Vista 64 bit or 32 bit on New Computer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter patetc
  • Start date Start date
P

patetc

I am going to purchase a new laptop computer but the one I want comes with
Vista 64 bit installed and I'd prefer 32 bit due to the number of programs I
have that probably won't run on 64 bit. Can this be changed internally
somehow in the Windows program on the computer or am I stuck with it?
 
No it cannot be changed internally, it requires a format of the drive and a
clean installation of Vista 32 bit which you'll need to purchase.
 
patetc said:
I am going to purchase a new laptop computer but the one I want comes with
Vista 64 bit installed and I'd prefer 32 bit due to the number of programs I
have that probably won't run on 64 bit. Can this be changed internally
somehow in the Windows program on the computer or am I stuck with it?
Click to expand...

Once it is on, it is on. No going back.

I'd go with the 32 bit, unless you have a specific
application that requires 64 bit. There are
not a lot on fully compatible apps that work
with 64 bit yet (or in the near future). You
will be a lot happier with 32 bit.

And, you are not stuck with Vista. Both Lenovo and Dell
will sell you the XP downgrade. XP is twice as fast
as Vista and does not have any of the application
incompatibilities as does Vista.

My 2 cents,
-T
 
"XP is twice as fast as Vista" This is a blanket statement which for the
most part is untrue on current hardware.
 
I have XP on my current laptop. Would you suggest that I reformat the new
computer and install XP on that?
 
patetc said:
Both Lenovo and Dell will sell you the XP downgrade.
Click to expand...

I should have said, both Lenovo and Dell will sell
you a (new) laptop with the Vista downgrade to
XP option installed on it. Which means you get
a Vista sticker on your laptop but XP is actually
installed on it. They will charge you about
$90.00 extra for the option.
 
patetc said:
I have XP on my current laptop. Would you suggest that I reformat the new
computer and install XP on that?
Click to expand...

If already have XP installed, why would you want to
reinstall it? I am afraid I do not understand
your question?

-T
 
David said:
"XP is twice as fast as Vista" This is a blanket statement which for the
most part is untrue on current hardware.
Click to expand...

This would be your "Blanket Statement":
http://news.cnet.com/Windows-XP-outshines-Vista-in-benchmarking-test/2100-1016_3-6220201.html

Vista, both with and without SP1, performed
notably slower than XP with SP3 in the test,
taking over 80 seconds to complete the test,
compared to the beta SP3-enhanced XP's 35
seconds.

I have no customer out there with Vista that is not
disappointed with it. They say it is slow and
not compatible with a lot of their [non Microsoft]
applications.

"Current Hardware" ? Why would you want to upgrade
to a new system when your old system will do the
same thing under an older OS and do it faster
with almost no program incompatibilities.

I do not see why Microsoft would get their nose
out of joint here. Their customers generally
like XP and are will to pay the extra ~$90.00
to get it. Essentially, Microsoft get paid twice
for the OS when customers request the downgrade
option. And, Microsoft needs all the sales
they can get at the moments.

We will all be hurt if Microsoft goes under.

-T
 
Van said:
So why can't you run 32 bit stuff on a 64 bit Windows? I run 64 bit
Linux and 32 bit programs run fine.
Click to expand...

Rub it in!

I base OS is CentOS 32 bit and I have KUbunto,
XP, Vista, ReactOS running as virtual machines.

You really get to see the differences. XP
is still the best for running applications.
KUbunto is the hands down best OS ever
for the general public, but no apps (Acrobat,
Quick Books, etc.). And Wine really only
runs games very well, so back to XP.
(ReactOS is still alpha stage.)

-T
 
XP is installed on my old computer.


ToddAndMargo said:
If already have XP installed, why would you want to
reinstall it? I am afraid I do not understand
your question?

-T
Click to expand...
 
Hi Todd,

But how can you possibly apply that set of benchmarking to all of Vista?
Even benchmarking applications in general are flawed down to their design.
Also that article doesn't give any details of the benchmarking that took
place, so personally I would take it with a pinch of salt.

Yeah I have no doubts that if you got 2 systems of "average"
specification that XP would come out tops for being nippy, but for the most
part, with high spec computers; the difference isn't all that noticable.
That's the price you pay for a more attractive and secure platform is it
not? I know what i'd rather have.

Peoples main gripe about Vista isn't its performance anyway, it's the
damn UAC, which has already been changed to a more acceptable level in the
beta of Windows 7, so has the ram requirement.

Personally I say go for Vista, unless you're doing something which
requires you squeeze every possible second out of your computers
performance.

Just my two pennies worth...

Nick.

ToddAndMargo said:
David said:
"XP is twice as fast as Vista" This is a blanket statement which for the
most part is untrue on current hardware.
Click to expand...

This would be your "Blanket Statement":
http://news.cnet.com/Windows-XP-outshines-Vista-in-benchmarking-test/2100-1016_3-6220201.html

Vista, both with and without SP1, performed
notably slower than XP with SP3 in the test,
taking over 80 seconds to complete the test,
compared to the beta SP3-enhanced XP's 35
seconds.

I have no customer out there with Vista that is not
disappointed with it. They say it is slow and
not compatible with a lot of their [non Microsoft]
applications.

"Current Hardware" ? Why would you want to upgrade
to a new system when your old system will do the
same thing under an older OS and do it faster
with almost no program incompatibilities.

I do not see why Microsoft would get their nose
out of joint here. Their customers generally
like XP and are will to pay the extra ~$90.00
to get it. Essentially, Microsoft get paid twice
for the OS when customers request the downgrade
option. And, Microsoft needs all the sales
they can get at the moments.

We will all be hurt if Microsoft goes under.

-T
Click to expand...
 
Hi Van,

The main problem are the drivers, afaik Windows 64 requires that all
drivers are digitally signed, this causes a problem with allot of drivers.
Also manufacturers have been a little slow on the uptake so not all have
made 64 bit drivers from older devices.

I've tried going over to 64bit a few times, always come across so many
problems it's not really been worth it. But regardless of that, you can't
compare Linux to Windows now can you?

Nick.
 
XP is installed on my old computer.
Click to expand...

Okay I get it.

On your old computer, leave it alone. XP works just
fine.

One your consideration of a new laptop: stick with
32 bit unless you have a 64 bit application that
demands 64 bit. Vista vs XP: go XP unless
you have an application demands Vista.

-T
 
Sorry but that's a rather biast opinion of XP you have. Vista is far more
secure and opens up opportunity for new applications and hardware, yet you
aren't taking that in for account.
 
nak said:
Hi Todd,

Peoples main gripe about Vista isn't its performance anyway, it's the
damn UAC, which has already been changed to a more acceptable level in
the beta of Windows 7, so has the ram requirement.

Personally I say go for Vista, unless you're doing something which
requires you squeeze every possible second out of your computers
performance.
Click to expand...

I hear you on the UAC thing.

The largest complaint I get is the application
incompatibility: buy a new version or spend hours
on the phone with some guy in India.

I have had one customer write in 4 inch letters
on a paper across her new Vista computer's
screen: "I HATE VISTA". As it transpires,
UPS World Ship does not run on Vista and she
lives or dies by shipping product. (Which
was her fault for not asking me before she
bought her new computer.)

I can not tell you the problems Vista has caused
with Quick Books, which you can fix by upgrading
to the latest version and downloading the latest
service packs (version 2008 - 2009 is suppose to
work out of the box).

My customer's experience with Vista has been nothing
but pain.

And the public has noticed this too. Microsoft is
laying off and loosing money like crazy. And it is all
in the OS (Vista) division. See:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/22/Windows_culprit_in_microsoft_layoffs_1.html
Note that Vista-ish Windows 2008 server is even
making a profit. It is just Vista that is getting
clobbered.

As for your correct assumption that benchmarks can
be manipulated (I do not see this one as having been),
all I can say is that it is also my and my customer's
experience that Vista is a slow hog.

Vista does have some pretty new features and the
sound effects are nice. If your applications
work with it and you like all the new and exciting
eye candy (which drives me nuts) and your applications
run just fine at half speed, go for it.

I really hope Microsoft pulling itself out of
the fire with W7. If Microsoft goes out of
business it will hurt us all. On the good
new front, I have heard it rumored that W7
has gotten a lot better. (Now if I could
only download the stinking beta without
have to sign up for that annoying One Live
thing ... I have a virtual machine ready
and awaiting -- be fun to compare it with
my virtual Vista, Edsel edition.)

-T
 
Sorry but that's a rather biast opinion of XP you have. Vista is far
more secure and opens up opportunity for new applications and hardware,
yet you aren't taking that in for account.
Click to expand...

Huh? Linux is 50% faster that XP on the same hardware
as XP. Probably 100% faster that Vista. And, Linux
is tons and tons more secure than any Windows product.
You do not have to cripple a product to make it more
secure. Yes Microsoft did put some nice things into
Vista, but it is not worth the bloat.

To get Vista accepted by the public, it should have
at a minimum:
1) made it faster than XP
2) made it 100% compatible with all existing XP
software

It didn't. Instead, Microsoft decided to diss its
user base big time. Windows is not a "nice" operating
system. It never has been. It "spectacular" success
has always been is application base. There are
at least 4 or more applications for anything you
want to run. There is tons of choice. Not so
with Linux or Apple. Diss'ing the application
base was a bad move, really bad move.

I really hope W7 fixes this. I hate to hear
any company having to lay off people because
of a bad decision. But, Ford survived the
Edsel, so should Microsoft survive Vista.

-T
 
Bob said:
Such as? There are *very* few apps that won't run on 64 bit Vista.
The laptop hardware will be 64 bit, so there is no reason to hold it
back with a 32 bit OS.

Unless you can name an actual app that you need that DOES NOT run on
Vista 64, I would go with 64 bit Vista every time. I have been running
it here for about a year, and would not go back to 32 bit.
Click to expand...

Hi Bob,

I can not give specifics, but the feed back I have gotten
from my customers is that until the software vendor publishes
a 64 bit version, the 32 bits apps never really run right.

On the bright side, the feedback on the 64 bits apps is
that they run very well indead.

-T
 
Bob said:
What kind of FUD is this? Existing apps run fine on Vista.


Vista is doing fine for MS. Revenues have been up since it was
released. The current round of layoffs is due to the global recession,
not due to Vista.
Click to expand...

FUD? Doing Fine? Revenues up? Did you read?
http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/22/Windows_culprit_in_microsoft_layoffs_1.html

Everything at Microsoft is doing okay or well, except Vista.
Even Windows Server 2008 is doing well. The layoffs are
completely Vista's fault.

As for the existing apps running fine on Vista, tell
that to my customers in tears.

-T
 
I am going to purchase a new laptop computer but the one I want comes with
Vista 64 bit installed and I'd prefer 32 bit due to the number of programs I
have that probably won't run on 64 bit.
Click to expand...


What programs? Except for an occasional utility program, it's very
rare that a program will run under 32-bit Vista, but not 64-bit Vista.
 
Contrary to many of the answers you've received I recommend Vista x64 unless
you have some legacy hardware or a program that is not compatible. Almost
all 32 bit programs that run in Vista x86 will run in Vista x64. The only
real problem is hardware that doesn't have a 64 bit driver. Most hardware
made since Vista was released two years ago has 64 bit drivers. IT's a
requirement to be allowed to use the Vista logo. Most mainstream hardware
manufacturers have come out with 64 bit drivers for popular hardware
manufactured for a year or so before that. I run 64 bit on all my computers.
I've had no problems except for an old Treo phone. Do a bit of homework. If
your hardware and software is supported or can be upgraded I'd go 64 bit.
The advantages of lots of RAM far outweigh everything else. Once you've used
a computer with lots of RAM (OS is irrelevant) it's hard to go back.
 
Back
Top