64-bit Vista is the way to go
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 01 December 2006 - 16:59 · 98 comments & 38385 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(9 replies)
#1 Posted by Sheppard on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:02
- Yes but with x64 you have to use signed drivers which means any company that hasn't embraced 64bit yet, and thats quite a lot from my experience they either flat out don't support it or they have buggy alpha drivers, means you wont be running many of your peripherals.
-
#1.1 Posted by adversedeviant on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:23
- no you dont. hit F6 on startup then when that menu comes up hit f8 and advanced f8 options appear one of them being something like disable unsigned driver protection. i really hope x64 goes mainstream, all processors these days have been x64 compat. but no one has harnessed it. especially software vendors....
-
#1.2 Posted by tcghost on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:14
- Quote - adversedeviant said @ #1.1no you dont. hit F6 on startup then when that menu comes up hit f8 and advanced f8 options appear one of them being something like disable unsigned driver protection. i really hope x64 goes mainstream, all processors these days have been x64 compat. but no one has harnessed it. especially software vendors....
but who is going to do that every time they (re)start their computer? -
#1.3 Posted by adversedeviant on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:16
- Quote - tcghost said @ #1.2Quote - adversedeviant said @ #1.1no you dont. hit F6 on startup then when that menu comes up hit f8 and advanced f8 options appear one of them being something like disable unsigned driver protection. i really hope x64 goes mainstream, all processors these days have been x64 compat. but no one has harnessed it. especially software vendors....
but who is going to do that every time they (re)start their computer?
what the hell are you talking about you only need to do it to install the drivers once they're there, they're there. -
#1.4 Posted by Martog on 01 Dec 2006 - 20:11
- EasyBCD lets you put in the option to boot Vista x64 every time with the option enabled to allow unsigned drivers.
-
#1.5 Posted by Andareed on 01 Dec 2006 - 20:12
- @adversedeviant: If that were the case, windows would have to save a flag for each driver indicating whether or not to allow it to bypass signing. Then it would be easy to change the flag for unsigned drivers the F6 trick.
Perhaps what you're referring to is enabling "Test mode" via bcdedit. Once test mode is enabled, you don't need to take any action at boot to get unsigned drivers to load. -
#1.6 Posted by strekship on 02 Dec 2006 - 00:08
- Quote - adversedeviant said @ #1.1no you dont. hit F6 on startup then when that menu comes up hit f8 and advanced f8 options appear one of them being something like disable unsigned driver protection. i really hope x64 goes mainstream, all processors these days have been x64 compat. but no one has harnessed it. especially software vendors....
That does not work in RTM. I have already tried to do it. -
#1.7 Posted by omni on 02 Dec 2006 - 02:45
- Quote - Sheppard said @ #1Yes but with x64 you have to use signed drivers which means any company that hasn't embraced 64bit yet, and thats quite a lot from my experience they either flat out don't support it or they have buggy alpha drivers, means you wont be running many of your peripherals.
Perhaps this is because (from all the benchmarks i've seen anyway) there is really very little benefit to using 64 bit in the enthusiast market. That and there's still a lot of software compatability issues, more so than drivers. Little programs that people got used to under their 32bit XP may not be in developement anymore etc. -
#1.8 Posted by kronix2 on 02 Dec 2006 - 04:35
- Quote - adversedeviant said @ #1.3Quote - tcghost said @ #1.2Quote - adversedeviant said @ #1.1no you dont. hit F6 on startup then when that menu comes up hit f8 and advanced f8 options appear one of them being something like disable unsigned driver protection. i really hope x64 goes mainstream, all processors these days have been x64 compat. but no one has harnessed it. especially software vendors....
but who is going to do that every time they (re)start their computer?
what the hell are you talking about you only need to do it to install the drivers once they're there, they're there.
tcghost means "who's going to hit F8 every time they want to install a driver".
You can turn the driver signing off with something like VistaBootPro or EasyBCD, by the way. -
#1.9 Posted by Hak Foo on 02 Dec 2006 - 04:57
- I've always wondered what the game is with signed drivers.
Are there significant reports of malicious unsigned drivers?
The only real case of evil drivers I know of is the StarForce mess, and I bet those were signed.
As far as I can tell, it's a good way to keep freeware/alternative driver development down, but very little else.
-
(4 replies)
#2 Posted by rbet on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:06
- I don't understand the reason behind the fact that even when 64bit is out for some time, yet most of the hardware makers aren't out with decent drivers yet. XP x64 was released what, two years ago? I know x64 isn't adopted widely yet, but it wouldn't cost a lot of resources to write and release x64 drivers, would it?
-
#2.1 Posted by Leo Natan on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:03
- It would... It requires a complete rewrite of software, which isn't as easy as it might seem. So why should they bother, when the percantage of users is so small?
-
#2.2 Posted by obsolete_power on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:32
- Quote - Leo Natan said @ #2.1It would... It requires a complete rewrite of software, which isn't as easy as it might seem. So why should they bother, when the percantage of users is so small?
Because even if one person buys it, that person has paid for the operating system so why should he be discriminated because he is the only one?? Imho vendors should be forced to release 64-bit drivers nowadays or have their contracts severed! -
#2.3 Posted by nigor on 01 Dec 2006 - 19:33
- Quote - Leo Natan said @ #2.1It would... It requires a complete rewrite of software, which isn't as easy as it might seem. So why should they bother, when the percantage of users is so small?
If you used good programming practices, then compiling a x64 driver would be as easy as using a 64 bit compiler. I see a lot of "dirty" code used unnecessary in programs only because the developers who wrote them seem to think they are still in the 80's or something. Like bloody #define statements and void pointers and memory move operations and all. -
#2.4 Posted by The_Decryptor on 02 Dec 2006 - 00:02
- Quote - Leo Natan said @ #2.1It would... It requires a complete rewrite of software, which isn't as easy as it might seem. So why should they bother, when the percantage of users is so small?I don't know much about drivers, but for applications all you have to do is compile them as 64Bit, *if* they are written properly.
Problem is, that's a big if, most programmers (e.g. not in the big places like Adobe or MS) are quite lazy, and will assume things, like the length of a pointer (which is different on a 64Bit machine)
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by Hurmoth on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:08
- As of right now I only have 1 driver that doesn't work yet and that's my Creative sound card. Everything else (driver wise that is) seems to work just fine under the 64-bit edition. Software is a different beast entirely, and I've ran into a lot of issues with that. These companies need to embrace 64-bit a bit faster if you ask me.
8GB of RAM would be nice to have though.
-
#3.1 Posted by adversedeviant on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:24
- yeah thats the only reason i havent switched no sound for my expensive sound system...
-
#4 Posted by Lasker on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:12
- thanks god, I have 64bit ultimate and is the way to go babe
-
#5 Posted by acrophile on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:18
- I would suggest that you dual-boot 32 and 64 bit for a while... kind of a pain, but might save some frustration.
-
(14 replies)
#6 Posted by Neowave on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:35
- I don't fully understand why Microsoft made two versions: 32-bit and 64-bit. Mac OS X Leopard will be able to run 64-bit and 32-bit applications side-by-side, fully native and without any performance hit.
Is there a reason why Microsoft kept the two apart? And is Windows Vista 64-bit able to run all 32-bit applications without any problems as if you were running them on the 32-bit version (unlike Windows XP 64-bit)?
I wanted to ask this a while back, but didn't think it was new thread worthy.
Last edited by Neowave on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:41 -
#6.1 Posted by d3v on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:48
- Quote - Neowave said @ #1Mac OS X Leopard will be able to run 64-bit and 32-bit applications side-by-side, fully native and without any performance hit.
This I would like to see. -
#6.2 Posted by Neowave on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:50
- Quote - d3v said @ #6.1This I would like to see.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html
There you go. -
#6.3 Posted by Leo Natan on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:05
- Quote - Neowave said @ #6.2Quote - d3v said @ #6.1This I would like to see.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html
There you go.
Lol, yeah yeah, MS tried to promise the same thing, but quickly backed out when the preliminary testing started. Apple will stfu soon, it's just impossible to accomplish from a technological standpoint. -
#6.4 Posted by obsolete_power on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:33
- Quote - d3v said @ #6.1Quote - Neowave said @ #1Mac OS X Leopard will be able to run 64-bit and 32-bit applications side-by-side, fully native and without any performance hit.
This I would like to see.
What do you mean? This is a known fact.... -
#6.5 Posted by Neowave on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:53
- Quote - Leo Natan said @ #6.3Lol, yeah yeah, MS tried to promise the same thing, but quickly backed out when the preliminary testing started. Apple will stfu soon, it's just impossible to accomplish from a technological standpoint.
The betas and Xcode 3.0 already seem to have the promised 32-bit and 64-bit support. So I doubt it. -
#6.6 Posted by franzon on 01 Dec 2006 - 19:46
- Quote - Neowave said @ #1Mac OS X Leopard will be able to run 64-bit and 32-bit applications side-by-side, fully native and without any performance hit.
sorry but, Leopard is a 32-bit OS with 64-bit application extensions, so it's NOT a true 64-bit OS.
A true 64-bit OS like Vista is better than a 32-bit one
Last edited by franzon on 02 Dec 2006 - 09:58 -
#6.7 Posted by roadwarrior on 01 Dec 2006 - 20:36
- Quote - franzon said @ #6.6Quote - Neowave said @ #1Mac OS X Leopard will be able to run 64-bit and 32-bit applications side-by-side, fully native and without any performance hit.
sorry but, Leopard is a 32-bit OS with 64-bit application extensions, so it's NOT a true 64-bit OS.
A true 64-bit OS like Vista is better than a 32-bit one
1. Stop shouting at people
2. you're wrong
3. did you bother to read the link that someone posted above?
Here, I'll quote it for you:Quote -Mac OS X Leopard ups the power of 64-bit computing delivered in Tiger. Build and run a new generation of 64-bit applications that address massive amounts of memory. Leopard takes 64-bit computing to the next level, while maintaining full performance and compatibility for your existing 32-bit applications and drivers.
Enhanced 64-bit Support
Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one, universal OS. Now Cocoa and Carbon application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the rest of the system are all 64-bit. Leopard delivers 64-bit power to both Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, so you don’t have to install separate applications for different machines. There’s only one version of Mac OS X, so you don’t need to maintain separate operating systems for different uses.
Bridge the Generation Gap
Now that the entire operating system is 64-bit, you can take full advantage of the Xeon chip in Mac Pro and Xserve. You get more processing power at up to 3.0GHz, without limiting your programs to command-line applications, servers, and computation engines. And in just one great package: Leopard.
I bolded the important parts for you.
from http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html -
#6.8 Posted by Neowave on 01 Dec 2006 - 21:03
- Quote - franzon said @ #6.6sorry but, Leopard is a 32-bit OS with 64-bit application extensions, so it's NOT a true 64-bit OS.
A true 64-bit OS like Vista is better than a 32-bit one
I suggest you read the link provided by both me and roadwarrior. -
#6.9 Posted by Divide Overflow on 01 Dec 2006 - 21:44
- I don't see where the argument is here, or where there is any question with this. Microsoft has emulated previous APIs before, and so has Apple. Windows NT, 2000, and XP all emulate DOS and Win16 apps, and now 64 bit versions of Windows do the same thing with Win32 Apps (DOS/Win16 not included however). Apple has done the same in the past during the transition from the old 68k Macs to PowerPC Macs, and now again from PowerPC to x86. In any of these cases, the emulation has never been perfect, for either Apple or Microsoft. The same problems have plagued each company. Due to developer idocy, sometimes applications use dirty hacks to get certain things done, and neither Apple nor Microsoft can account for everything.
The bottom line is that the 64 bit version of Windows will not run ONLY 64 bit apps. 32 bit Windows apps will run as well. Hell, Leopard and Vista 64 will run on the same damn PCs anyway, Apple's self imposed limitations on MacOS notwithstanding. -
#6.10 Posted by Osprey on 02 Dec 2006 - 00:57
- Quote - Neowave said @ #6I don't fully understand why Microsoft made two versions: 32-bit and 64-bit. Mac OS X Leopard will be able to run 64-bit and 32-bit applications side-by-side, fully native and without any performance hit.64-bit Windows can run 32-bit applications, just as 32-bit Windows can run 16-bit applications. It's called "Windows on Windows" (WoW). Why even make a 32-bit Vista, then? Well, I'm not totally sure, but I think that it may have a lot to do with drivers and what Microsoft wants to do with 64-bit drivers. Also, there's the thorny issue of compatibility. Apple can afford to tick people off with snafus like with OS9 mode under OSX, but Windows runs the vast majority of businesses, so caution and choice is important.
-
#6.11 Posted by franzon on 02 Dec 2006 - 09:43
- Quote - roadwarrior said @ #6.7
2. you're wrong
sorry for you, but the Leopard kernel is 32-bit, so Leopard is not a true 32-bit OS. With the 64-bit extensions in Leopard you're able to run 64-bit applications and memory addressing, but the kernel remains 32-bit. This is the reason you can execute both 32-bit and 64-bit applications in leopard, because the kernel is 32-bit and there's an additional support to run 64-bit applications.
Last edited by franzon on 02 Dec 2006 - 14:09 -
#6.12 Posted by sphbecker on 03 Dec 2006 - 20:12
- Quote -And is Windows Vista 64-bit able to run all 32-bit applications without any problems as if you were running them on the 32-bit version (unlike Windows XP 64-bit)?
The 64-bit version of Vista and XP alike can both run 32 and 64-bit software side by side. The big exceptions are system tools (such as Norton System Works) and software which requires hardware drivers to be installed (VPN Clients and things like Adobe Acrobat which install a virtual printer).
I currently have a laptop with 2GB of memory running Vista RTM 32-bit and I plan on buying a desktop with 2GB of memory soon which will also run the 32-bit OS. I have no plans to move to 64-bit for a year or two; probably not until Vista’s successor is available. -
#6.13 Posted by Divide Overflow on 04 Dec 2006 - 05:52
- Quote - Neowave said @ #1And is Windows Vista 64-bit able to run all 32-bit applications without any problems as if you were running them on the 32-bit version (unlike Windows XP 64-bit)?No, and neither will Leopard. You would be naive to expect otherwise. Good ol' Murphy and his law will ensure that nothing will be perfect. However, will either Leopard or Vista 64 run the majority of 32 bit applications out there? Holy spandex, Batman! Yes they will!
-
#6.14 Posted by roadwarrior on 04 Dec 2006 - 16:42
- Quote - franzon said @ #6.11Quote - roadwarrior said @ #6.7
2. you're wrong
sorry for you, but the Leopard kernel is 32-bit, so Leopard is not a true 32-bit OS. With the 64-bit extensions in Leopard you're able to run 64-bit applications and memory addressing, but the kernel remains 32-bit. This is the reason you can execute both 32-bit and 64-bit applications in leopard, because the kernel is 32-bit and there's an additional support to run 64-bit applications.
And you are getting this information from where? Every thing that I have read has said that the Leopard kernel is 64-bit. Perhaps you are confusing Tiger and Leopard?
-
(6 replies)
#7 Posted by adversedeviant on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:40
- cause not all cpus support x64? youd be locking out alot of customers.... and of course all x86 progs wont work. its a different kernel. but its basically only limited to anti virus and firewall stuff, and even then those vendors have made x64 progs.
-
#7.1 Posted by Neowave on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:44
- Quote - adversedeviant said @ #7cause not all cpus support x64? youd be locking out alot of customers.... and of course all x86 progs wont work. its a different kernel. but its basically only limited to anti virus and firewall stuff, and even then those vendors have made x64 progs.
Well like I said, Mac OS X Leopard will be able to run both 64-bit and 32-bit applications side-by-side. It runs on all G4-based Macs, which is a 32-bit only CPU. Obviously the 64-bit extensions are disabled on that platform, but it's the same OS version you would install on - let's say - an iMac Core2Duo or PowerMac G5.
That's why I find it interesting to know why Microsoft choose to continue the two different Windows product lines. -
#7.2 Posted by Ivand on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:14
- Quote - Neowave said @ #7.1Quote - adversedeviant said @ #7cause not all cpus support x64? youd be locking out alot of customers.... and of course all x86 progs wont work. its a different kernel. but its basically only limited to anti virus and firewall stuff, and even then those vendors have made x64 progs.
Well like I said, Mac OS X Leopard will be able to run both 64-bit and 32-bit applications side-by-side. It runs on all G4-based Macs, which is a 32-bit only CPU. Obviously the 64-bit extensions are disabled on that platform, but it's the same OS version you would install on - let's say - an iMac Core2Duo or PowerMac G5.
That's why I find it interesting to know why Microsoft choose to continue the two different Windows product lines.
thats because all apple cpus will have 64 bit support yet windows still got to support the 32bit cpus -
#7.3 Posted by Neowave on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:49
- Quote - Ivand said @ #7.2thats because all apple cpus will have 64 bit support yet windows still got to support the 32bit cpus
Apple still continues to offer support for their 32-bit only G4 CPU. What about that don't you understand?
-
#7.4 Posted by Andareed on 01 Dec 2006 - 20:16
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary
-
#7.5 Posted by Hooya on 02 Dec 2006 - 06:09
- Quote - Neowave said @ #7.3Quote - Ivand said @ #7.2thats because all apple cpus will have 64 bit support yet windows still got to support the 32bit cpus
Apple still continues to offer support for their 32-bit only G4 CPU. What about that don't you understand?
The point is that Leopard will not run on that system. If it does, it's not running as a 64-bit OS; because that would be impossible. So if MS is releasing a new version of their OS, they want people running 32-bit processors to be able to run it for market share purposes (buying vista is more profit for MS than buying an old copy of XP for a 32-bit machine).
Since the hardware for Apple is pretty much proprietary (i.e. you can't really build your own genuine Apple) Apple doesn't have to worry about market share. Anyone buying a new computer to run Mac will buy an Apple. If they want to run Jaguar, they get a Jaguar system. No other options.
MS will continue to support XP as well, but they also built a 32-bit version of their new OS.
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by daveoc64 on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:46
- I thought Windows Vista supports more RAM than the "4GB Limit" that is present in Windows XP 32 Bit.
-
#8.1 Posted by sphbecker on 03 Dec 2006 - 20:19
- The 32-bit versions of Vista are all capped at 4GB; the 64-bit versions support far more (128GB). Even if it did you wouldn't want to on a 32-bit system. There is a limit of 3GB of "user" memory and a hard limit of no process being able to address more than 4GB of memory. Some 32-bit servers may find more than 4GB of memory useful, but a desktop would not.
-
(7 replies)
#9 Posted by adversedeviant on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:49
- the x86 architecture only allows up to 4gb (2^32) x64 is 16gb (2^64) i dunno why its limited to 2gb in vista x86....
-
#9.1 Posted by treemonster on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:51
- it probaly isn't limited, but it doesn't help much at all for 32 bit platforms...
-
#9.2 Posted by Leo Natan on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:09
- Quote - adversedeviant said @ #9the x86 architecture only allows up to 4gb (2^32) x64 is 16gb (2^64) i dunno why its limited to 2gb in vista x86....
More like 16Eb...
2^32 = 4,294,967,296
2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 -
#9.3 Posted by Joel on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:10
- Quote - adversedeviant said @ #9the x86 architecture only allows up to 4gb (2^32) x64 is 16gb (2^64) i dunno why its limited to 2gb in vista x86....
It's not just Vista. XP didn't see more than 2GB. -
#9.4 Posted by Leo Natan on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:13
- Joel, the x86 NT code allows for more than 2GB code, MS is just not including the support... x86 Server 2003 Datacenter Edition allows for 64GB of memory, so...
-
#9.5 Posted by Croquant on 01 Dec 2006 - 21:51
- Quote - Joel said @ #9.3Quote - adversedeviant said @ #9the x86 architecture only allows up to 4gb (2^32) x64 is 16gb (2^64) i dunno why its limited to 2gb in vista x86....
It's not just Vista. XP didn't see more than 2GB.
Actually, that's not true. 32-bit XP and 32-bit Vista can both see just under 4 GB of RAM. It's just that very few applications would see any benefit from more than 2 GB (and not a lot see much benefit from more than 1 GB).
Vista 64 Home Basic supports up to 8 GB of RAM, while over at the Vista 64 Ultimate side of the spectrum, officially the limit is 128 GB. (It's probably actually higher. How much higher? Dunno, I'll tell you when someone builds a motherboard that lets me slot more than 128 GB of RAM). -
#9.6 Posted by Joel on 01 Dec 2006 - 22:39
- Interesting. Some manufacturers tell you it's impossible based on the limit of 32-bit versions of Windows. Then MS says you can do it up to 3GB. And that's for XP Pro, with no mention of Home.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platf...PAE/PAEmem.mspx -
#9.7 Posted by sphbecker on 03 Dec 2006 - 20:28
- XP and Vista 32 both support up to 4GB of memory, but Windows splits 2GB into "user" space and the remaining into "kernel" space (on servers there is a boot.ini change which moves user up to 3, not sure if Vista supports that option). The fact is that having more than about 100 MB (that is not typo, I mean 100, not 1000) of memory for a desktop/laptop kernel is a waste, so while Vista supports 4GB you will start to lose the benefit. Yes, the 32-bit server OSes support more than 4GB, but with some cavorts (no process can use more than 4GB for example).
-
#10 Posted by destined1ne on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:51
- i want to try out 64 bit, but i'm scared about compatibility of programs and games also.
-
(4 replies)
#11 Posted by Yanks6 on 01 Dec 2006 - 17:57
- I'm running 3gb with my x86 build of Vista...windows see's all 3, i dunno why it says a 2gb limit...
I'm waiting for a while before jumping to the x64, give the vendors some time for the drivers and software to come out...I'm content with the x86 for now -
#11.1 Posted by zvikara on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:48
- I'm running Vista x86 with 4GB ram, and it see only 3.25 GB.
-
#11.2 Posted by Danrarbc641 on 01 Dec 2006 - 20:13
- Quote - zvikara said @ #11.1I'm running Vista x86 with 4GB ram, and it see only 3.25 GB.
You have a video card with Hypermemory? Or an integrated one? -
#11.3 Posted by Julius Caro on 01 Dec 2006 - 20:37
- 3.25 is the limit that vista has for some reason, and not 2GB as some people is claiming. If you have 4GB (THE limit when in 32 bits) vista will show 3GB + something.
I guess you need 64bits vista to see more than those 3,25 -
#11.4 Posted by Croquant on 01 Dec 2006 - 21:58
- Quote - Julius Caro said @ #11.33.25 is the limit that vista has for some reason, and not 2GB as some people is claiming. If you have 4GB (THE limit when in 32 bits) vista will show 3GB + something.
I guess you need 64bits vista to see more than those 3,25
http://www.brianmadden.com/content/content.asp?ID=69
-
(1 reply)
#12 Posted by PiracyX on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:04
- Its a bit obvious that we are going to move to x64 when Vista offically launches and when hardware makers have made x64 compatible drivers...when is the question here.
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by Leo Natan on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:11
- Vista x64 and Vista x86 are still planned to ship together in one box, right?
-
#13.1 Posted by obsolete_power on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:36
- Quote - Leo Natan said @ #13Vista x64 and Vista x86 are still planned to ship together in one box, right?
Yes
-
(1 reply)
#14 Posted by +Skwerl on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:24
- Is it just me, or does the original article look like it should have been written in crayon on construction paper? I don't recall ever seeing an article on The Inq with so many mistakes.
-
#14.1 Posted by obsolete_power on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:37
- Quote - Skwerl said @ #1Is it just me, or does the original article look like it should have been written in crayon on construction paper? I don't recall ever seeing an article on The Inq with so many mistakes.
This is due to the fact that the Inquirer is amongst the worst things to happen to the internet!
-
#15 Posted by PureLegend on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:44
- What? It's not a 2GB limit, it's 4GB.
-
#16 Posted by Nightburn on 01 Dec 2006 - 18:58
- In vista there is already enough driver issues with just 32bit.
Why would I look at 64bit vista if 32bit vista doesn't even have the driver support yet?
-
#17 Posted by Xsabin on 01 Dec 2006 - 19:04
- there is a 2 gb process memory limitation on windows 32 bit. edit : XP PRO
if you are only seeing 3.25 crack open notepad and open boot.ini
add /pae
read link 1st
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platf...PAE/PAEmem.mspx
You should be able to see like 3.8 as the pci-e takes up some...
Last edited by Xsabin on 01 Dec 2006 - 21:21
-
(1 reply)
#18 Posted by acrophile on 01 Dec 2006 - 20:15
- There isn't a boot.ini for vista... while you CAN enable PAE via bcdedit, you will take a slight performance hit and you might also cause incompatibilities with certain drivers.
Also, PAE is actually for systems with MORE than 4 gigs of ram. -
#18.1 Posted by Xsabin on 01 Dec 2006 - 21:12
- ok .. true but i am talking about windows xp pro 32bit and if you want windows xp pro to see more ram add that /pae to the boot.ini file.
and i am pretty sure /pae is really only bad with TS and MORE can include page files..
There could be some driver issues but the question from above was why can't I see more then 3.25 gigs I just told the person how and to read the article first
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServe...3.mspx?mfr=true
Last edited by Xsabin on 01 Dec 2006 - 21:31
-
(1 reply)
#19 Posted by ShiZZa on 01 Dec 2006 - 20:33
- Reason you don't see drivers for vista is the os is really ment for hardware thats no older then 2 years old. Its ment for new hardware not old.
-
#19.1 Posted by Julius Caro on 01 Dec 2006 - 20:39
- It's not really like that. Besides processors, motherboards and graphic cards, the rest of the hardware is pretty much the same, with a few improvements (soundcards, modems, webcams, etc).
-
#20 Posted by ThePitt on 01 Dec 2006 - 20:49
- The reason of vista is just for that. To sell new hardware. No matters what but enough to keep the industry growing.
Now if vista is really necessary or not, thats another subject.
-
#21 Posted by -Dave- on 01 Dec 2006 - 20:57
- yeah the 4GB limit inclodes physical AND virtual mem if u dont use PAE, hence only seeing 3.25GB of RAM
-
#22 Posted by obsolete_power on 01 Dec 2006 - 21:38
- Well I have both versions of Vista at the ready. I am currently running 64-bit ultimate. If it will come to the need for 32-bit windows because I find that 64-bit is incompatible with lots of things, I will switch to 32-bit. Until then, I will enjoy the performance increase of 64-bit computing
-
(4 replies)
#23 Posted by Sekhmet on 01 Dec 2006 - 22:19
- Sorry if this is a stupid question, but besides the possibility of using more than 2GB ram, what are the other advantages of a 64 bit system?
Like, if you have a program written in 32 and 64 bits, and you run them each on its respective 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista, are there any significant speed differences between the two? If so, how much approximately? (provided they are being run using the same hardware platform). -
#23.1 Posted by adversedeviant on 01 Dec 2006 - 22:57
- yes, the x64 app will run alot faster. x32 apps run at the same speed in a x64 os as they do in a x86 one.
-
#23.2 Posted by ShiZZa on 02 Dec 2006 - 04:41
- Quote - adversedeviant said @ #23.1yes, the x64 app will run alot faster. x32 apps run at the same speed in a x64 os as they do in a x86 one.
You will see on avg about a 20%-30% increase in performance running 32bit apps in a 64bit vista. Now once everything is loaded if its a basic app you might not see much. But if its a app that requires lots of ram or hd data you should see a big speed boost in general IO functions. -
#23.3 Posted by vacs on 02 Dec 2006 - 12:32
- Quote - ShiZZa said @ #23.2You will see on avg about a 20%-30% increase in performance running 32bit apps in a 64bit vista.
Of course this is only the theory but in reality 32-bit apps run slower when using a 64-bit Windows. 64-bit apps under Windows also do not show any interesting increase in performance like most people try to convince everyone. Combine this with many backwards compatibility problems and lack of driver support makes the switch to 64-bit rather hard to justify.
For now and till atleast H2 2007, there is no need for the 99% of the Windows users to switch to 64-bit. -
#23.4 Posted by ManMountain on 04 Dec 2006 - 11:50
- Quote - vacs said @ #23.3...64-bit apps under Windows also do not show any interesting increase in performance like most people try to convince everyone...
Thats not entirely true now is it. For example, take the 64-bit version of Newtek LightWave, there is, on average a 200-300% increase in performance compared to it's 32-bit cousin.
Take CakeWalks Sonar x64, it offers significant performance increases over any previous versions to date.
Or how about Maxon's Cinema 4D and Cinebench, on average 20% faster using 64-bit binaries?
No sorry - the simple fact is 64-bit optimised programs run faster than their 32-bit counterparts - and thats a fact.
-
(2 replies)
#24 Posted by hagjohn on 02 Dec 2006 - 03:02
- Vista should have only been 64bit... the PC industry needs to move forward, IMO. I haven't had any game not install yet and all my hardware has drivers. If you are careful about your hardware, you can get all the 64bit drivers you need.
-
#24.1 Posted by virtorio on 02 Dec 2006 - 06:31
- In an ideal world that would have been a nice idea. In the real world, where only a small percentage of customers have a 64-bit processor (or can afford to upgrade their system to one/buy a new PC or notebook), that would mean Microsoft wouldn't be selling a whole lot of copies of Windows Vista.
-
#24.2 Posted by hagjohn on 02 Dec 2006 - 14:07
- Quote - virtorio said @ #24.1In an ideal world that would have been a nice idea. In the real world, where only a small percentage of customers have a 64-bit processor (or can afford to upgrade their system to one/buy a new PC or notebook), that would mean Microsoft wouldn't be selling a whole lot of copies of Windows Vista.
vista will probably not run well on the older equipment anyway. Those users would be better off running XP.
-
(1 reply)
#25 Posted by Jelly2003 on 02 Dec 2006 - 07:24
- If I buy and install 32-bit Vista, does that automatically grant me the right to install and use the 64-bit Vista when I feel that 64-Bit Vista is ready?
It'd suck having to but 2 licenses for what is essentially the same product just complied differently.
-
#26 Posted by mrmckeb on 02 Dec 2006 - 12:21
- GO 64-BIT VISTA! My theory - if we all use it, we'll force the manufacturers/programmers to go with our flow.
-
#27 Posted by NeoFlux on 02 Dec 2006 - 13:20
- Ofcourse memory makers are going to see this, after all, it's recommended you basically have double the memory to run x64!
-
(4 replies)
#28 Posted by Nexx295 on 02 Dec 2006 - 21:21
- They should've developed only Vista 64-bit.
-
#28.1 Posted by bobbba on 03 Dec 2006 - 06:32
- Yeah, cause that would have helped with the sales wouldn't it...
-
#28.2 Posted by rbet on 03 Dec 2006 - 09:37
- Quote - bobbba said @ #28.1Yeah, cause that would have helped with the sales wouldn't it...
-
After that, the focus will go strongly on 64 bit. We tried the RC2 Vista 64 bit and learned that you can install everything, including Raid and Sound Blaster X-Fi but, despite 64 graphic drivers from Nvidia and ATI, many games wont even install or run on Vista 64 bit. The industry expects that the big move will take place after Q2 2007, so when Vista starts standing on its feet.