# Making the switch to Vista, 32-bit or 64-bit?



## newtekie1 (Jan 24, 2008)

I got a free legal copy of Vista Business Edition.  But I was wondering if I should install the 32-bit version or the 64-bit version?

Mainly I am looking for whichever one has better software and driver support at the moment.  I am worried the the 64-bit of Vista will be like the 64-bit version of XP.


----------



## Kreij (Jan 24, 2008)

I think the 64 bit drivers have gotten a lot better for most hardware.
I was thinking of getting a 64 copy and switching myself.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 24, 2008)

switch to XP32


----------



## Triprift (Jan 24, 2008)

The only thing i had a prob when i had to reinstall vista after gettin me lappy back from repairs a few months ago was itunes not working dl drivers and it runs fun now the same as every other programme. Definitly go 64 bit you wont be dissapointed.


----------



## Mandown (Jan 24, 2008)

I would go 64-bit. I haven't really seen anything that wont work right except for maybe graphic drivers but thats all I've seen that could be wrong. I doubt you'll have many problem except for the common windows Installation issues.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Jan 24, 2008)

Why don't you dual boot and use both t'see which one you prefer. That's if the key(s) allow you!


----------



## Mussels (Jan 24, 2008)

Xp 32 or vista 64. Those are the two options. Got 4GB ram? vista it is.


----------



## das müffin mann (Jan 24, 2008)

vista 64 supports more ram thats what i would go for


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 24, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> switch to XP32



I already use XP32, I want something different, I like change.  I can't afford new hardware right now, so I need a software change.  Plus I really need to start learning Vista for my job, I am getting more and more Vista related tech support questions, and I find them hard to answer because I don't use the OS on a regular basis.



InnocentCriminal said:


> Why don't you dual boot and use both t'see which one you prefer. That's if the key(s) allow you!



I find that when I dual-boot I tend to just boot into whatever the first option is on the boot menu most of the time, neglecting the second OS completely.


----------



## Mandown (Jan 24, 2008)

I noticed more with 64-bit than just the 4gb ram thing, i saw that is was faster. program switching was quicker, and windows all together ran smoother. from all the techies at best buy, circuit city, hell even my college said theres around a 10% better performance over the 32-bit.


----------



## rampage (Jan 24, 2008)

im using vista X64 and i havent looked back, there were some teething probs and u may find a problem with a app or two switching from Xp X86 but im sure you could find anything u need in X64


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 24, 2008)

I have installed 32 and 64 bit many of times and I prefer the 64 bit.  Basically just for the memory access and program switching.  But when it comes to performance(3dmark & other benches) I get almost the same results, varying higher and lower telling me that there isnt much difference.  A 32bit app is gonna run at 32bit regardless of the 64bit OS, so its not gonna be any faster just because its 64bit. 

I have heard of issues with TV tuners and various other hardware with 64 bit, infact MaximumPC podcast was just talkin about that on last fridays podcast.  But I havnt had those issues with my tuner experiences.  

I would say go 64 bit because when new apps come out to use it, then you have it.  

FYI, i also dual boot a 32 bit XP.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 24, 2008)

im running 64 bit ultimate and everything runs fine iv had no program issues whatsoever...and did i mention its crazy fast?


----------



## Mandown (Jan 24, 2008)

lol love the avatar solaris


----------



## Matt18 (Jan 25, 2008)

I would definately dual boot.  I just left my existing copy of XP32 and got a new HD and installed vista 32 on it.  1 week later I switched to vista 64bit ultimate.  No regrets what so ever.  Other than I could stream video via media center to my 360 w/ the 32bit, but for some reason the xbox locks up when i try to play it on the 64bit.  Can't figure it out...

Either way I noticed a significant improvement w/ vista, it just seems to me to respond faster.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 25, 2008)

Matt18 said:


> I would definately dual boot.  I just left my existing copy of XP32 and got a new HD and installed vista 32 on it.  1 week later I switched to vista 64bit ultimate.  No regrets what so ever.  Other than I could stream video via media center to my 360 w/ the 32bit, but for some reason the xbox locks up when i try to play it on the 64bit.  Can't figure it out...
> 
> Either way I noticed a significant improvement w/ vista, it just seems to me to respond faster.



Vista uses the adressing of memory much better, which allows programs to be stored better and respond quicker.  Vista is a memory hog for that reason, it will use what you have, on my gaming rig I do alot of other apps too.  After leaving it on for a few days without a restart my computer will be using a good 1.4 or more gigs of ram, and some of that might be mem leak but the applications load and run very quick and smoothly.  After a restart the programs lag for a second or two until they get loaded into memory.  I am a big fan, I think Vista has done a pretty good job


----------



## sturge33 (Jan 25, 2008)

*Vista 64*

I went with 64-bit for the extra ram.  So far the only thing I can't run is Dscaler or any other TV tuner app.  I'm stuck using Media Center but at least the tuner works.  I don't use it that often so it's no big deal.  I would suggest checking to see if 64-bit drivers are available for your hardware before making the switch though.  Most likely they are but you never know.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 25, 2008)

i'm of the same opinion. The people who rant about hwo vista uses more memory so its gotta be crap, is a dumb idea. Vista uses more ram because we have more ram to use! using ram more means less page file used, so its a GOOD thing.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 25, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i'm of the same opinion. The people who rant about hwo vista uses more memory so its gotta be crap, is a dumb idea. Vista uses more ram because we have more ram to use! using ram more means less page file used, so its a GOOD thing.



its good talking to people who dont shit on vista left and right.  Even when i listen to PC people in the industry(MaximumPC and other podcasts) they still bash vista to this day.  There comes a time where there gonna have to deal with it and get used to the fact that you need more than 512mbs ram.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 25, 2008)

sturge33 said:


> I went with 64-bit for the extra ram.  So far the only thing I can't run is Dscaler or any other TV tuner app.  I'm stuck using Media Center but at least the tuner works.  I don't use it that often so it's no big deal.  I would suggest checking to see if 64-bit drivers are available for your hardware before making the switch though.  Most likely they are but you never know.



I ran my TV tuner software in compatibility mode and it worked fine, then I used Media Center for awhile and I have no reason to even use the TV tuner software anymore, Vista MC is awesome and really easy!


----------



## Mussels (Jan 25, 2008)

asb2106 said:


> its good talking to people who dont shit on vista left and right.  Even when i listen to PC people in the industry(MaximumPC and other podcasts) they still bash vista to this day.  There comes a time where there gonna have to deal with it and get used to the fact that you need more than 512mbs ram.



at the local lan events, lots of people are copying my system.

There are now 4 users with the same system as me (motherboard/ram identical, various core 2 duo/quad CPU's, 8800's)

Even with the same overclocks, those on XP loaded up to 30 seconds slower in games - now that most of them have switched to vista 64, the differences between systems are 5-10s, and i believe hard drive related.

Vista is a great OS, as long as you meet the following requirements:
#1: 2GB or more of ram. DDR2 is so cheap these days, you cant argue against this.
#2: decent speed hard drive. 250GB or above, simply because its hard to find a slow 250GB drive 
#3: you arent an irrational fanboy who thinks less memory used is faster. memory is faster than hard drives, so using the memory instead of the drive is a damn good thing.


as a side note, 4GB of ram is sexy in vista. Superfetch really shines with 4/8GB of ram, so i reccomend vista x64. If you have a modern system (AM2/core 2) then your hardwares going to be new enough to have driver support.


----------



## Dangle (Jan 25, 2008)

Vista 64 support is WAAAAAAAAAY better than XP 64


----------



## grunt_408 (Jan 25, 2008)

Damn I just ordered 32 bit Vista for a customer only coz I didnt want it to have any issues with drivers ect.


----------



## thoughtdisorder (Jan 25, 2008)

Craigleberry said:


> Damn I just ordered 32 bit Vista for a customer only coz I didnt want it to have any issues with drivers ect.



Best of luck, and may the Force be with you..........


----------



## EnergyFX (Jan 25, 2008)

Vista is awesome. People who bash it and swear to stick with XP until the end are the people that probably enjoy cereal from a black and white box, Hyundais, answering machines with a cassette tape, and probably still play Police Quest.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 25, 2008)

EnergyFX said:


> Vista is awesome. People who bash it and swear to stick with XP until the end are the people that probably enjoy cereal from a black and white box, Hyundais, answering machines with a cassette tape, and probably still play Police Quest.



police quest was fun


----------



## Triprift (Jan 25, 2008)

once sp1 is fully released and then sp2 the vista haters will be mostly gone because they will all be using it.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 25, 2008)

sp1 is just giving the people against vista more fuel for their fire.  

When vista was released they said it will not ever need service packs, it was promised to be a complete package.


----------



## MiST91 (Jan 25, 2008)

i was in the same situation as you the other day, i have got both 32bit and 64bit windows vista, and was switching from XP 32bit, i know there is people who sware by XP, and i was just the same, advised all my friends to stick with XP, untill i upgraded my system a little and vista ultimate x86 flys , and i am very picky and notice performance differances and to my astonishment vista is just as fast if not faster (loading apps and boot up a lot quicker) and to be honest games don't seem any differant at all and havn't had any compatability with older games (colin mcrea 2005, NFS:underground 2) and the same applies with any older software i'v got, all you have to make sure you do is tweak it a little (just like i did with xp, and vista is either faster or just as fast) eg. disabling pointless services that you will never use, and turning that bloody admin thing off that asks you permission to do absolutly anything and puts a stupid shield on all your icons. So basicly, definitly go to vista if i was you, and had your system . I would sugest 32bit at the moment however and mybe go 64bit when 32bit compatability is almost perfect and 64bit software is a little more popular, however thats my opinion.


----------



## grunt_408 (Jan 25, 2008)

thoughtdisorder said:


> Best of luck, and may the Force be with you..........



ROFL the Force is always with me I do have a hammer in my tool box


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 25, 2008)

Gonna switch to Vista soon to but.Does Vista install well on the stock BIOS of the Evga 680i SLI SE mobo? And does Vista 32-bit support the full 4GB of RAM?. Does the RAM have to be ''Vista Certified''?. And do i put in the Vista CD in BIOS or when booted in XP?


----------



## flashstar (Jan 25, 2008)

Vista 64 has driver signing issues. For example, many motherboard monitoring applications simply don't work. Vista 64 is also no faster for video games and other programs that are not programmed to run in 64 bit mode. In fact, the OS has to emulate 32 bit apps, which results in a net performance loss. 

I would stick with XP.

You aren't missing anything...


----------



## JC316 (Jan 25, 2008)

X64. I have no stability problems, nor do I have any issues with drivers or programs.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 26, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> Gonna switch to Vista soon to but.Does Vista install well on the stock BIOS of the Evga 680i SLI SE mobo? And does Vista 32-bit support the full 4GB of RAM?. Does the RAM have to be ''Vista Certified''?. And do i put in the Vista CD in BIOS or when booted in XP?



dont let anyone scare you from vista 64.  I use it with any programs I want, TV tuners, and others that people complain of, the important thing to remember is compatibility mode and turning UAC off.  With those Vista runs excellent.  32bit Vista cannot address 4gigs, 64 bit does with ease, and there is a benefit to it, Vista leaves more in the page file allowing faster loads and smoother running of the programs you use the most, which in turn gives you a performance increase.  Yes, Vista uses alot of ram, but thats because it USES it.  

Vista is not much different than XP, but it is a real nice change and now since I switched to Vista I am disapointed to see XP, its no fun.  And you are missing without Vista, its nice, clean, fast, easy and really fun to play with new features.  If you enjoy tweaking and playing you wont be disapointed, its great fun!

OOH and no, it should work fine, but put the disk in during bios, and I recommend doing a dual boot until you can let go of your XP install, upgrading is messy and bloats up the system, always go clean install!


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 26, 2008)

Is upgrading CPU and Video card the same as Windows XP? Should i get upgrade or retail or system builder?


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 26, 2008)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116204 orhttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116143


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 26, 2008)

I use system builder, its cheapest but you are stuck to only installing it on that one computer.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 26, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116204



thats the exact one that I buy for all the systems I build


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 26, 2008)

Should i upgrade my CPU to a Q6600 before i install Vista or after? Also gonna upgrade my Vid card so should i use the same drivers i have or what? Or would any of it actually matter.


----------



## d0s (Jan 26, 2008)

I hate to use Vista 64bit purely because of the 64bit driver signing its a pain in the neck. Also if you are planning to use Vista 64bit just because it supports 4GB of ram, 32bit does too! Well atleast in SP1, it will allow you to use the whole 4GB not just the 3.25-3.50GB. 

I personally use Vista 32bit for every day stuff and gaming usually.

EDIT: The CPU and video card drivers does not really matter it makes no difference. Just uninstall the video drivers before installing your new card. With the CPU all you need to do is swap it out.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 26, 2008)

d0s said:


> I hate to use Vista 64bit purely because of the 64bit driver signing its a pain in the neck. Also if you are planning to use Vista 64bit just because it supports 4GB of ram, 32bit does too! Well atleast in SP1, it will allow you to use the whole 4GB not just the 3.25-3.50GB.
> 
> I personally use Vista 32bit for every day stuff and gaming usually.




Whats wrong with the driver signing?


----------



## d0s (Jan 26, 2008)

Nothing is actually wrong with driver signing its just that its enforced in Vista 64bit. A few third party applications I like to use require the use of unsigned drivers which can not be install under vista 64bit without disabling it on boot everytime.

EDIT: It's probably not an issue you'll run into much if at all. Like an eariler post said its mostly montoring tools and such, there are plently that do work. My advice would probably be to install 64bit and try it out. It the only way you'll find out if you'll run in to any issues.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 26, 2008)

So some apps don't work?


----------



## d0s (Jan 26, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> So some apps don't work?



Correct but you could say the same about Vista 32bit. Its only select few applications it's also unlikely you'll run in to a problem. I use a few custom applications for some work I do these require unsigned drivers to be able to run.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 26, 2008)

EnergyFX said:


> Vista is awesome. People who bash it and swear to stick with XP until the end are the people that probably enjoy cereal from a black and white box, Hyundais, answering machines with a cassette tape, and probably still play Police Quest.



hyundais


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 26, 2008)

d0s said:


> I hate to use Vista 64bit purely because of the 64bit driver signing its a pain in the neck. Also if you are planning to use Vista 64bit just because it supports 4GB of ram, 32bit does too! Well atleast in SP1, it will allow you to use the whole 4GB not just the 3.25-3.50GB.
> 
> I personally use Vista 32bit for every day stuff and gaming usually.
> 
> EDIT: The CPU and video card drivers does not really matter it makes no difference. Just uninstall the video drivers before installing your new card. With the CPU all you need to do is swap it out.



Thats not true, no 32bit OS can support more than ~3 gigs, its not possible, it can only access that much because of the limitations of 32bit.

32bit will never be able to resource 4gigs.  And the drivers issue is there but if you disable the UAC you wont have those problems.  Even if you only diasble it during the install youll be fine.  64bit is gonna be much more useful in the future so why not get there now.  Im really getting tired of people saying 64bit is bad when they really dont know.  And when I see a 32bit OS support 4 gigs properly, Ill be suprised, the 32bit achitecture just isnt made to handle it, thats why we have 64bit available
EDITED!


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 26, 2008)

d0s said:


> Correct but you could say the same about Vista 32bit. Its only select few applications it's also unlikely you'll run in to a problem. I use a few custom applications for some work I do these require unsigned drivers to be able to run.



and if an app doesnt work just run it in compatibility mode with whatever it was made for and it will work.  and run as ADMIN after disabling UAC and youll be perfectly fine.  I have never found an app that I couldnt run after doing that


----------



## Mussels (Jan 26, 2008)

Vista SP1 is supposed to use some CPU extension to bypass it, and allow 4GB of ram in vista x86.

I cannot recall all details, its some form of virtual addressing. It is a workaround, but i am unaware of its pros and cons at present



Edit: that information may have been rumour, here is FACT i got from a microsoft press release in google.

"With SP1, Windows Vista will report the amount of system memory installed rather than report the amount of system memory available to the OS. Therefore 32-bit systems equipped with 4GB of RAM will report all 4GB in many places throughout the OS, such as the System Control Panel. However, this behavior is dependent on having a compatible BIOS, so not all users may notice this change. "

basically its only going to SHOW 4GB, you still cant use it.


Edit :2
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx

This is PAE, and the method to allow 4GB of ram in a 32 bit OS. atm it is an intel feature only, so it DOES require compatible hardware, so its impossible for microsoft to just 'add it in' for all users of x86 hardware.



			
				MS said:
			
		

> Hardware Requirements for PAE
> 
> The system must meet the following minimum requirements:
> •
> ...


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 26, 2008)

Mussels said:


> Vista SP1 is supposed to use some CPU extension to bypass it, and allow 4GB of ram in vista x86.
> 
> I cannot recall all details, its some form of virtual addressing. It is a workaround, but i am unaware of its pros and cons at present.



OK, so if thats the case, Im sorry

But if it does, is it gonna be accessable by programs or only for the OS, because of the "virtual" limitations

I dont see it working right, just because of the way 32bit works

EDITED


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 26, 2008)

Mussels said:


> Vista SP1 is supposed to use some CPU extension to bypass it, and allow 4GB of ram in vista x86.
> 
> I cannot recall all details, its some form of virtual addressing. It is a workaround, but i am unaware of its pros and cons at present
> 
> ...



Thats what I was thinking, its just gonna show 4 gigs, but it cannot use it.  32bit simply cant do it.  Maybe somehow they can make it accessable by a 64bit extension that can address it for apps but i dont see it working right, just get 64 bit


----------



## Mussels (Jan 26, 2008)

by using PAE they could, but its intel only. That kinda makes it pointless, so i guess they went with 'pretend it works' instead.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 26, 2008)

Mussels said:


> by using PAE they could, but its intel only. That kinda makes it pointless, so i guess they went with 'pretend it works' instead.



I wonder why SP1 would even try to do this then, I could see lots of problems with users that dont have the required hardware, or alot of people pissed when it doesnt work because they dont have the required hardware


----------



## d0s (Jan 26, 2008)

I've been running the RC of SP1 for Vista on a second system E4400 + 4GB RAM, Vista can access basically all of the 4GB RAM. The only limitation I believe is the fact 32bit applications can only address up to 3.25GB ish. To be honest not alot of applications even need that amount at the moment. I game on a Q6600 + 8800GTS(G92) + 2GB of RAM.

EDIT: Also 32bit server editions with PAE can address up to 128GB of ram I believe. Also there are applications that will refuse to work with Vista 64bit because of driver signing. I disable UAC on all vista install and I only ever log in as the admin account.


----------



## Ravenas (Jan 26, 2008)

I have a copy of Vista 64-bit Ultimate and the only driver problem I've ran into is a pinnacle tv driver, they just don't make it yet. The driver support for 64-bit is great other than that, so I have to say go with 64-bit.


----------



## Water Drop (Jan 27, 2008)

If you only have 2GB of ram (like your system specs show) then you should probably stick with 32 Bit Vista because of the better driver.  If you do want to go 64 bit, then check all the manufacter's websites to make sure they have 64 Bit Vista drivers.  Make sure they have them not just for your core components (video cards and sound cards), but also make sure your printer or any external devices also have 64 bit Vista drivers.  Unless you have 4GB of ram or more, then 64 bit really doesn't offer you much.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 27, 2008)

Water Drop said:


> If you only have 2GB of ram (like your system specs show) then you should probably stick with 32 Bit Vista because of the better driver.  If you do want to go 64 bit, then check all the manufacter's websites to make sure they have 64 Bit Vista drivers.  Make sure they have them not just for your core components (video cards and sound cards), but also make sure your printer or any external devices also have 64 bit Vista drivers.  Unless you have 4GB of ram or more, then 64 bit really doesn't offer you much.



VERY common misconception.

The ONLY hardware that doesnt have vista x64 drivers, doesnt have good drivers for the x86 either. Microsoft require anyone making vista drivers to make both versions - the companies that dont have x64, only did minor tweaks to their win XP/server 2003 drivers anyway, and usually arent CERTIFIED. The only drivers/software that dont work on vista x64, are those not CERTIFIED by microsoft to work.

very, very little hardware wont work in vista with the exception of really old periperhals. printers, webcams etc - if you bought a dirt cheap thing a few years ago from a no name brand, odds are they wont bother making new drivers. If you're getting a vista machine and your hardware is that old/cruddy - just get new peripherals if they dont work!


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 27, 2008)

If i install Vista i need to DL new Drivers for my Mobo and Video card right?


Like this one for my Motherboard:http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_64_15.08.html

And this is for my Video card:http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x64_169.25_whql.html


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 27, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> If i install Vista i need to DL new Drivers for my Mobo and Video card right?
> 
> 
> Like this one for my Motherboard:http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_64_15.08.html
> ...



I would, but when I switched to Vista with my p5b deluxe, vista had all the drivers for it.  after many reinstalls I have given up on using ASUS drivers and stuck with the vista ones, they work great, but youd have to do some trial and error first


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 27, 2008)

asb2106 said:


> I would, but when I switched to Vista with my p5b deluxe, vista had all the drivers for it.  after many reinstalls I have given up on using ASUS drivers and stuck with the vista ones, they work great, but youd have to do some trial and error first



Is there something wrong with the Vista drivers?


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 27, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> Is there something wrong with the Vista drivers?



no, but just incase there is, I really like the fact that I dont have to install drivers, my mobo is alittle old too so thats probably why they have them.  I doubt there up on the newest Mobos but one or two years old Im sure they have


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 27, 2008)

Well i found those driver up top for my Evga 680i SE SLI mobo. So it should work fine i hope. I am going to reformat and just do a clean install. I don't need anything on my HDD.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jan 27, 2008)

Man, I just did a clean install of my OS for my new RAID 0 Configuration and was debating wether or not to install VIsta 64 bit and said to mysefl "Better stay on the safe side their George and stick with 32 Bit" and now after all the labor and time that went into taking all my backed up Files from an old IDE HD and puttin it into my two new ones I read this thread saying 64 Bit rocks

Tell me, with my current system specs would it be worth installing the 64 Bit version of Vista Ultimate I have it already I just need people to tell me if they were me they would do it or some other opinion.

Thanks for reading my small rant...


----------



## Triprift (Jan 27, 2008)

Youd have no problems it runs sweet on mines so yours will be cruisin.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 28, 2008)

AphexDreamer said:


> Man, I just did a clean install of my OS for my new RAID 0 Configuration and was debating wether or not to install VIsta 64 bit and said to mysefl "Better stay on the safe side their George and stick with 32 Bit" and now after all the labor and time that went into taking all my backed up Files from an old IDE HD and puttin it into my two new ones I read this thread saying 64 Bit rocks
> 
> Tell me, with my current system specs would it be worth installing the 64 Bit version of Vista Ultimate I have it already I just need people to tell me if they were me they would do it or some other opinion.
> 
> Thanks for reading my small rant...



32 and 64 bit run no differently.. if you can run the 32 bit version happily, x64 will run the same - with a possible memory boost if you have 4GB ram.


----------



## smitheo1 (Jan 31, 2008)

I would actually run either XP or Vista x86 or x64.  It's all about the SATA, the dual-core and the chipset!!!


----------

