Windows Vista choices (32-bit or 64-bit?)

[VALIS]

I am thinking of getting a new PC and that includes a DX10 graphics card, now to do that I need Vista.

However should it be 64-bit or 32-bit? I really have no idea, which I should get. What are the major differences?
Which one is better suited for me?

[sapi]

Unless you plan to get large amounts of ram, I'd stick to 32-bit in the near future for the better driver support.

[VALIS]

I plan on getting 2048mb's of RAM.
I'm also getting a very good processor and graphics card, but 32-bit Vista will still run fine and get the maximum out of my PC?

[Elrond]

I would go with 64 bit vista - if you want 4gbs of RAM either now or in the future you need 64bit as 32bit only supports upto 2gb.

Theres basically no difference apart from 64bit being slightly more forward compatible - virtualy all of software which couldnt run on 64 bit has been sorted out.

[sapi]

I would go with 64 bit vista - if you want 4gbs of RAM either now or in the future you need 64bit as 32bit only supports upto 2gb.

There;s basically no difference apart from 64bit being slightly more forward compatible - virtually all of software which couldn't run on 64 bit has been sorted out.

People I know using 64 bit tell me that there are still some horrible driver issues in place...

iirc Freddie's right - you should get both versions on the disc - but I forget if the licence is transferable (64>32bit)

[Elrond]

People I know using 64 bit tell me that there are still some horrible driver issues in place...

iirc Freddie's right - you should get both versions on the disc - but I forget if the licence is transferable (64>32bit)

Both disks is probably the best option but I would like to add that I have had only slightly more issues with Vista and XP and only one was definatly due to using 64bit.

[VALIS]

Really?
Because I heard there was alot of problems with the 64-bit for running games which is what the focus of my new PC will be about.

Has that been fully resolved now?

[Freddie]

Really?
Because I heard there was alot of problems with the 64-bit for running games which is what the focus of my new PC will be about.

Has that been fully resolved now?

Well Duke the biggest DX10 game is Crysis and the developers have said that the game best works with quad core processors and a 64-bit OS. However since you think Crysis is going to an average shooter (or words to that effect) I wouldn’t worry about it and stick to 32 bit due to better driver support.

[VALIS]

Yeah but I want to 'futureproof' my PC.
I want to be playing games in 1 year at the best that I can.

I don't want to upgrade my PC for a minimum of 3 years. I want to run games of the future, Crysis is in essentially the present.

[Freddie]

Yeah but I want to 'futureproof' my PC.
I want to be playing games in 1 year at the best that I can.

I don't want to upgrade my PC for a minimum of 3 years. I want to run games of the future, Crysis is in essentially the present.

I’m not sure about this but don’t you get both versions of Vista on the disc (both 32 & 64 bit)? Maybe someone else can confirm or deny this. If this is the case install 32 bti now and latter on install 64 bit when its better supported.

If you go 64 bit now you might give yourself a few headaches for the medium term you don’t want to use 64 bit and find out your printer doesn’t work for example.

[VALIS]

I don't use a printer, this PC is purely for gaming, internet, music/video viewing.

[VALIS]

Ok cool, but I'm getting a prebuilt PC, the operating system seems to be installed on the computer and I have to choose.

[Ummagumma]

I use xp64. There is only 1 piece of software I've encountered that don't work with WOW (windows on windows, the 64/32 emulation device). The only other thing is driver support for all the quirky things you may wish to plug into your pc (phones, cameras and such). You just have to look for a bit longer for x64 compatible devices.

64bit is the future, but as it is right now, unless you do 3D/video editing or similar tasks there is no real need for it. Some games run faster in native 32 bit as it is not emulated by the OS.

[spartan_phalanx]

I run 64-bit Vista Ultimate on my desktop/HTPC and Vista 32-bit home premium on the wife's laptop. I would say to go with 32-bit right now. I've only had a hand full of problems with 64-bit but I can't play any of my older games and many still have issues.

[shadowarmy75]

I agree with Freddie, just get both DVDs and either install 32 and wait for 64 or dual boot them. I don't know if 64 is free for Home Premium and below but I know you get both disks if you buy Ultimate.

[spartan_phalanx]

You get both if you buy 'retail' not OEM.

[Simetrical]

The general agreement is that 64-bit is too much of a hassle now to bother with. In a year it will possibly be superior, in three years it will definitely be a bit superior except for old programs, but now it's not perceived as being worth it at all. You should be able to use a 32-bit OS perfectly fine until the next iteration of Windows comes along, unless you need to run a program that uses 2 GB or so of RAM by itself. Of course, that might be the case not too far in the future.

Some games run faster in native 32 bit as it is not emulated by the OS.

Kind of confusing terminology to use. 32-bit support is not "emulated" by 64-bit operating systems in the same way as, say, Intel Macs emulate PowerPCs. Processor instructions are run directly on 32-bit hardware built into the processor, for no performance loss. But system calls do have to be translated. In principle, this should require a very marginal amount of resources, since it's only one layer of indirection, but it's possible it does have a measurable effect.

The major problem is drivers, because drivers run in kernel space and so (apparently) can't run in 32-bit mode when the OS is running as 64-bit. Mac OS X 64-bit evidently avoids this by having the operating system and drivers run as 32-bit, with only programs running in 64-bit mode.

[Ummagumma]

Kind of confusing terminology to use. 32-bit support is not "emulated" by 64-bit operating systems in the same way as, say, Intel Macs emulate PowerPCs. Processor instructions are run directly on 32-bit hardware built into the processor, for no performance loss. But system calls do have to be translated. In principle, this should require a very marginal amount of resources, since it's only one layer of indirection, but it's possible it does have a measurable effect.

Anything that allows a program to run on a non-native system is an emulator...

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...on_details.asp

I don't mean to confuse you though.
Also, I have encountered a few games that will not install on the 64bit version (such as GTR Racing Simulator), though GTR2 works fine. Any performance drop is only of concern to fanboys, it was never more than 4-5% framerate on games hitting over 100fps anyway!

[Simetrical]

Anything that allows a program to run on a non-native system is an emulator...

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...on_details.asp

It's arguable if an independent implementation of libraries can qualify as an "emulator". It's fair to say so, but also fair to say not, any more than Microsoft's DNS server is a BIND emulator: it just exposes the same external interface.

At any rate, people tend to think of (slow) emulators of hardware when they think of emulators, which isn't fair to software emulators. This is one of the common (incorrect) assumptions people make about Wine, for instance.

I don't mean to confuse you though.

You didn't, so that's fine.

[H_man]

With Home Premium you can send roughly $13.00 away to Microsoft and they will send you a 64-bit only disc. I've run 64-bit Vista since it came out, and find that while many lucrative things such as card readers and cameras don't work, other higher end things *seem* to run faster. Installing software from a file from the HDD seems to be faster as well (not on a DVD, however).