Vista Ultimate 32bit or 64bit edition?

[Blademrk]

I know Vista is not a necessity right now, but the inner-geek in me really wants to build a system with Vista installed.

I've decided to get an OEM copy of Vista Ultimate along with a new Sata HDD and do a dual-boot system along with a fresh installation of my current OS (XP MCE).

Now my question is - is it really worth getting the 64bit version over the 32bit version of Ultimate (see <-- for my current system spec)?

[kalniel]

The 64bit version will feed your inner geek better than the 32bit one

[darrensen]

I'm in the same boat.....

I've decided to go with 64bit for now. I'll put another drive in with XP for gaming, as driver support is obviously better at the moment. Give it 6 months and 64-bit will be fine.

D

[chrestomanci]

The 64bit version will feed your inner geek better than the 32bit one

64 Bit Linux will feed your inner geek even better, and unlike Windows, the driver availability is the same as 32 bit, and almost all applications are available in 64 bit versions.

[Blademrk]

Cheers guys, I've come to the same conclusion.

[Blitzen]

The 64bit version will feed your inner geek better than the 32bit one

You are very wrong im afraid!!!

I have the 32 bit version and its great.

There is ZERO going for the 64 bit version at the minute!!!

[aidanjt]

There's also ZERO going for x86 at the minute also. x86 programs will still work work x64, however the same can't be said vice versa. Plus you can always dual boot with WinXP if certain things don't work (well).

[ExceededGoku]

Lol at you guys, there is zero going with XP and 32 bit IMHO. After having both 32 bit and 64 bit the only difference I can see is that I have more options for the future in terms of gaming and applications . No incompatiblities, no driver problems, no lag. Just me and one fast ass OS.

[Blitzen]

Lol at you guys, there is zero going with XP and 32 bit IMHO. After having both 32 bit and 64 bit the only difference I can see is that I have more options for the future in terms of gaming and applications . No incompatiblities, no driver problems, no lag. Just me and one fast ass OS.

Sorry but you aren't being totally truthful with that last statement if i read it correctly.
I put the 64bit version on another PC (im an MSDN subscriber so lucky that i can swap and change) and there were many driver incompatibilities where as the 32 bit had none (except for Nero which they sorted now).


You will definitely have driver problems if you use the 64bit version at the moment.

[this_is_gav]

You will definitely have driver problems if you use the 64bit version at the moment.

I don't see why that's a definite. I even have XP x64 without any driver issues at all, and I sure didn't when I tried Vista's - the only issue I had was with my Creative sound card, but that didn't work properly in x86 either.

I've installed Black Gold TV tuner since then, and I don't think that has x64 drivers, but that would be it for me.

[kempez]

Imma hook mine up with 32bit now and re-install 64bit later if companies decide they want to stop hindering the change and write some drivers and programs to take advantage of 64bit computing

[kalniel]

You are very wrong im afraid!!!

So you're saying that your inner geek is more impressed by the sound of 32bit than 64bit? Strange. My inner geek generally thinks more is better, especially if I don't exactly need it at this point in time. Plus there's all the other inner geek stuff like being able to address huge memory space, even though I don't need it, and the fact that not everything works 100% also feeds my inner geek - if I wanted something smooth I'd go buy a macintosh

Of course, linux is even better, but the original question was only really about vista editions

[maverick77_uk]

One major problem with 64bit is that it no longer supports 16bit (aka win3.1 progs), whereas 32bit does. "Not a problem" you may think " I stopped using Win3.1 progs ages ago and all my progs are 32bit". Maybe so, but a lot of installers still use legacy 16 bit code. 32bit OSes (Win95,98, ME, 2000, XP and Vista 32bit) run this fine, not problem, so the prog installs fine then runs natively in 32bit. However, 64Bit OSes won't be able to install the prog in the first place.

I'm sticking with XP for the foreseeable future until Vista becomes a compatibility necessity, but if you do go Vista, play safe and use the 32bit version for now, and maybe upgrade to 64bit in a few years time when drivers / programs and support is available.

This is what MS intends anyway - they expect the majority of users to use the 32bit version initially, switching to 64bit later. Their next OS (expected in 2011, apparently) will be 64bit only, because they expect everyone to of made the change by then.

[maverick77_uk]

Kalniel - Remember the huge memory addressing is only available in ultimate edition (and to a lesser extent in the mid-range editions)- 64bit home basic can "only" address 4GB of RAM if memory serves me right.

See you on Saturday!

[kalniel]

Almost Home basic can address 8gb, Premium 16gb and Ultimate 128+gb. I'd expect most people with inner geeks to be getting premium at least. There's also the extra processor instructions etc.

Of course, 16bit programs are a limitation, but presumably we'll either be using them on older computers or on a computer with dual boot XP or something

See you soon, old fellow

[manwithnoname]

There's also the extra processor instructions etc.
...

Not too up to date with my O/Ss (I was forced to move to windows 2000 - 98SE would not install on my newest PC) but whats this about extra processor instructions?