Vista 32 bit or 64 bit

[wideangle]

I'm looking to replace my computer, and I'm pondering between Vista 32 bit and Vista 64 bit in a new system.

My hobby and main use for a computer is photo and video editing, and I'm a long-time keen supporter of PTE. I'm assuming that PTE is OK with either system?

I think the main point of my mail is to ask opinions of people who use a computer in the same way as me, and who have moved over from the 32 bit environment to Vista 64 bit.

Have you been satisfied/disappointed? Any recommendations?

Many thanks,

Regards,

wideangle.

[Johnwnjr]

I have Vista 32 bit and have PTE 5.52 and latest Beta 7. All work perfectly. No problems. Have been using regularly for two months now.

John

[Johnwnjr]

I am sorry but I did not finish replying, due to something else that was happening on the computer at the time. I am typing this on a wirelessly connected XP laptop! Still regarding Vista don't get anyting less than Vista Home Premium. Get 3GB Ram and a large hard disk, and a Nvida Graphics Card. The book Plain & Simple Windows Vista is a very good introduction to all the hidden new little programs and extras in Vista compared with XP.

Hope this helps you.

John

[Conflow]

Wideangle,

I am writing this from the 'Engineering' perspective of Vista Home and Home Premium as we use these Systems in our

Workshops to satisfy certain Clients requirements. We also use '98 - 2000.Pro - Xp.Home -Xp.Pro and Mac for other

Engineering activities.

1)

PC Users either love or hate Vista depending on their 'application-requirements' for the Op.System as it can be very

restrictive in personal settings and the use of 16.Bit Programs and the deployment of Non-Microsoft approved 'Drivers'.

All versions contain 'in-built' DRM Protection utilities which means it will not allow you to Copy nor Burn any Sound/Video

media with DRM encoding. (All Sony & BMg Recordings and many others top Labels). This also applies to DVD's ~ iPod ~ UTube

and lately Vimeo resources.

2)

Vista (all versions) need's 1.Gb to run the Op.System satisfactorily and a further 2.Gb if you are going into Dvd-Discs and another

1.Gb if you wish to run Photoshop, Adobe Reader, and other resource intensive Programs such as Word 2003, Excel etc; and

don't forget the 'invisible' demands if you are using a Wireless-Lan and NVidia Graphics Card and external USB-Hub.

N.B. Dont be fooled with Nvidia Cards ~ 'Graphic-Memory' ~ this is a streaming Memory to facilitate smooth Graphics-Processing

and it needs a 'dump Memory' on the PC Motherboard to operate properly.

3)

Memory of 4.Gb is really the comfortable minimum for Vista.'32 and you will need a little more with Vista.'64 (see below) and in

comparison, don't forget that XP is limited to 4.Gb max.

4)

If you are going with 'Vista 64.Bit' version you will need ALL of that 4.Gb of Memory and to get good 'data-transfer speed'

you will definitely need a 'Quad-Core Processor' ~ anything less than 'Quad-Core' completely defeats the benefits of Vista 64 Bit.

5)

Don't make the mistake of installing a massive Hard-Drive ~ if you must store big 'Library-Files' on the PC use an external HD-Disc.

Finally don't forget that Vista is being replaced in late 2009 with the new 'Windows-7 Op.System' now in final Beta-Testing and

is designed to "fix" all those problems encountered with Vista. (Look on it as a 64.Bit XP-System because thats what Business wants).

Hope this has been of some help to you.

Brian.Conflow.

[wideangle]

Thanks John and Brian for those helpful comments.

If I do go ahead with a purchase at this stage, I had already picked out an advertised system.

It's just that they were giving me the choice between Vista Home Premium 32 bit or Vista Home Premium 64 bit for the same price.

I'm not too clear about which offers the best option for me in relation to the area of interest I mentioned.

I was told that while more powerful, the 64 bit option has more incompatibility problems, but not sure how true the last point is.

(Brian - it is a Quad core system, and does have an Nvidia graphics card.)

Regards,

wideangle

[Conflow]

Wideangle,

This is a purely a personal appraisal of "what I would go for" considering the current and future circumstances

of how 'Vista' will pan out against 'Windows-7' whilst leaving all my options open and not being constrained

to a 'tight' 64 Bit Op.System which as yet is not Market hardened nor do we know the operational temperature

stress factors which will be imposed on the Quad-Core Processor's. Already from within the Processor Industry

there are 'rumblings' concerning these problems ~ I should wait to see what the fall-out will be !!

I would go for the 'Quad Core-Processor' and some 6.Gb of Memory running a (min) 7500.rpm Sata Hard-Drive and

paying attention to get the fastest 'Data-Buss System' the Quad-Core can support and '32.Bit Vista Home Premium'.

At this point in time, and for the next 2 years at least, the 32.Bit System will hold sway and will be less troublesome

and more 'compatible' with all existing Programs now available. (Let's not forget that 64.Bit Software is going to take

a lot of Development time and much, much, more de-bugging time).

Better to have a very fast PC working well ~with well-patched Software~ rather than ending up as a 'Beta Tester' for

the Microsoft Corpopration and other 64.Bit Software Vendor's. (That's the reason for the Special Price offer).

Wideangle, its your call, and I do wish you the very best with your final choice.

Brian.Conflow.

[fh1805]

Brian,

In your post above you suggest getting 6GB of memory and Vista 32-bit OS. What is your rationale here, please? I was always taught that the maximum memory that could be addressed by a 32-bit number was 4GB.

regards,

Peter

[Conflow]

Brian,

In your post above you suggest getting 6GB of memory and Vista 32-bit OS. What is your rationale here, please? I was always taught that the maximum memory that could be addressed by a 32-bit number was 4GB.

regards,

Peter

Peter,

Its a 'Quad-Core Processor' running Vista and 'quad-core' can run 32/64 Bit - where as XP is limited to 4.Gb Memory (Thats 4x1.Gb Mem Slots)

irrespecive whether its a Single or Dual or Dual-Core Processor. However most XP-Machines are runng on 6.Gb when one adds the 'Virtual Memory'

to the 'Page-File Memory' and the '4.Gb Ram Memory'. One also has to consider the PC Buss-Architecture whether its a dual-16.Bit or a quad-16.Bit or a Quad running in dual-32.Bit mode. You are correct if you are thinking in terms of a single addressable Buss-Structure where 32.Bit can only address a 4.2949 Gb binary number. But the Dual and Quad (multiplexed) Processors of today are capable of addressing vasts amounts of Memory purely limited by the size and width of the Data-Tracks on the PC Board and the number of Memory-Slots available.

Its the reason that Manufacturers are now developing Fiber-Optic Buss Systems to get away from those limitations.

Brian.

[AnKo]

Wideangle,

Last month I changed from XP to Vista 64x ULTIMATE. I am not realy shure, but I believe ULTIMATE has benefits over the other versions for QUAD COREs and networking. Maybe Conflow can complement this.

The reason for my desision was I wanted a core2quad (9550), 8 Gb RAM (very cheap today) and the Ati 4870 512 Mb videocard (good value for money). This all works on a Asus P5E deluxe mainboard. And I am very happy with it!!

Before I went into the store I did some research on internet to check the compatibility of my hardware (printer, scanner, etc) and NEEDED software. The compatibility with Vista 64x is much improved over the last months. So I downloaded all the needed 64x drivers and patches in advance.

PtE works with no problems, just like many other "old" software. For me, Lightroom 2.1 is very important. It has a 64x version and that works like a flash! So does PS CS3.

Conflow is right, within a year or so there will be a Windows 7. Until then its up to you. For me, I believe I did the right thing.

Hope this will help you make a discision.

Kind regards,

André

[Conflow]

Andre,

That's a very nice PC you have ~ yes you are correct, Vista-Ultimate is a very different Op-System compared to Vista-Home

and Vista-Home Premium. For comparison it's like the difference's between XP-Home and XP-Pro as Win 2000 is to Win 2000.Pro.

What typifies a "Professional/Ultimate" Operating Systems is the the instructions code-set which is very different and very tightly

written with no loose ends ~compared to~ the Standard Op.Systems which are very loosely written with many dead and loose ends

and a nightmare for good Program Developers.

Its also very hard to compromise a 'Pro-Op System' where its relative easy to compromise a 'Standard Op-System' thus the necessity

for so many patches and upgrades. You note that Microsoft issues different 'patches' for Pro and Standard Systems, now you know why !!

As to Intel Processors - "Core2Quad" means:- Two x Dual-Core Processors in one Package capable of running 16.Bit Programs on one

of the Dual-Core Chips and using both Chips for 32.Bit Programs. The 'spare' Dual-Core can then run simultaneous Programs along

side that Program already running in the 1st.Core set. It can also run a 64.bit Program split between the 2 cores.

Whereas a 'Quad-Core Processor' is 4 x Independent Processors in one Package running a 64.Bit Programs or 2 x 32.Bit Programs but can't run a 16.Bit Program.

Hope this helps.

Brian.Conflow.

[Conflow]

Andre,

That's a very nice PC you have ~ yes you are correct, Vista-Ultimate is a very different Op-System compared to Vista-Home

and Vista-Home Premium. For comparison it's like the difference's between XP-Home and XP-Pro as Win 2000 is to Win 2000.Pro.

What typifies a "Professional/Ultimate" Operating Systems is the the instructions code-set which is very different and very tightly

written with no loose ends ~compared to~ the Standard Op.Systems which are very loosely written with many dead and loose ends

and a nightmare for good Program Developers.

Its also very hard to compromise a 'Pro-Op System' where its relative easy to compromise a 'Standard Op-System' thus the necessity

for so many patches and upgrades. You note that Microsoft issues different 'patches' for Pro and Standard Systems, now you know why !!

As to Intel Processors - 'Core2Quad' means:- Two x Dual-Core Processors in one Package capable of running a 16.Bit Programs on one

of the Cores within a Dual-Core ~ and both Core's in use for 32.Bit Programs. The '2nd Dual-Core' can then run simultaneous Programs

along side that Program already running in the 1st.Dual-Core. It can also run a 64.Bit Program split between the 2 Dual-Cores.

Whereas a 'Quad-Core Processor' is 4 x Independent Processors in one Package running a 64.Bit Programs or 2 x 32.Bit Programs but

can't run a 16.Bit Program. 'Quad-Core' is faster than 'Core2Quad' assuming the Buss-System can match the speed of the 'Quad-Core uP'

Hope this helps some readers.

Brian.Conflow.

[uuderzo]

Regarding the memory addressing capacity on 32 bit systems...

A 32 bit system can address only 3 Gb of RAM, not 4 Gb.

Usually in a PC the fourth Gb of memory is used for the memory mapped I/O.

Many PC-s bioses have an option that remap the fourth Gb of ram as the fifth,

so it is not hidden by the 1 Gb window of the memory mapped I/O.

But to be able to access the fifth Gb of ram you need a 64 bit system.

So, if you plan to use a 32 bit system, simply purchase 3 Gb of ram.

The fourth one will be unused.

Regards. Umberto.

[Conflow]

Umberto,

Your arguement is 'true' for a Single Processor System ~ but a 'Quad-Core' Processor System

is specially designed to multiplex Memory resources in both 32.Bit and 64.bit operation and

its Bios is similary altered ~ thats according to Intel Corporation~ who are bringing out their

own Operating-System in late 2009. The reason being is to get away from the Bios constraints

imposed by various Windows Operating Systems.

The origional 'Thread' was started by Wideangle who wished to know the merits of modern

32.Bit versus 64.Bit Core2Quad processors ~compared~ to the Quad-Core System and which one

would he purchase to cater for current Programs and the future 64.Bit Programs.(His Post No:5)

Why buy a '32.Bit Single-Processor System' when Memory is so cheap and the labour cost of extra

Memory installation is so high when one wishes to upgrade. Better off by far to purchase a Core2Quad or

a QuadCore with all the Memory you will ever need and do it now rather that sell the 32.Bit System for

buttons in 2 years time....total waste of money if a person buys an (obselete) Single 32.Bit System now.

Brian.Conflow.

[keffs]

Unless you are using 64 bit apps, you will possibly see a performance drop with 64 bit vista, depending upon exact h/w configuration. 64 bit, by itself, is a performance overhead. The ability to address more memory is the key factor.

CS4 is 64 bit, and if you have enough ram and edit v large files, then 64 bit might be the way to go. I have 64 bit vista, 8GB ram. I scan LF film, so these large files can use the ram.

Steve

[potwnc]

I think that we're seeing in this thread the need for a 64-bit version of PTE itself. I would love to see that because it is the most memory- and CPU-intensive application that I use. (I use XP x64.)

Igor, are there any pans for a 64-bit version of PTE?

[Carol Steele]

I have been running 64-bit Windows for over 2½ years now, initially with XP x64 and for the past 18 months with Vista Ultimate x64. The most annoying aspect of Vista is the constant nag about "Do you want to do this" ..... "Are you really sure you want to do this" type of message and the knocking out of monitor profiles. However, if you use a modern virus scanner and anti-mal ware programs you can disable this by disabling the User Account Control (UAC) and by following the directions found on this website.

I have one piece of software which I cannot install (an old accounts program) and one piece of hardware (an old modem which I used purely as a telephone answering machine) which I have not been able to locate drivers for, otherwise everything runs great. The latest version of Photoshop (x64) runs so smoothly in 8Gb of RAM - but one caveat with the 64-bit version of Photoshop is that any plugins you use need to be 64-bit versions too, it cannot use 32-bit plugins. Fortunately both the 64-bit and 32-bit versions of Photoshop are on the DVD and you can elect to install both versions if you want. Simply install your 32-bit plugins into the 32-bit version of Photoshop. A bit clunky, but until the plugin vendors rewrite their plugins as 64-bit versions, this is the only workaround. Photoshop also uses the RAM on the video card to enhance its operations via OpenGL, so a modern graphics card with plenty of on board memory is recommended (around 512 to 1024Mb should do nicely).

Contrary to Conflow's experience, I store thousands of large files on my system - but these are on separate internal hard drives and these are backed up to external e-sata hard drives (I must have around 4 TB of disk space on this machine alone). No problems whatsoever.

One last piece of advice before you decide which direction to take, make a list of all your devices (both internal and external) and go to each manufacturers website and check if they have Vista 64-bit drivers available for their device.

[Ken Cox]

some info here

Compare editions: 64-bit editions of Windows Vista

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-v...ons/64-bit.aspx

ken

[whansen02]

I have been running 64-bit Windows for over 2½ years now, initially with XP x64 and for the past 18 months with Vista Ultimate x64. The most annoying aspect of Vista is the constant nag about "Do you want to do this" ..... "Are you really sure you want to do this" type of message and the knocking out of monitor profiles. However, if you use a modern virus scanner and anti-mal ware programs you can disable this by disabling the User Account Control (UAC) and by following the directions found on this website.

I have one piece of software which I cannot install (an old accounts program) and one piece of hardware (an old modem which I used purely as a telephone answering machine) which I have not been able to locate drivers for, otherwise everything runs great. The latest version of Photoshop (x64) runs so smoothly in 8Gb of RAM - but one caveat with the 64-bit version of Photoshop is that any plugins you use need to be 64-bit versions too, it cannot use 32-bit plugins. Fortunately both the 64-bit and 32-bit versions of Photoshop are on the DVD and you can elect to install both versions if you want. Simply install your 32-bit plugins into the 32-bit version of Photoshop. A bit clunky, but until the plugin vendors rewrite their plugins as 64-bit versions, this is the only workaround. Photoshop also uses the RAM on the video card to enhance its operations via OpenGL, so a modern graphics card with plenty of on board memory is recommended (around 512 to 1024Mb should do nicely).

Contrary to Conflow's experience, I store thousands of large files on my system - but these are on separate internal hard drives and these are backed up to external e-sata hard drives (I must have around 4 TB of disk space on this machine alone). No problems whatsoever.

One last piece of advice before you decide which direction to take, make a list of all your devices (both internal and external) and go to each manufacturers website and check if they have Vista 64-bit drivers available for their device.

It's been a while since your post Carol, but thanks! Very useful.

Cheers. Will