32 bit vs. 64 bit

[Guest]

Could someone please explain the difference between Vista 32 vs 64 bit? Will
the same software work on either "flavor"? Would a home office user be able
to tell any difference?

Thanks,
Bon

 

[Saucy Lemon]

When you ask the questions as you do then my intuition says you'd be happier
with 32-bit. The software and hardware that is "out there" is much more
likely to be compatible and glitch free with 32-bit Windows. I'm typing this
now on 32-bit Vista.

Those who need 64-bits already know it. It's the way things are heading,
sure, but it is the tinkerer, the early adopter, those with specific 64-bit
applications and the enthusiast who is the more likely to get benefits out
of 64-bits (and are willing to put up with any problems associated with
running 64-bit Windows).

Since you are entitled, if you have a Windows Vista license, to run either
the 32-bit or the 64-bit version. I'd recommend going with the 32-bit
version. If things in the industry swing right over to 64-bits, then you
could always have a tech guy switch you over some time down the road.

Now, will a home office user be able to tell the difference? Not really. As
a matter of fact, the new Microsoft Office 2007 is released only in a 32-bit
version.

Saucy Lemon

 

[Martin Racette]

I have Vista Ultimate 64bit, installed, and so far I can not see the
difference between this and XP in term of program usage, I see the
difference when I try to install drivers, I need to remember that I must
download the 64bit flavor instead of the usual.

Hope this help

 

[Saucy Lemon]

The user doesn't "see" much with 64-bits than what they would with 32. The
important aspect is that 64-bit applications can make use of vast address
spaces. Applications that have no need of such don't need to be run on, nor
compiled to 64-bits.

64-bit Windows runs both 64 and 32 bit apps [with numerous exceptions], but,
as yet, there are still many more compatibility issues with 64-bits than 32.
For someone who wants a more trouble-free glitch-free go at Vista, they
*probably* would be better with 32-bits, for the time being. And seeing as
buying a copy of Vista entitles one to run their copy either as a 32 or 64
bit, one can always decide to have a tech gal/guy switch them over in a
year's time when the driver / software situation is a bit less chaotic.

So, although some of us have had pleasant experience with 64-bits, the
platform is only somewhat ready for prime time. I'd wait six months to a
year before generally recommending 64-bits and in the meantime recommend
32-bit if the person asking has to ask ..

Saucy Lemon

 

[Jeffrey S. Sparks]

I would think that gamers who run games and doing other stuff at the same
time would like it because of the ability to handle a lot more memory.
Eventually you will see games being written in 64 bit as they are starting
to push the envelope now so to speak.

Jeff

The user doesn't "see" much with 64-bits than what they would with 32. The
important aspect is that 64-bit applications can make use of vast address
spaces. Applications that have no need of such don't need to be run on,
nor compiled to 64-bits.

64-bit Windows runs both 64 and 32 bit apps [with numerous exceptions],
but, as yet, there are still many more compatibility issues with 64-bits
than 32. For someone who wants a more trouble-free glitch-free go at
Vista, they *probably* would be better with 32-bits, for the time being.
And seeing as buying a copy of Vista entitles one to run their copy either
as a 32 or 64 bit, one can always decide to have a tech gal/guy switch
them over in a year's time when the driver / software situation is a bit
less chaotic.

So, although some of us have had pleasant experience with 64-bits, the
platform is only somewhat ready for prime time. I'd wait six months to a
year before generally recommending 64-bits and in the meantime recommend
32-bit if the person asking has to ask ..

Saucy Lemon

I have Vista Ultimate 64bit, installed, and so far I can not see the
difference between this and XP in term of program usage, I see the
difference when I try to install drivers, I need to remember that I must
download the 64bit flavor instead of the usual.

Hope this help

 

[Saucy Lemon]

Yup, for the time being .. and for people who have to ask, I think .. this
is my opinion, of course .. I think that the 32-bit version is to be
recommended.

Now in a year or so, should the landscape change and the user wants to run
some future 64-bit app, then they could always have a tech switch them to
64-bit. Right now though, 64-bit Windows is still touch and go, so the more
problem-free/glitch-free choice is 32-bits. So if the user has to ask, then
the user would be way happier with 32-bits.

Saucy Lemon

I would think that gamers who run games and doing other stuff at the same
time would like it because of the ability to handle a lot more memory.
Eventually you will see games being written in 64 bit as they are starting
to push the envelope now so to speak.

Jeff

The user doesn't "see" much with 64-bits than what they would with 32.
The important aspect is that 64-bit applications can make use of vast
address spaces. Applications that have no need of such don't need to be
run on, nor compiled to 64-bits.

64-bit Windows runs both 64 and 32 bit apps [with numerous exceptions],
but, as yet, there are still many more compatibility issues with 64-bits
than 32. For someone who wants a more trouble-free glitch-free go at
Vista, they *probably* would be better with 32-bits, for the time being.
And seeing as buying a copy of Vista entitles one to run their copy
either as a 32 or 64 bit, one can always decide to have a tech gal/guy
switch them over in a year's time when the driver / software situation is
a bit less chaotic.

So, although some of us have had pleasant experience with 64-bits, the
platform is only somewhat ready for prime time. I'd wait six months to a
year before generally recommending 64-bits and in the meantime recommend
32-bit if the person asking has to ask ..

Saucy Lemon

I have Vista Ultimate 64bit, installed, and so far I can not see the
difference between this and XP in term of program usage, I see the
difference when I try to install drivers, I need to remember that I must
download the 64bit flavor instead of the usual.

Hope this help

message Could someone please explain the difference between Vista 32 vs 64 bit?
Will
the same software work on either "flavor"? Would a home office user be
able
to tell any difference?

Thanks,
Bon

 

[Dennis Pack]

Saucy:
For x64 Charlie Russel has an excellent white paper about it at
http://download.microsoft.com/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc

--
Dennis Pack
XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64
Office2007

Yup, for the time being .. and for people who have to ask, I think ..
this is my opinion, of course .. I think that the 32-bit version is to be
recommended.

Now in a year or so, should the landscape change and the user wants to run
some future 64-bit app, then they could always have a tech switch them to
64-bit. Right now though, 64-bit Windows is still touch and go, so the
more problem-free/glitch-free choice is 32-bits. So if the user has to
ask, then the user would be way happier with 32-bits.

Saucy Lemon

I would think that gamers who run games and doing other stuff at the same
time would like it because of the ability to handle a lot more memory.
Eventually you will see games being written in 64 bit as they are starting
to push the envelope now so to speak.

Jeff

The user doesn't "see" much with 64-bits than what they would with 32.
The important aspect is that 64-bit applications can make use of vast
address spaces. Applications that have no need of such don't need to be
run on, nor compiled to 64-bits.

64-bit Windows runs both 64 and 32 bit apps [with numerous exceptions],
but, as yet, there are still many more compatibility issues with 64-bits
than 32. For someone who wants a more trouble-free glitch-free go at
Vista, they *probably* would be better with 32-bits, for the time being.
And seeing as buying a copy of Vista entitles one to run their copy
either as a 32 or 64 bit, one can always decide to have a tech gal/guy
switch them over in a year's time when the driver / software situation
is a bit less chaotic.

So, although some of us have had pleasant experience with 64-bits, the
platform is only somewhat ready for prime time. I'd wait six months to a
year before generally recommending 64-bits and in the meantime recommend
32-bit if the person asking has to ask ..

Saucy Lemon


I have Vista Ultimate 64bit, installed, and so far I can not see the
difference between this and XP in term of program usage, I see the
difference when I try to install drivers, I need to remember that I must
download the 64bit flavor instead of the usual.

Hope this help

message Could someone please explain the difference between Vista 32 vs 64
bit? Will
the same software work on either "flavor"? Would a home office user
be able
to tell any difference?

Thanks,
Bon

 

[Saucy Lemon]

Thanks.
Good read.


Saucy Lemon

Saucy:
For x64 Charlie Russel has an excellent white paper about it at
http://download.microsoft.com/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc

--
Dennis Pack
XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64
Office2007

Yup, for the time being .. and for people who have to ask, I think ..
this is my opinion, of course .. I think that the 32-bit version is to be
recommended.

Now in a year or so, should the landscape change and the user wants to
run some future 64-bit app, then they could always have a tech switch
them to 64-bit. Right now though, 64-bit Windows is still touch and go,
so the more problem-free/glitch-free choice is 32-bits. So if the user
has to ask, then the user would be way happier with 32-bits.

Saucy Lemon

I would think that gamers who run games and doing other stuff at the same
time would like it because of the ability to handle a lot more memory.
Eventually you will see games being written in 64 bit as they are
starting to push the envelope now so to speak.

Jeff


The user doesn't "see" much with 64-bits than what they would with 32.
The important aspect is that 64-bit applications can make use of vast
address spaces. Applications that have no need of such don't need to be
run on, nor compiled to 64-bits.

64-bit Windows runs both 64 and 32 bit apps [with numerous exceptions],
but, as yet, there are still many more compatibility issues with
64-bits than 32. For someone who wants a more trouble-free glitch-free
go at Vista, they *probably* would be better with 32-bits, for the time
being. And seeing as buying a copy of Vista entitles one to run their
copy either as a 32 or 64 bit, one can always decide to have a tech
gal/guy switch them over in a year's time when the driver / software
situation is a bit less chaotic.

So, although some of us have had pleasant experience with 64-bits, the
platform is only somewhat ready for prime time. I'd wait six months to
a year before generally recommending 64-bits and in the meantime
recommend 32-bit if the person asking has to ask ..

Saucy Lemon


I have Vista Ultimate 64bit, installed, and so far I can not see the
difference between this and XP in term of program usage, I see the
difference when I try to install drivers, I need to remember that I
must download the 64bit flavor instead of the usual.

Hope this help

message Could someone please explain the difference between Vista 32 vs 64
bit? Will
the same software work on either "flavor"? Would a home office user
be able
to tell any difference?

Thanks,
Bon

 

[BSchnur]

Good stuff -- a bit too optimistic about the timing of a shift from 32
bit to 64 bit. But then again, Charlie has a history of being leading
edge regarding the OS space. He did some really special stuff with
DesqView back in the day.