well, but this happens once in a blue moon. An OS can't be perfect I guess.

All in all, when the 2GB of ram shows up, I believe I will love this OS. Like I said, it reminds me of the robust-ness, and power of a 64-bit server OS. Thanks guys for encouraging me to switch, I am happy indeed. = )

Considering this, SuperFetch is probably the most significant feature that distinguishes Vista from all other OS's for the users across the board. Many other features won't be noticeable or even used by the common person (that is until commercial developers start using WPF/WFC etc., and even more DX10). So why not take advantage of it?


If this is any indication that 64-bit is the wave of the future and 32-bit will be “obsolete”…

“There appears to be a shift taking place in the PC industry: the move from 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.
We've been tracking the change by looking at the percentage of 64-bit PCs connecting to Windows Update, and have seen a dramatic increase in recent months. The installed base of 64-bit Windows Vista PCs, as a percentage of all Windows Vista systems, has more than tripled in the U.S. in the last three months, while worldwide adoption has more than doubled during the same period. Another view shows that 20% of new Windows Vista PCs in the U.S. connecting to Windows Update in June were 64-bit PCs, up from just 3% in March. Put more simply, usage of 64-bit Windows Vista is growing much more rapidly than 32-bit. Based on current trends, this growth will accelerate as the retail channel shifts to supplying a rapidly increasing assortment of 64-bit desktops and laptops.”
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/ [...] today.aspx

This one's a bit technical, but it describes some of the nitty-gritty of 64-bit technology.
http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/ [...] _the_ram/1