win vista 32 bit Vs 64 bit

  • Thread starter Thread starter bob h
  • Start date Start date
B

bob h

I'm going to upgrade to vista, I also have a duel core proc,I was wondering
what the pro's and cons are between the 2.
 
Hi Bob,

Pros:

- x64 can use more memory, far more
- x64 can run applications faster *if* they are designed and written to take
advantage of it

Cons:

- x64 *must* use signed drivers for all hardware, no fudging or forcing
- no backwards compatibility for 16-bit programs in x64

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
 
To add what little I might to this, I'd just say that -- if you have to ask,
then the 64 bit version isn't for you. After testing the 64 bit version on
two systems at work for a few weeks I have to say that I'd never bother at
this point unless I were doing one of two things --
1. developing applications or drivers for that version, or
2. actually using a system with fully certified drivers and actual
functioning 64 bit applications.

Otherwise, it's only about braggin rights. And bragging rights don't count
for much when you can't get anything to run -- or when you wind up just
running a bunch of apps that would have worked just as well (or maybe better)
under the 32 bit version.

Might be worth it on a spare machine, but definitely not a winner on a
primary machine on which you wish to accomplish real world work. (Again,
assuming your real world work isn't done with one of the rare apps that
actually make use of this OS and the processor.)
 
what about a raid sys. with a raid 5 setup?




jimmuh said:
To add what little I might to this, I'd just say that -- if you have to
ask,
then the 64 bit version isn't for you. After testing the 64 bit version on
two systems at work for a few weeks I have to say that I'd never bother at
this point unless I were doing one of two things --
1. developing applications or drivers for that version, or
2. actually using a system with fully certified drivers and actual
functioning 64 bit applications.

Otherwise, it's only about braggin rights. And bragging rights don't count
for much when you can't get anything to run -- or when you wind up just
running a bunch of apps that would have worked just as well (or maybe
better)
under the 32 bit version.

Might be worth it on a spare machine, but definitely not a winner on a
primary machine on which you wish to accomplish real world work. (Again,
assuming your real world work isn't done with one of the rare apps that
actually make use of this OS and the processor.)
Click to expand...
 
If the manufacturer of the controller specifically states that their hardware
support is better in the 64 bit version of the OS I'd say you're as well off
in 32 bit. Of course I've never used a workstation with a RAID array that
worked significantly better than a similar workstation with fast ATA or SATA
drives, when configured appropriately. But that may just be my use patterns.
To my mind RAID5 and up is pretty much strictly for servers, but I'm always
willing to learn that I'm wrong. (Happens a lot. Heh.)

I typically configure workaday servers with RAID1 for the OS and apps and
RAID5 or better for the data. Workstations just get plain old uncomplicated
hard drives.

Have you got something special you want to run on that puppy? Because,
unless your requirements are pretty unusual, I'd be willing to bet that a
list of the apps you want to use may include some stuff that ain't gonna fly
under Vista 64. On the other hand, if you're just wanting to use a few
specific specialty items on a test rig to see how fast you can make it fly,
then 64 may be the way to go.

As for me, I'm too lazy. I'm barely patient enough to have made the switch
to Vista 32 worthwhile back in November. There were enough workarounds and
substitutes for old favorites that I was just able to tolerate the change.
 
Back
Top