Is there a big advantage in getting vista 64bit instead of the 32bit version?

TIA

"RubenD" <> wrote in message
news:y4alj.53$...
> TIA
>
>

If your motherboard supports 8 to 32GBs of RAM then, yes. 32bit Vista can
only handle 4GBs of RAM, and some only 3GBs. Also, some games have better
content.

A 64-bit operating system performs best with software
developed and written for 64-bit operating systems.
You will not experience any performance benefit
running 32-bit programs on a 64-bit operating system.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

---------------------------------------------------------------

"RubenD" <> wrote in message news:y4alj.53$...
TIA

What about multi-tasking and your system has 16GBs or more of RAM? Wouldn't
there be a performance difference then? Especially if the tasks are movie
editing, etc.... ?


"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:...
>A 64-bit operating system performs best with software
> developed and written for 64-bit operating systems.
> You will not experience any performance benefit
> running 32-bit programs on a 64-bit operating system.
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "RubenD" <> wrote in message
> news:y4alj.53$...
> TIA
>
>

In short, no. In fact there are pretty significant Disadvantages to going
64-bit at this point that aren't a problem for 32-bit users. Lack of
drivers, some apps that won't work in a 64-bit environment, and so on.
Anyone who needs to, or should be running, 64-bit Windows already knows they
need to and why.

This should change as 64-bit Windows becomes more mainstream. But for now,
it's sadly a fact.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"RubenD" <> wrote in message
news:y4alj.53$...
> TIA
>
>

64 Bit processors is really just a state of the industry right now, the
technology is there so why not make it available? Regardless the majority of
applications for the desktop remain largely 32 bit, it is prepapring for
inevitable when there will be a mass transition to 64 bit, whether by the
Industry or end users. For instance, suppose you start doing a lot of
technical work that goes beyond the limits of 32 bit computing requiring
more than 4 GBs of RAM and real 64 bit OS such as the 64 bit version of
Vista, then you won't have to worry about changing out all your hardware to
take advantage of it.

The market that understands the capabilities, advantages and disadvantages
of using it, the biggest advantage of all has to be the support for a larger
memory address space
that allows you to do more number crunching with scientific, financial and
other engineering applications that use a lot of memory. Hopefully in the
future, more mainstream applications will support the platform and harness
its capabilities, but with the majority of systems coming with 1 to 2 GBs of
memory, and 64 bit really addressing larger amounts up to 128 GBs, you won't
see a lot of apps for now.

Here is a great article by Kristan Kenney (MVP) to read:
http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/kmk...t-for-you.aspx

--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"RubenD" <> wrote in message
news:y4alj.53$...
> TIA
>
>

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:41:18 GMT, "RubenD" <>
wrote:


For most people, no, not yet.

The main benefit of running the 64-bit version of Vista comes about if
you run 64-bit applications. If you don't run such applications, there
is very little benefit. And there are very few 64-bit applications
yet.

Beware of those who tell that being able to use more than 4GB is an
advantage of 64-bit Vista. How much RAM you can make effective use of
depends on what apps you run, but very few people, unless they run
particularly memory-hungry programs will see *any* performance
improvement by going much above 2GB of RAM.

Also note that lots of hardware doesn't have 64-bit drivers available.
Unless you are willing to replace your printer, scanner, etc., be sure
that what you have will work under 64-bit Vista.

In another few years, there will be lots of 64-bit apps available, and
the needed drivers will mostly be available, but we're not there yet.
If you can use 64-bit Vista now, without having to replace any
hardware, fine, you may want to consider doing so, so you are one step
ahead of the rest of us when 64-bit apps become generally available.
But just don't expect much of an improvement now.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"RubenD" <> wrote in message
news:y4alj.53$...
> TIA
>
>


If you plan to install more than 3 GB of RAM then a 64 bit OS is your only
option that will allow you to use the RAM. I switched to 64 bit last October
and wouldn't go back. Lot's of RAM means much better multi-tasking. I can
have several virtual machines and applications open at the same time. If you
need to run old programs that aren't compatible with Vista a virtual machine
running XP or even Windows 98 is a much better option than trying to force
it to run in Vista with compatibility settings. It's pretty common for me to
have at least one or two virtual machines with XP using 512 MB each at the
same time as I have Expression Web, Outlook 2007, and several IE windows
open. On the same hardware with Vista x86 and 2 GB of RAM the system was too
slow for this. With Vista x64 and 4 GB the system is very responsive. I can
even watch a recorded TV show at the same time.

You do have to do a bit of research and make sure any hardware that you
really need to use has 64 bit drivers available. This was a major problem
when Vista was first released. It's much better now.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/

Ken Blake, MVP;581404 Wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:41:18 GMT, "RubenD" <nospam@xxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
> For most people, no, not yet.
>
> The main benefit of running the 64-bit version of Vista comes about if
> you run 64-bit applications. If you don't run such applications, there
> is very little benefit. And there are very few 64-bit applications
> yet.
>
> Beware of those who tell that being able to use more than 4GB is an
> advantage of 64-bit Vista. How much RAM you can make effective use of
> depends on what apps you run, but very few people, unless they run
> particularly memory-hungry programs will see *any* performance
> improvement by going much above 2GB of RAM.
>
> Also note that lots of hardware doesn't have 64-bit drivers available.
> Unless you are willing to replace your printer, scanner, etc., be sure
> that what you have will work under 64-bit Vista.
>
> In another few years, there will be lots of 64-bit apps available, and
> the needed drivers will mostly be available, but we're not there yet.
> If you can use 64-bit Vista now, without having to replace any
> hardware, fine, you may want to consider doing so, so you are one step
> ahead of the rest of us when 64-bit apps become generally available.
> But just don't expect much of an improvement now.
>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Vista uses almost 1GB at idle. 2GBs is a minmum in my books. Playing
Crysis puts you over 2GBs just like that.


--
Jeff Flowerday

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:10:31 -0600, Jeff Flowerday
<> wrote:

>
> Ken Blake, MVP;581404 Wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:41:18 GMT, "RubenD" <nospam@xxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > For most people, no, not yet.
> >
> > The main benefit of running the 64-bit version of Vista comes about if
> > you run 64-bit applications. If you don't run such applications, there
> > is very little benefit. And there are very few 64-bit applications
> > yet.
> >
> > Beware of those who tell that being able to use more than 4GB is an
> > advantage of 64-bit Vista. How much RAM you can make effective use of
> > depends on what apps you run, but very few people, unless they run
> > particularly memory-hungry programs will see *any* performance
> > improvement by going much above 2GB of RAM.
> >
> > Also note that lots of hardware doesn't have 64-bit drivers available.
> > Unless you are willing to replace your printer, scanner, etc., be sure
> > that what you have will work under 64-bit Vista.
> >
> > In another few years, there will be lots of 64-bit apps available, and
> > the needed drivers will mostly be available, but we're not there yet.
> > If you can use 64-bit Vista now, without having to replace any
> > hardware, fine, you may want to consider doing so, so you are one step
> > ahead of the rest of us when 64-bit apps become generally available.
> > But just don't expect much of an improvement now.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
> Vista uses almost 1GB at idle. 2GBs is a minmum in my books.


Your book is very different from mine. My experience is that 2GB is
enough for almost everyone. Only those who run particularly
memory-hungry applications (typically photo- or video-editing) need
more.


> Playing Crysis puts you over 2GBs just like that.


That may be true; I have no idea. I don't play games, and I don't even
know what "Crysis" is. As I said, there *are* those who run
applications that need more than 2GB.

For those running typical office applications, sometimes even less
than 2GB is sufficient. However, considering the price of RAM these
days, 2GB is what I normally recommend for most people.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup