Vista x64 New install questions

[jonathan_phang]

Hello,

This week, I've put together a new quad core rig with 4GB of ram. I'm torn between whether to put on a 32bit or 64bit OS... The rig is mainly for gaming btw... heres what I've tried.

- Put XP32 on a partition to get a baseline level of performance (Games really)
- Dual booted a version of Vista 64 (Got 30 days to see if it warrants purchase)

If you have any general musings that would be great, but I have a few specific questions:

- For most of the games that I have seem to be defaulting to the "Program Files (x86)" directory. Does this mean that the OS is detecting that there is no 64 bit version available on the disc?
- If no to the above, is there anything that I need to do to identify the OS as 64 bit?
- If the game is installed to the "Program Files (x86)" directory, can the executables still address the full 4gb of RAM?

The fact that 64 versions arent installing might just be down to the games I guess, but if, as a result of that, everything is still subject to the addressing limits of 32bit OS, then I might as well just use XP, as then I dont have to worry about 64bit driver problems etc...

Please any thoughts - would be much appreciated as I only have so long before I have to decide to purchase or not.

Thanks, JP

[Splash]

The executables are largely 32 bit, and as such are restricted to the application limits of a 32 bit application (the app can address 2Gib RAM AFAIK) however the system can address the full 4Gib, plus your graphics card etc.

[Lucio]

Honestly, there's really no reason to use the 32bit version of Vista, driver support on Vista 64 is in exactly the same boat for the vast majority of products and the simple fact is that 4gb of RAM is a waste on a 32bit system.

Yes, it's true that many applications are still 32bit and thus individually can only use 2gb of RAM but given the number of apps that you will typically run on a PC (bare minimum sidebar, anti-virus/firewall, sound control suite and whatever application you're using) it's hardly an issue!

[jonathan_phang]

I ask most of my questions in regards to gaming, as thats why my rig is primarily geared to do. Its just a shame that as the executables are mainly 32-bit, as all that extra RAM is kinda wasted. Oh well, I guess that having a 64 bit OS might be future-proofing... and the performance isnt that far behingd XP really... just noticed a variance in some games between the 2 OSs...

Tbh - thinking of just sticking with V64 - it runs stabily and isnt exactly slow... saves me reinstalling everything again! Why cant i just be ignorant and happy and just settle for one OS....

[shaithis]

32bit is becoming a thing of the past.

Another year at the most and the vast majority of machines will come with 4GB minimum specs....a lot of gamers are already adopting 4GB as the minimum.

In fact, I am surprised Windows 7 will even ship in a 32bit flavour. 64 is here, it's working as well as 32bit and it IS needed. Especially when you consider the amount of RAM today's games can consume and the amount of on-board RAM modern graphics cards have.

[aidanjt]

I ask most of my questions in regards to gaming, as thats why my rig is primarily geared to do. Its just a shame that as the executables are mainly 32-bit, as all that extra RAM is kinda wasted. Oh well, I guess that having a 64 bit OS might be future-proofing... and the performance isnt that far behingd XP really... just noticed a variance in some games between the 2 OSs...

Tbh - thinking of just sticking with V64 - it runs stabily and isnt exactly slow... saves me reinstalling everything again! Why cant i just be ignorant and happy and just settle for one OS....

Even if 99.9% of your applications are exclusively 32bit, it doesn't matter, since they execute just as fast (64bit CPUs in native mode execute 32bit code directly without emulation), and you get access to far more registers and addressable memory.

Baring some minor codec issues with Windows Media Center (which could easily be corrected by Microsoft), and not owning a CPU with an AMD64/EM64T extensions, there is, there's no reason, to purchase a 32bit operating system these days.

[jonathan_phang]

64 is here, it's working as well as 32bit and it IS needed. Especially when you consider the amount of RAM today's games can consume and the amount of on-board RAM modern graphics cards have.

Not sure I agree on the 'its working as well as 32bit' - only based upon my experience though - but there definitley needs to be a shift to 64 bit. Thats another reason why I want 64bit, I am loathe to have a 32bit OS whether it means better performance or not, as the next GPU I get will probably have 1GB on it, and thats gonna eat into RAM too much in a 32 bit OS...

[directhex]

- For most of the games that I have seem to be defaulting to the "Program Files (x86)" directory. Does this mean that the OS is detecting that there is no 64 bit version available on the disc?

What's actually happening is that apps which request the "Program Files" folder when installing, they go into "Program Files (x86)" - for those which request "64-bit Program Files", they get "Program Files". It's the only sensible way to separate them really, since the 32-bit apps wouldn't know that they need to ask for "32-bit Program Files"

- If no to the above, is there anything that I need to do to identify the OS as 64 bit?

The OS is in charge. It knows what it's doing. 32-bit apps will run as 32-bit, 64-bit apps will run as 64-bit.

- If the game is installed to the "Program Files (x86)" directory, can the executables still address the full 4gb of RAM?

No - and it's not related to the install location. A 32-bit app can still simply not see more than 2 gig, regardless of whether the OS can. It can literally only count to 2 gig - numbers higher than that roll around to nothing.

The fact that 64 versions arent installing might just be down to the games I guess, but if, as a result of that, everything is still subject to the addressing limits of 32bit OS, then I might as well just use XP, as then I dont have to worry about 64bit driver problems etc...

Very few games come with 64-bit enhancements. But consider the system as a whole - that 4 gig system limit will start to cause real trouble as GPUs get bigger

[G4Z]

Been running Vista ultimate 64 bit for a few months now and I have to say it runs great. I would even say it was worth the £230 I paid.

[Bill@W]

I've had a weird but not wonderful experience with a Vista Business x64 install. On a new build with 2HDs, 160 and 500 gb, I wanted to install the OS on the 160gb disk, with the other disk partitioned for apps and data.
For two days the install routine was falling over. First it saw both disks, then one, then reversed disk 0 and disk 1. Eventually it would allow me(after an interminable wait) to enter kb language and product key, but give up before the reboot and final stage of install. In case it was the format stage of the install that wasn't working I ran the RC from the install disk to access the command prompt and use diskpart to prepare the HDs. Gave up because the disk 0 and disk 1 had been switched for each other.
I have two DVD writers in the system (latest models Sony and Samsung) so in desperation I inserted the vista setup disk in the 2nd optical disk (the samsung) and it promptly installed the OS! Except it was on the wrong (larger) HD. The earlier unsuccessful install attempts had installed most OS elements in the smaller HD (as intended) but not enough for a bootable OS.
I now have an active, primary partition on each disk, and I get a dual-boot screen for vista or vista--one of which boots and runs like a rocket (5.9 in all vista speed categories) and the other is a waste of space.
If I remove the (now redundant)160gb from the system it won't boot.
Diskpart doesn't allow me to remove the partition because it is active and primary.
Don't you miss DR DOS, and fdisk, when the person at the keyboard was in charge, instead of a bone-headed microsoft procedure?
A related issue: XP Pro remains a first-rate OS although Microsoft is desperate to bin it so it can sell us all Vista and Win 7. If you include Leopard, Linux, and all flavours of Windows, XP is still running 66-70% of the world's desktops. The latest isn't always the best.
And if anyone can suggest how I can clear out that partial install of vista, I'd be most grateful.

[i4000]

Way to go on resurecting an old thread on your first post

Try this:

1. Disconnect all hard drives except the one you want to wipe (to avoid confusion disconnect one of your optical drives too)
2. Boot using Vista or Win7 RC media
3. When you get to the disk prep stage, press shift+F10 to open a command prompt
4. At the command prompt enter the following commands:
DISKPART
SELECT DISK 1
CLEAN
CREATE PARTITION PRIMARY
FORMAT FS=NTFS QUICK

That should hopefully wipe your disk regardless of what is currently in place and create a single, blank, primary partition.

If that doesn't work, post what error message you receive.

[Bill@W]

Thanks i4000 for that rapid response. I may have been unclear in my original post but I mentioned that diskpart jibbed at messing with a primary partition with an incomplete OS on it. I'll try your procedure, (I hadn't thought of pulling the good disk) but if I remove all but one optical and one hard drive, is it not the case that diskpart will see the disk as disk 0, rather than disk 1? Of course, I always run list disk in diskpart first, to make sure I'm selecting the right one!
Asus used to have an excellent usenet group, with lots of helpful posters like yourself, but it was ruined by bad-tempered, vituperative people who carried a lot of anger around with them. I have just found hexus, and it seems more civilised.

[i4000]

Yep, you're right, that should read SELECT DISK 0.

I've never had DISKPART complain about a the contents of a disk when doing a CLEAN, as it's supposed to just wipe the partition table irrespective of whats there (useful for wiping \linux partitions), but I may be wrong.

My suggestion about booting with only a single drive attached is from my personal experience, both Vista and Win7 will refuse to install on my system if I have anything ther than a single drive connected, don't ask me why. Once the install is finished I can re-connect the rest of my drives without a problem. I searched the net high and low and in the end found a strange post with someone else suggesting drop down to a single drive whilst performing an install, strange but true (in my case anyway)........

[cmd]

My suggestion about booting with only a single drive attached is from my personal experience, both Vista and Win7 will refuse to install on my system if I have anything ther than a single drive connected, don't ask me why.

Wow, someone else who had that problem!
Vista just wouldn't install to my 120gb vertex when the spinpoint f1 was also connected (on MSI Eclipse SLI mobo).

[lodore]

ive been running windows vista home premium 64bit since the October 2008 and it works well.
before that i used vista 32bit but since I decided i wanted more ram i contacted my oem and got the 64bit media sent for the cost of postage.
all the programs i use work fine under 64bit.
there is a few programs that wont work on 64bit mainly due to drivers and hooks in the OS. the latter is prevented by patchguard. so programs such as sandboxie wont work.

[Bill@W]

The saga goes from bad to worse; as recommended, I cleaned the broken installation with diskpart, and turned a minor nuisance into something of a nightmare. The system will not now boot at all. The screen tells me there is no media connected.
But: a utility loads (Asus Express Gate) from the primary partition (where else?). The BIOS sees the SATA disks; diskpart sees a disk with a primary partition (windows) and a disk with an extended partition and three logical partitions.
Ran startup repair from installation CD: get response-- system disk test completed successfully, partition table repair completed successfully,
Still will not boot from hard drive.
I may be missing something obvious, but either I could chase my tail for a couple of days looking for a solution, or go for a complete reinstall. Cursing Microsoft (for the umpteenth time since Windows v.2) I opted for the latter.
Accepting suggestions above, I reinstalled with only one HD connected, although this means the drive letters for my optical drives will come before logical partitions on the other HD. Now the tedious business of installing 64-bit drivers for chipset, GPU, sound card, tv card and so on. Why do we put up with this nonsense?