Regarding Windows Vista 64 bit and TW games!

[hellas1]

Hi everyone,

First time posting here! Let me know how I can help anyone!

I need some help right now though:

I have a 32 bit Vista Premium OS, an Intel Core 2 Quad CPU, and 3070 MB of RAM.

Question 1: Can I upgrade and should I upgrade to the 64 bit version of Vista?

Question 2: If I do, Will I be able to play TW games?


Thanks for your help folks. I had Windows XP SP2 for 4 yrs. I just bought a new computer.
hellas1

[Elrond]

Hi everyone,

First time posting here! Let me know how I can help anyone!

I need some help right now though:

I have a 32 bit Vista Premium OS, an Intel Core 2 Quad CPU, and 3070 MB of RAM.

Question 1: Can I upgrade and should I upgrade to the 64 bit version of Vista?

Question 2: If I do, Will I be able to play TW games?


Thanks for your help folks. I had Windows XP SP2 for 4 yrs. I just bought a new computer.
hellas1

yes and yes

although its a total waste of money paying for Vista again - if you can do it (legaly) for free then its worth doing - it gives you a bit more forward compatibility and most of the software issues with Vista 64 (as apposed to 32 bit) have been dealt with.

[Simetrical]

If it's anything like 64-bit Ubuntu, I strongly recommend against it. Things like Macromedia Flash just don't work on 64-bit. You can always upgrade cheaply from 32-bit to 64-bit later.

[spartan_phalanx]

I have 64-bit Vista Ultimate and see no real reason for anyone to get it now or even in a year or two. Stick to 32-bit.

[sapi]

I have 64-bit Vista Ultimate and see no real reason for anyone to get it now or even in a year or two. Stick to 32-bit.

Very much agreed.

The technical advantages are currently non-existent; and driver support is simply too immature at this stage.

[Arakorn]

Me too. If you have an OS now, why would you change it?

[Hadrian]

I've always wanted to go to 64-bit, ya know, since all of our systems are 64-bit capable but never have because everyone says there is literally no support and especially no driver development for 64-bit. Our processors would be twice as fast, I'm supposing, since I've never utilized this additional aspect of my 64-bit prcessor, so I wonder what is MS's deal with their choice to ignore 64-bit. Things that make you go hummm.....

[Dick]

so I wonder what is MS's deal with their choice to ignore 64-bit. Things that make you go hummm.....

Not really microsoft, it's the driver support that let's it down and those are made from companies like Nvidia and Ati and whoever else makes hardware and software for windows.

But yes, although I don't think it would double performance, their decision not to put more effort in certainly does make you go hummm...

[Simetrical]

Our processors would be twice as fast, I'm supposing

Not remotely. There are a few very narrow applications that make use of very large numbers that would be more or less twice as fast: for instance, cryptography and some audio/video-related things. It's also hard to use over 4 GB worth of virtual memory without moving to 64-bit. But a typical application will see slight losses in performance if anything from moving to 64-bit per se, due to eight-byte pointers instead of four-byte (longer code = slower/bulkier code).

The deal is, however, greatly sweetened in the case of x86-64 by many new features, such as doubling the number of registers and adding some useful new instructions, which should more than compensate for the performance loss from 64-bit. Once applications are optimized for x86-64, they should show at least a moderate improvement in speed, but for most applications not close to doubling.

[Hadrian]

Not remotely. There are a few very narrow applications that make use of very large numbers that would be more or less twice as fast: for instance, cryptography and some audio/video-related things. It's also hard to use over 4 GB worth of virtual memory without moving to 64-bit. But a typical application will see slight losses in performance if anything from moving to 64-bit per se, due to eight-byte pointers instead of four-byte (longer code = slower/bulkier code).

So, unless someone is utilizing some kind of monster program, video production, etc, the average gaming dude (me) doesn't even have need for such code heavy processes that would require 64-bit. And since the average Joe doesn't typically require it, the software developers don't invest much time/effort into the developement of 64-bit drivers, etc because they aren't mainstream.

The deal is, however, greatly sweetened in the case of x86-64 by many new features, such as doubling the number of registers and adding some useful new instructions, which should more than compensate for the performance loss from 64-bit. Once applications are optimized for x86-64, they should show at least a moderate improvement in speed, but for most applications not close to doubling.

Is X86 part of the new architecture of the Vista OS? If so, sounds like eventually software developers plan on putting this 64-bit capability to good use for the mainstream consumer after all. Vista appears to be more revolutionary than we can yet appreciate too. Thanks for sharing your knowledge Simetrical. I envy you guys that have full command of the software and application end of the computer industry.

[Simetrical]

So, unless someone is utilizing some kind of monster program, video production, etc, the average gaming dude (me) doesn't even have need for such code heavy processes that would require 64-bit. And since the average Joe doesn't typically require it, the software developers don't invest much time/effort into the developement of 64-bit drivers, etc because they aren't mainstream.

Not exactly. It's not too long now before a large number of users will be wanting more than a couple of gigabytes of RAM. Once you want 3 or 4 GB, you're probably going to want a 64-bit computer. That will provide the main impetus to switch.

Is X86 part of the new architecture of the Vista OS?

x86 is the instruction set used in virtually all home PCs today (minus the old Power PC Macs), and most servers too. An "instruction set" is more or less a way of saying how to run a program. Programs compiled for one instruction set won't work on a processor using a different instruction set, even for the same operating system. A good modern example of that is, of course, Apple's switch from IBM's Power PC to Intel's dominant x86 instruction set.

The x86 instruction set was started with Intel's 16-bit 8086 chip in the early 1980s, which was followed by 80186, 80286, and 80386. 80386 (or just 386 for short . . . and you see where the term "x86" comes from) was revolutionary in that it was a 32-bit chip, instead of 16-bit. Then you had the 486, and then Intel switched to a brand name (Pentium) so they could trademark it. Just recently they ditched that in favor of Core. At some point along the way AMD started manufacturing competing chips implementing the same instruction set. All of these chips implement the x86 instruction set, mostly the same (with some additions) as the 386 instruction set from the 80's.

AMD debuted a 64-bit modification of the x86 instruction set a few years ago, under the name AMD64. Intel then more or less copied this instruction set for its Core 2 chips, calling it Intel 64. The instruction set is 64-bit and also has other improvements outlined in my last post. A vendor-neutral name for it is x86-64.

Programs written for x86 will not technically run on x86-64, but that's okay, because all current x86-64 chips have hardwired legacy modes for x86, and they'll just use those for old programs. Thus you can run old 32-bit programs on 64-bit operating systems and not notice any difference, in theory. Because the legacy mode is at the hardware level, it's just as fast as running it on an actual x86 chip, unlike the Power PC emulator that new Intel Macs have.

All of this is far below the level of the operating system. The operating system is software; this is all hardware, certainly not part of Vista or any other software package. After the new hardware was released, operating systems began to be released supporting its new requirements and features. Vista 64-bit takes advantage of 64-bit features and can run 64-bit programs (as well as being able to run 32-bit programs), just as 64-bit Linux, and 64-bit Mac, and other 64-bit OSes. Intel 32-bit versions of all three run on the old x86 instruction set instead, ignoring the new 64-bit capabilities of any processor they're running on.

If so, sounds like eventually software developers plan on putting this 64-bit capability to good use for the mainstream consumer after all.

They already have, just not enough for it to be worth it for consumers yet. Expect 64-bit to become preferable in a few more years. Certainly I'd be very surprised if 32-bit operation wasn't widely unsupported ten years for now.

Vista appears to be more revolutionary than we can yet appreciate too.

Not in this regard. In others, certainly, they've had a number of good ideas (alongside some bad).

[Hadrian]

The x86 instruction set was started with Intel's 16-bit 8086 chip in the early 1980s, which was followed by 80186, 80286, and 80386. 80386 (or just 386 for short . . . and you see where the term "x86" comes from) was revolutionary in that it was a 32-bit chip, instead of 16-bit. Then you had the 486, and then Intel switched to a brand name (Pentium) so they could trademark it. Just recently they ditched that in favor of Core. At some point along the way AMD started manufacturing competing chips implementing the same instruction set. All of these chips implement the x86 instruction set, mostly the same (with some additions) as the 386 instruction set from the 80's.

AAAaahhhh, now that was very informative. It's amazing the information we take for granted and never really know the background on it or it's origination. So thats where 386 and 486 comes from. And thats why the first Pentium processors were such a big deal back then.

AMD debuted a 64-bit modification of the x86 instruction set a few years ago, under the name AMD64. Intel then more or less copied this instruction set for its Core 2 chips, calling it Intel 64. The instruction set is 64-bit and also has other improvements outlined in my last post. A vendor-neutral name for it is x86-64.

Programs written for x86 will not technically run on x86-64, but that's okay, because all current x86-64 chips have hardwired legacy modes for x86, and they'll just use those for old programs. Thus you can run old 32-bit programs on 64-bit operating systems and not notice any difference, in theory. Because the legacy mode is at the hardware level, it's just as fast as running it on an actual x86 chip, unlike the Power PC emulator that new Intel Macs have.

All of this is far below the level of the operating system. The operating system is software; this is all hardware, certainly not part of Vista or any other software package. After the new hardware was released, operating systems began to be released supporting its new requirements and features. Vista 64-bit takes advantage of 64-bit features and can run 64-bit programs (as well as being able to run 32-bit programs), just as 64-bit Linux, and 64-bit Mac, and other 64-bit OSes. Intel 32-bit versions of all three run on the old x86 instruction set instead, ignoring the new 64-bit capabilities of any processor they're running on.

Now that all makes sense. Thats why our 64-bit hardware so seemlessly runs 32-bit orientated software. And Intel benefited from letting AMD copy their X86 because they improved it and Intel was able to lauch their most successful line of processors to date off of the technological inprovements that AMD made to their instruction set. Peeling away the layers of the onion.....thanks again Simmetrical.

[Professor420]

If you aren't sure if you need 64 bit you don't need 64 bit.